Sometimes you have to see through the issues, believe in your case and fight harder than others, in order to bring true justice for your client. Partner, Daniel Leav did just that on a matter the firm resolved last week. The matter was scheduled to being jury selection on 1/7/20 in the Supreme Court. Our client, 43 years old, was traveling in a taxi cab at JFK airport several years ago, when a tractor trailer collided with the taxi. There was conflicting testimony from both drivers as to which vehicle had merged into the other. There was very little visible damage to either vehicle. The client, who had prior back injuries with residual foot drop, began experiencing increased back pain after this accident. He tried conservative care and when this failed he did undergo a lumbar surgery with fusion. No claim for lost wages was made.
What makes the matter worthy of reporting, was that the defendants had 1) made a motion for summary judgment arguing that the accident could not have caused the injuries and that their examining doctors did not find any causally related permanent or significant injuries; 2) retained an accident reconstruction expert to opine that based on the G force and the lack of any damage, given the speed the vehicles were traveling, the plaintiff could not have sustained the lumbar injuries he claimed.
The client contacted Leav & Steinberg, LLP and asked us look into this matter. With exceptional preparation we positioned the case for a successful outcome. Partner Daniela Henriques, who heads the firms motion department prepared an exceptional opposition brief. We defeated the motion for summary judgment and had prepared a motion to exclude the defendant reconstruction expert from testifying because he had not done certain important tests, examined the subject vehicles and thus should not be permitted to testify.