Mitchell M. Tarighati, Esq.

• A three Plaintiff, including 2 minors, habitability matter wherein Plaintiffs alleged that their unit was infested with cockroaches as well as with varying types of mold as a result of one or more instances of water intrusion. Plaintiff also alleged non-compliance with inspection orders as well as other alleged acts of harassment and intimidation by the landlord.  Lastly, the adult Plaintiff was hospitalized twice due to respiratory issues allegedly due to mold exposure. Opening demand was $185,000.
• Plaintiff, a motorcycle rider, was involved in an accident with a commercial transportation vehicle. His injuries necessitated treatment in excess of $450,000. Plaintiff also claimed in excess of $1M in past and future loss of earnings. Plaintiff alleged the serious prospects of extensive future treatment to be necessary.    
• A first party bad faith action arising from a dispute between insured and insurer in an underlying case wherein it was alleged that an employee/defendant of the insured was involved in a fight which gave rise to a tender for defense and indemnity which was repeatedly denied. Plaintiff's opening demand was approx. $450,000.
• Plaintiff was involved in an accident with a commercial transportation vehicle. Her injuries necessitated multiple injections in her neck and shoulder, and ultimately required a 2-level ACDF. Plaintiff's experts/treaters had opined that in addition to her past specials of approx. $530,000, she would need treatment amounting to another approx. $450,000 in the future, including but not limited to another ACDF, ESIs, pain management, etc.  
• A disputed liability slip and fall case at a hospital. Plaintiff alleges that after leaving her mothers room to deliver some treats to the nurses, a custodian entered the room, cleaned a portion of the room, did not use any signs or warnings, and ultimately caused the Plaintiff to fall on a wet patch of the ground. Plaintiff's injuries ultimately necessitated a 2 level fusion which was unsuccessful due to a non-union, and based thereon, Plaintiff was a candidate for a future fusion surgery as well as being more prone to potential adjacent segment disease, chronic pain, etc. Opening demand was $1.7 Million.

• Plaintiff was a passenger in a commercial transportation vehicle that was involved in a MVA. Plaintiff alleges suffering injuries to her spine necessitating 7 instances of pain management injections amounting to approx. $200K in past medical specials, and also requiring a imminent fusion surgery to her lumbar spine.  
• A disputed liability single unit multi-plaintiff habitability case involving a range of alleged conditions including but not limited to bed bugs, vermin, as well as physical conditions that allegedly violated city and and county housing ordinances.
• Plaintiff, who was a minor at all relevant times alleged in the case, alleges inter alia that both her school and her after-school program were negligent in their supervision of her and another student who is alleged to have had known propensities to be violent and sexual resulting from 3 separate instances of sexual assault and battery while under control of the aforementioned organizations. Plaintiff's opening demand to both defendants were $3.5 Million.
• A disputed liability multi-unit multi-plaintiff habitability case involving a range of alleged conditions including but not limited to bed bugs, vermin, as well as physical conditions that allegedly violated city and and county housing ordinances.
• A disputed liability habitability case involving 145 Plaintiffs, of which 50+ were minors, and who collectively lived in 24 units in Defendant's complex.  Plaintiffs alleged conditions including, but not limited to, bed bugs, rodents, cockroaches, electrical issues, fire issues, and a plethora of other alleged longstanding issues despite the Defendants' position that any such conditions that were the subject of City and/or County inspections were minor and not health and safety related. Plaintiffs' opening demand was $2,300,000.
• A disputed liability single unit habitability case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that ongoing and longstanding water intrusion and mold as well as other conditions. Plaintiff alleges that said conditions were so severe, and given the alleged delay in the repairs, that Plaintiff considered herself as constructively evicted and became homeless for an extended period of time due to Section 8 related issues. Plaintiff's opening demand was $600,000.
