Opinion
No. CV01-0449925
February 10, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
From the testimony of the plaintiff and the police report which was admitted as an exhibit the court can conclude Hector Agostini was responsible for causing this accident.
The court can further conclude that the plaintiff suffered a relatively severe strain to his lower back especially and other portions of the spine.
(1) Extensive damage was done to his car; it had to be towed from the scene. The plaintiff owned a Ford Escort and was hit by a Chevy Blazer. In our jurisdiction at least evidence of physical impact is admissible as to the extent of physical injury, Berndston v. Annino, 177 Conn. 41, 44 (1979), 22 Am.Jur.2d "Damages" § 928; but see David v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36 (Del., 2001) see generally 80 A.L.R.2d 1224 at § 3.
(2) There were also objective symptoms of muscle strain. The medical records are replete with references to muscle spasm and x-rays indicate straitening of the spine consistent with spasms and a reversal of the normal lordotic curve of the spine.
It is true that the plaintiff had a prior motor vehicle accident in 1994 in which he received injury to the hip and lower back and apparently did not mention this to all his health care providers. But he did mention the prior accident to a Doctor Stephen Jacobs who shared this information with his chiropractic treaters in Florida. This medical doctor said the plaintiff "had treatment and symptoms resolved with treatment," referring to the 1994 accident.
The plaintiff has the type of job which requires physical activity, climbing, bending, etc. However, he never claimed his injuries were totally debilitating and testified that his injuries do cause him pain and discomfort at work which like many others he is required to do to earn a living. Furthermore, he was involved in this line of work, yacht refitting, prior to the date of the accident.
He received his most consistent treatment from a Dr. Gorenberg (D.C.) in Florida who treated him from January 2000 to the summer of 2000 and as other treaters noted muscle spasms. Gorenberg also noted the plaintiff had a limited range of motion in the mid and lower spine. In July 2000, Dr. Gorenberg indicated the plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement. He has apparently not treated since that date. Dr. Gorenberg also indicated the plaintiff had a "permanent partial impairment of 10 percent W.P.". The last letters probably refer to "whole person" but this is nowhere indicated. In any event the plaintiff attests to having problems to this day especially with his lower back. He drove a long distance recently and that brought discomfort to his back, as noted the injuries still cause pain at work and when he tries to interact with his three young children, and it limits his ability to engage in athletic pastimes. The cryptic nature of the chiropractor's remarks on permanency will not defeat such a claim in a case such as this where there have been continued complaints for several years after an accident, cf. State v. Anderson, 74 Conn. App. 633, 643 (2003); Royston v. Factor, 1 Conn. App. 576, 577 (1984).
The plaintiff did not go for chiropractic treatment for several months after the accident but he had no health insurance and testified he tried to get treatment without having to make up-front payments at various facilities until he was able to go to Meriden Chiropractic Group.
The court concludes as to economic damages that most of the bills were reasonable and treatment was necessitated because of injuries suffered as a result of the accident. However, the court has difficulty with the $7415 bill submitted by Dr. Gorenberg. The treatment delivered and medical observations were repetitive and the treatment seems somewhat excessive. The observation as to maximum medical improvement could almost have been made at any point in the treatment process from anything that appears in the records submitted. The court concludes that this bill should be reduced by $3707.50 so that the total award of economic damages is $7132.99.
As to non-economic damages the court believes in the basis of the foregoing discussion that the plaintiff, who has thirty-two years to live according to the mortality tables should be awarded $17,500.
The total damage award is $24,632.99.
Thomas Corradino, Judge