• A disputed liability student, a minor, v. school/district case wherein the Plaintiff alleges while an athletic coach was treating him for shin splits with a heated compress, the Plaintiff was left unattended for 10-15 minutes during which time the compress moved from one location to another and caused a 2nd and 3rd degree burn on his lower extremities. Plaintiff’s injuries included scarring as well as the possibility of future revision surgery. Opening demand was $400,000.
• A disputed liability Truck v. Motorcycle case wherein the Plaintiff suffered serious orthopedic injuries that required 2 surgical procedures, a 10 day stay at the hospital, a further hardware removal surgery, and allegations of potential future treatment. Plaintiff’s past med specials were approx. $185,000, and Plaintiff also claimed past and future LOE. Opening demand $1,000,000. 
• A Prop 213 auto v. auto case wherein the Plaintiff’s position was two-fold: first, that he had suffered serious orthopedic injuries that necessitated 2 separate multi-level microdiscectomy surgeries at a cost of approx. $250,000 in past medical specials, with the potential prospects of an additional procedure in the future; and second, that by posting a bond with the DMV after the accident, the Plaintiff was in compliance with CA’s financial responsibility/minimum insurance laws, and as such Plaintiff was entitled to past and future general damages. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $750,000.
• A hotly contested liability and damages dispute arising from a fight between a security guard and a patron occurring in the parking lot, and wherein it was alleged that a physical altercation (allegedly initiated by the Plaintiff in some fashion) escalated and wherein the security guard ended up severely beating up the Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s injuries were maxillofacial, orthopedic, dental and most significantly purported TBI or TBI-like symptoms including but not limited to severe headaches. Plaintiff had approx. $250,000 in past medical specials, and had the prospects of future medical expenses especially if the headaches continued to persist. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $2.4 Million.
• After an approx. 1 year relationship between two adults in their early twenties, and once said relationship had ended, the boyfriend allegedly made online threats to publish one or more video clips of the two being intimate as part of an ongoing online/text, etc., argument or exchange. The girlfriend alleges that she did not know of the video’s existence, which the boyfriend disputes. In turn, the boyfriend contends that the girlfriend made videos with music and/or lyrics that were directed to him and that placed him in a negative light. Opening demand $650,000.
• A disputed liability trip-and-fall case wherein the Plaintiff who was a resident at the apartment complex wherein the incident occurred was dropping off his rent, and after dropping off his rent check one evening at the designated area he fell due to an alleged condition created as part of the owners renovation of and around the pool for which it hired a contractor to complete. Plaintiff’s injuries were primarily orthopedic, and ultimately one leg is now permanently shorter than the other, he has a limp, a compromised gate, and Plaintiff still suffers from residual back and foot issues. Plaintiff alleged a measurable past and future LOE claim. Plaintiff’s opening demand $4,000,000.
• A slip-and-fall case occurring in a national retail store wherein the thrust of Plaintiff’s allegations where re Thoracic Outlet Syndrome (TOS) which necessitated a bilateral surgery as well as other treatment and procedures totaling in approx. $240,000 in past medical specials. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $875,000.
• A disputed liability habitability case involving 1 unit with 5-6 occupants, some of which were minors. Plaintiffs’ complaints included bed bugs and other infestations, heating and plumbing issues as well as other alleges conditions that made the property uninhabitable. Plaintiffs alleged complaints were made, inspections took place, and that some of the alleged conditions were never completely address or resolved. Plaintiffs’ opening demand was $222,000.
• An admitted liability personal injury matter wherein the Plaintiff suffered moderate soft tissue injuries. Even though Plaintiff’s medical specials were approx. $10,000, and despite not being able to go through with ESI recommendations due to complications with other pre-existing conditions, Plaintiff’s main claim was for approximately $960,000 in past and future LOW as well as diminished value of retirement benefit amounts due to an alleged forced early retirement. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $1,000,000.
• A moderate to severe impact MVA with a commercial transportation vehicle striking Plaintiff’s vehicle and wherein the Plaintiff, a law enforcement officer, suffered injuries the most significant of which were post-concussive disorders and ultimately a MTBI/TBI causing inter alia tinnitus, migraines, balance issues, and mood swings/disorder, fatigue, and depression. Plaintiff had significant interference with his work. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $150,000, but it was anticipated that Plaintiff’s future medical and LOE specials as well as his past and future general damages were the lion’s share of the value of Plaintiff’s case.
• A 17 Plaintiff, including some minors, multiple unit habitability case alleging a plethora of conditions in the property as a whole and/or with specific units. During the relevant period, there were multiple owners of the property as well as multiple carriers on the alleges risk, each with different policy exclusions. Plaintiffs’ opening demand in session one of the mediation was $1,950,000, and Plaintiffs’ opening demand during session two of the mediation was $500,000.
• A habitability case wherein the Plaintiffs, a family of three, experienced rat feces, issues with doors, a “shaky” balcony, water pressure issues, plumbing issues, toilet issues, bee hives, faulty A/C unit, ceiling/roof leak, etc., as well as an incident wherein due to the alleged poor condition of the premises, a shower door collapsed on top a minor giving him painful and deep cuts and scars.  Opening demand was $250,000.
• A first party case wherein Claimant was involved in a t-bone type collision with significant impact. Plaintiff, who admittedly had long-standing pre-existing issues with her neck and back, aggravated those same body parts as a result of the subject accident necessitating, without limitation, a total hip replacement, a C-Spine Discectomy and an L-Spine Discectomy, as well as some pain management injections and RFA treatment.  Plaintiff was still symptomatic. Plaintiff’s opening demand for new money was $740,000.
• A disputed liability case against a City defendant for serious bodily injuries arising from a trip-and-fall as a result of an apparent 2-inch sidewalk elevation/up-rise. Plaintiff suffered a fractured proximal Ulnar shaft, ended up needing an ORIF procedure and had hardware installed. In addition, Plaintiff alleges injuries to her shoulder and elbow due to over-compensation in use and weigh bearing from her injured arm. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $350,000.
• A wrongful death action brought by the deceased’s 6 year old child arising from a semi-truck v. semi-truck accident. The core issues in the case were whether the accident was wholly or in part caused by the deceased as a result of alleged speeding and/or following too closely and/or not wearing seat belt and/or the deceased vehicle actually striking the defendant’s vehicle. The Plaintiff’s contention was that the Defendant’s vehicle changed lanes at which time the vehicles made contact or clipped one another. Opening demand was $1,000,000.
• A commercial transportation accident wherein the Plaintiffs, passengers therein, were seriously injured due to the driver allegedly driving negligently and running a red light. Plaintiff 1 suffered both orthopedic injuries as well as a TBI/MTBI which according to the Plaintiff’s doctors was objectively verified in a Tesla scan, and with said injuries necessitating approx. $130,000 in medical specials. Plaintiff 2 suffered less serious injuries, had no diagnosed brain injury but did allege mood changes, depression and anxiety arising from the accident and her injuries.
• Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by another vehicle that was itself struck by the allegedly at fault commercial transportation driver’s vehicle. Plaintiff was seat belted and fault free. Her injuries primarily included neck, back and shoulder. Plaintiff’s first phase of treatment was to address a tear in her shoulder via a scope procedure, and phase two was to address her spine issues. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $220,000, though it was contended that she will need future injections and a possible fusion.
• A disputed liability parking lot accident wherein the Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by defendant as she was exiting a parking spot. Plaintiff’s injuries necessitated him having 3 ESI to his cervical spine followed by a fusion/discectomy operation also to his neck, amounting to approx. $240,000 in past medical specials, and with anticipated approx. $100,000 in future medical specials. Plaintiff also has a claim for $120,000 in LOE. Plaintiff’s opening demand was PLD at $500,000.
• A disputed liability and damages case involving a gig worker who is alleged to have committed intentional sexual acts upon, and made indecent exposure of himself to, a customer a during the scope of said worker’s engagement. Opening demand was $2.5 Million.
• A class action case wherein it was alleged that a check cashing business was using discriminatory practices in admitting customers into its places of business. Plaintiff’s opening demand was approx. $1.1 Million.
• A disputed liability Habitability case, wherein 3 plaintiff living in 2 separate units allege that their building and units were the subject of numerous Housing Department and Health Department citations and repair orders, not all of which were timely and/or sufficiently complied with. Plaintiffs allege that the management company was non-responsive to work orders and that they did not take timely or appropriate steps to remedy the conditions. Plaintiffs allege a plethora of physical conditions as well as issues to do with water intrusion, mold, moisture, etc.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $450,000.
• A first party MVA case wherein Plaintiffs were severely injured due to a rear-end collision. One Plaintiff suffered a cervical spine fracture as well as other cervical and lumbar injuries in addition to post-concussive syndrome which necessitated surgeries and treatment that totaled approx. $400,000 in past medical bills, approx. $35,000 in past out-of-pocket expenses, a six to seven figure claim of LOE and LOFEC, as well as an anticipated $1M plus in future medical specials. The other Plaintiff also suffered serious injuries to cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, necessitating approx. $75,000 in past medical specials as well as approx. $200,000 in future medical care and LOFEC. Opening demand was $3,000,000.
• A damages only case involving a rear-end collision wherein the Plaintiff’s vehicle was declared a total loss as a result of a severe impact. Plaintiff sustained a variety of soft tissue injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine which ultimately required chiropractic treatment, orthopedic consultations, and EMG as well as several ESI and Facet Block injections. Ultimately, and based on serious MRI findings as well as objective findings of radiculopathy, Plaintiff had a decompression and discectomy at three different levels in his lumbar spine. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $350,000, and Plaintiff contended to have also lost measurable LOE. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $1,000,000.
• A disputed liability construction site accident wherein the Plaintiff was participating in a class to learn how to operate heavy machinery at which time, while another classmate was attempting to use/operate the machinery, part of the machinery struck the Plaintiff causing him a variety of serious injuries including but not limited to a TBI as well as other soft tissue injuries. Plaintiff has incurred approx. $100,000 in past medical specials, and it was anticipated that his future medical bills will be approx. $1.7 Million, and it was estimated that Plaintiff’s past and future general damages could be in the region of $3 Million. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $2.2 Million.
• A disputed liability trip and fall case wherein the Plaintiff, a resident at an apartment complex, walked off of the paved walkway and crossed a grassy area at which time his foot fell into an alleged 6 inch hole that was covered with grass despite the hole underneath it. Plaintiff sued both the management company as well as the landscaping company for his injuries which were predominantly a fracture ankle which caused him to incur approx. $22,000 in past medical specials including but not limited to a bone stimulator. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $250,000.
• A disputed liability and damages case arising from an MVA involving a commercial transportation vehicle wherein the Plaintiff alleges that she suffered severe injuries to her spine necessitating several ESIs as well as ultimately a lumbar decompression surgery, a discectomy and application of epidural fat graft. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $205,000, and future medical treatment, given the Plaintiff’s young age, was anticipated to be measurable.
• An admitted liability case involving an MVA between a large work truck and a car wherein Plaintiff alleges that he suffered both cervical and lumbar injuries necessitating 3 ESIs to the C-spine and 3 ESIs to the L-spine. The total past meds were approx. $90,000 and while there had been no treatment for approx. 3 years, Plaintiff had a recommendation for a variety of other possible treatments including further injections, RFA treatment, discogram, and/or surgical intervention. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $500,000.
• A habitability and bed bug case wherein tenants in one unit at a “low” rent apartment building allege that they were exposed to bed bugs (causing documented bites) as a result of poor and deferred maintenance of the building, as well as exposure to mold, and other poor conditions. Plaintiffs alleged that they continued to pay rent, which they sought return of, as well as incurring other medical and other out of pocket expenses.
• Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendant darting out of a parking lot into a busy street as well as being on her cell phone, a collision was caused which caused Plaintiff numerous injuries, e.g., soft tissue injuries to his L-spine and C-spine such that he had positive findings in his MRIs, positive finding of radiculopathy in a EMG study, and most concerning to the Plaintiff was an allegation of ‘drop foot’ resulting from the foregoing injuries which necessitated 4 ESIs, numerous trigger point injections and PRP injections. Plaintiff incurred approx. $75,000 in past medical specials. It was in dispute whether Plaintiff was a surgical candidate. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $395,000.
• A disputed liability and damages slip and fall case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that as she was leaving the Defendant’s restaurant on a windy and rainy day, she slipped and fell as she was trying to avoid a folded/creased rubber mat that the establishment had placed outside the restaurant for purposes of reducing water being brought inside the restaurant. Plaintiff sustained a variety of injuries, the most serious being a diagnosis of CRPS, all of which caused her to incur approx. $60,000 in past medical specials. Plaintiff also alleges $1.35M in future medical specials, $250K in past LOE and $2M in future LOE. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $2.75M.
• Plaintiff was riding a motorcycle at which time it is alleged that the Defendant’s vehicle struck the motorcycle causing the Plaintiff to suffer significant personal injuries including but not limited to a TBI. While the Plaintiff was Prop 213’d in terms of recovery of general damages, he has a $15M life care plan envisioning a lifelong of care and treatment predominantly for his TBIs. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $1,250,000.
• Plaintiff was a passenger in a commercial transportation car at which time said vehicle was rear-ended by another car. Plaintiff and the rear-ending vehicle took the position that the lion’s share of liability for the accident was with the driver of the commercial transportation vehicle which according to witnesses and the police report crossed several lanes of traffic before the accident. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries that ultimately culminated into three ESI injections as well as a single level discectomy and fusion in her lumbar spine. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $300,000, and her lifecare plan was approx. $2,000,000 including at least one (or more) future surgeries.  
• A dispute liability trip and fall case wherein the Plaintiff, a patron at a bar/lounge alleges that due to poor lighting, no handrails, poor design and lack of safety warning, she tripped and injured her foot. Specifically, Plaintiff most major injury was to her foot/ankle which needed 3 surgical procedures (one unsuccessful) and needed a future procedure to remove hardware from her foot. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $50,000, and future medical care was anticipated to be measurable. Opening demand was $500,000.
• A disputed liability auto v. pedestrian case wherein the Plaintiff was dropping off family at the airport at which time it is alleges that Defendant, who was driving a car immediately behind where the Plaintiff was standing outside of his car, hit the Plaintiff and “pinned” him between the vehicles. Plaintiff suffered various soft injuries, but more significantly severely injured his knees which required a surgery and which accumulated approx. $50,000 in past medical specials as well as potentially needing approx. $150,000 in future treatment to his knees for injections as well as a total knee replacement. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $350,000.
• A disputed liability first party property damage bad faith case. Plaintiff alleges that his home suffered a water loss due to broken hot water pipe underneath the house. Plaintiff further alleges inter alia that he was never told that he was entitled to ALE payments, if necessary, and that he was incorrectly told that a re-route of the pipe was the appropriate remedial measure as opposed to breaking into the ground from inside the house (which would also necessitate retiling the entire house). Opening demand was $147,000.
• Plaintiff alleges that LADWP removed and negligently failed to replace a lid on a subterranean water meter box location, as a result of which she fell and injured herself as she was walking by and ultimately over said location. Plaintiff’s chief complaints and injuries were to her knees though she suffered other soft tissue injuries as well. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $20,000, though it was anticipated that both knees were candidates for arthroscopic surgery to treat torn menisci. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $200,000.
• A dispute arising from and MVA in a parking wherein Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by Defendant’s vehicle as she was backing out. Plaintiff alleges that the impact caused her head to strike the driver’s side window causing her to have injuries to her head and jam, which ultimately caused her to incur $50,000+ in medical treatment primarily for maxillofacial injuries, TMJ, etc.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $250,000.
• A multiparty admitted liability case involving a commercial transportation company wherein the gravamen of the allegation is that at least three people were injured due to an MVA wherein two of the three Plaintiffs were seriously injured necessitating prolonged hospital stays, rehab, etc., and each incurring significant past medical bills and potentially high future medical needs.  The carrier interplead its policy limits and the mediation was focused ultimately on apportionment of said limits.
• Plaintiff who was at the time of the incident in her late 70s alleges that after loading her husband into a commercial transportation, she was injured while she was trying to embark in the car herself as a result of the driver accelerating too soon before she was all the way into the car.  Plaintiff injured her neck and low back as well as her knee(s). Her injuries escalated such that she had multiple injections as well as a 2-level fusion in the C-Spine. Plaintiff’s past med specials were approx. $380,000, and it was alleged that she needed future procedures as well as potential adjacent disc disease. Plaintiff’s life care plan ranged between approx. $500,000 to approx. $1.5M plus. 
• Plaintiff was a tenants, and during said tenancy she alleges that a beam fell on her head while in the garage causing her to lose consciousness, suffer a concussion, and ultimately suspect having suffered a MTBI the manifestations of which were loss of balance, frequent falling, slurred speech, as well as changes in her mood/temper. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of her brain injuries, she ultimately became homeless and suffered measurable pain and suffering arising from the subject incident. Opening demand was $150,000.
• Plaintiff suffered serious bodily injuries including but not limited to a below the knee amputation resulting from an auto v. motorcycle accident.  Plaintiff’s post-Howell medical specials were approx. $45,000 and future medical specials were anticipated to be measurable. Plaintiff also had significant LOE claims as well as a LOC claim by his spouse.  Defendant’s insurance limits were tendered, and Plaintiff was seeking personal contribution from the Defendants. Opening demand was $750,000.
• A disputed liability habitability case as well as an underlying landlord and tenant dispute involving allegations of deferred maintenance, alleges prior water intrusion, poor weatherproofing, termite infestation, mold, etc., that caused at least one of the tenants to show allergic reactions and causing a variety of bodily injuries, general damages, etc., from not only exposure but also from temporarily being relocated, etc. Opening demand was $150,000.
• A disputed liability dispute between a passenger and commercial transportation vehicle/driver wherein the Plaintiff alleges that as she was embarking the vehicle from the rear door, the driver began accelerating and drove over Plaintiff’s foot causing her to suffer a non-displaced fracture of the talus bone as well as a sprained deltoid ligament. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of these injuries, she now suffers from CRPS as well as other spine soft tissue injuries.  Plaintiff received approx. $90,000 in medical treatment through the Worker Comp. coverage of her employer.
• A disputed liability premises liability case involving Plaintiff who, during the course and scope of his employment, suffered a serious back injury and other soft tissue injuries when a garage door allegedly “pinned” him against a wall. Plaintiff’s treatment included, but were not limited to, shoulder scope surgery with extensive debridement and decompression, as well as a lumbar fusion at L4-L5 and some ESIs to other lumbar spine areas. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were $175,000, LOE of approx. $165,000 as well as future Radio Frequency Coagulation therapy. Opening demand was $1,000,000.
• A disputed liability case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that he was a passenger in a commercial transportation at which time there was a disagreement and verbal altercation between he and the driver.  Plaintiff alleges that the driver did not allow Plaintiff out the vehicle as requested, and when he did, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries as he was taking his suitcase out the vehicle when the driver allegedly drove off. Plaintiff suffered a variety of injuries right hand, arm, fingers, which Plaintiff claims resulted in a double crush injury, as well as injuries to his lumbar spine. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $23,000, though the future lumbar fusion surgery was estimated at approx. $200-300K.
• A disputed liability trip and fall case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that as she and her family where approaching their seating area to watch a concert, Plaintiff fell due to poor lighting, negligent supervision/inadequate ushers and/or a dangerous condition causing her to fall on her front side and rupturing a breast implant which necessitated 2 subsequent procedures and significant scarring due to post-surgical complications. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $250,000.
• A disputed liability auto v. motorcycle case. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s vehicle made a sudden lane change causing contact with his bike and causing it to crash and hit the road and possibly the center divider. While Plaintiff had prior injuries and pre-existing conditions to his lumbar spine and his right shoulder, both of which areas were injured at the time of this accident, Plaintiff alleges that he was not symptomatic. Plaintiff’s injuries necessitated 3x ESI and a shoulder surgery for a tear and incurred approx. $150,000 in past medical specials and potentially future specials as well. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $500,000.
• A disputed liability slip and fall case at a retail store wherein Plaintiff alleges that the known spill was not cleaned up for about 10 minutes after the store had notice of it, failing to place warnings and cones, etc.  Plaintiff suffered injuries necessitated injections and other treatments totaling approx. $64,000 in past medical specials with an anticipated future endoscopic dural nerve avulsion at an anticipated cost of $100,000.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $750,000.
• A disputed liability trip and fall case wherein Plaintiff, an upstairs tenant at a rental complex, was walking down the stairs (which were the only ingress/egress to her unit) holding trash with one hand and the handrail with the other, was tripped by a bicycle chain used by a downstairs neighbor to secure a bicycle to said stairs.  Plaintiff suffered a complex broken ankle as well as other soft tissue injuries given than she fell forwards, which necessitated several procedures (hardware installation and removal, etc.), with post-Howell past medical specials around $45,000. Plaintiff and her husband (Loss of Consortium claim) made an opening demand of $1,748,000.
• A disputed liability slip and fall case at a grocery store wherein the Plaintiff slipped on liquid on the floor resulting from another patron's cart hitting an alleged poorly positioned liquor display. Plaintiff's past medical special are approx. $170,000 and her anticiapted futures are in approx. $550,000, including possible further pain management injections and surgery.  Plaintiff's opening demand was $1.1 Million.
• A slip and fall incident by a seasonal employee of a large retailer, while she was off-duty, which among other injuries caused the Plaintiff to suffer a torn Achilles tendon.  Plaintiff's past specials, including a surgical procedure, totalled approx. $105,000.  Plaintiff's opening demand was $400,000.
• A rear-end collision case wherein the Plaintiff was transported to the ER needing a CT scan of his head and C-Spine.  Plaintiff suffered a variety of soft tissue injuries necessitating numerous pain management injections as well as other treatments, totaling approx. $70,000 in past specials, and potentially approx. $100,000 in future medical care.  Plaintiff's opening demand was $500,000.
• Plaintiff was in a commercial transportation vehicle which was involved in a collision that injured the Plaintiff who was a front seated passenger.  Plaintiff suffered a variety of soft tissue injuries and an injury to her knee that required arthroscopic surgery. Plaintiff past specials were approx. $50,000.  
• A disputed liability slip and fall case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that as she and others were disembarking a bus from a casino, she tripped and fell on a loose/compromised vault cover causing her various soft tissue injuries as well as injury to her knee that required a surgical procedure for debriment.  Plaintiff's past specials were approx. $30,000. Opening demand was $180,000. 
• A disputed liability and damages trip and fall case wherein Plaintiff alleges that while he was walking with his young child, he tripped and fell on an uplifted pavement slab causing him to fall on his knees and wrists. Plaintiff's past medical specials were approx. $30,000, his past LOE was approx. $40,000, and that he had very high anticipated future lost earnings/earnings capacity given that he was a musician needing to use his hands/wrists daily.  Plaintiff's chief complaint with his wrists were Kienbock's Disease and Osteonecrosis.  Plaintiff's opening demand was $1,000,000.
• A disputed liability and damages case involving a Plaintiff who was struck while riding a motorcycle by a commercial transportation vehicle, causing Plaintiff serious orthopedic and TBI/MTBI injuries necessitating approx. $180,000 in post-Howell medical treatment. Plaintiff alleged that his TBI/MTBI injuries continued and that he was still suffering from some soft tissue injuries. While in dispute, the defense took the position that the Plaintiff was excluded by Prop 213 from recovery non-monetary damages.  
• A disputed liability slip and fall case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that while being directed from one cashier to another, he slipped and fell on some unidentified liquid on the floor. Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to his neck, shoulder, and back, etc., but most significantly alleges that as a result of the fall, he tore rotator cuffs in both shoulders necessitating two surgeries, among other treatments. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $230,000, and future medical care was also a possibility depending on his recovery. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $890,000.
• Plaintiff was a passenger in a commercial transportation vehicle at which time she alleges that due to either an abrubt stop or an abrubt stop followed by an impact, she moved around in the back seat such that her head struck the back of a headrest causing her both soft tissue injuries but also a fracture nose, a deviated septum, etc. While Plaintiff's soft tissue injuries had, for the most part, subsided, her nose required one surgery and a future surgery, and that her condition is also interfering with her breathing, etc. Plaintiff contended that as a senior executive for a hospitality chain her work and work performance was significantly impacted as she was unable to conduct large group meetings and conferences, etc., and that the value of her case was significantly based of her past and future general damages.
• A multi-car MVA. Plaintiffs were passengers in a left turning vehicle that was struck by and T-boned a straight/onward-driving vehicle. Defendants disputed damages, and there were cross-complaints as between the drivers of the two vehicles involved. Plaintiffs suffered soft tissue injuries, and one of the Plaintiff's also suffered lacerations to his face as well as a torn meniscus which necessitated arthroscopic surgery. Plaintiffs made a good recovery as no material future medical specials were anticipated. Plaintiffs past medical specials were approx. $80,000. Plaintiffs combined opening demand was $540,000.
• A disputed liability trip and fall case against a City in Los Angeles County involving a lady in her 60s. Plaintiff alleges that as she was walking from a grocery store to go pick up her grandchild from school, she tripped and fell on 1.5-2.0 inches of raised portion/lip of a city sidewalk/concrete slab. Plaintiff sustained head, neck, jaw, shoulders, arm, etc., and after being transported to the ER, she underwent an ORIF procedure to a fractured distal radius bone. Plaintiff sustained approx. $24,000 in post-Howell past medical specials, and alleges that she may also need future shoulder surgery arising from the same incident. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $275,000.
• A disputed liability slip and fall case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that due to faulty installation and/or other negligent acts by her landlord and/or the agent/vendor hired by the landlord, she slipped and fell on carpet that had become loose as she was walking down the stairs of her apartment. Plaintiff alleges that the installation and/or the materials used to fasten the carpet to the stairs were faulty and below the standard of care. Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to her spine as well as injuries to her knee which required arthroscopic surgery. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were rather nominal due to write-offs and adjustments, and Plaintiff anticipated potential future procedures on her knee including a possible total knee replacement. Plaintiff’s maintained that this was a case concerning measurable general damages.  Plaintiffs’ (wife as the Plaintiff and husband for loss of consortium claim) combined opening demand was $425,000.
• A disputed liability matter wherein Plaintiff, a patron at a large chain consumer store, alleges that while assembling an outdoor heater at home he suffered deep and painful cuts to two of his fingers, specifically his fingertips, which necessitated approx. $14,000 of medical treatment and potentially leaving Plaintiff’s fingertips with nerve damage and/or tingling sensations. Plaintiff’s theory of liability was based on products liability, negligent design, negligent warning, etc. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $200,000.
• A disputed liability matter wherein Plaintiff, a patron at a large chain consumer store, alleges that an item fell of the rack and struck her while another item in front of said item was being moved around. Plaintiff alleges soft tissue injuries to her neck, hip/pelvis, etc., as well as post-concussion syndrome.  After a variety of diagnostics examinations, physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, holistic treatments, and psychological therapy, Plaintiff remains symptomatic as to her neck pain which is now chronic. Plaintiff’s past medical specials are approx. $40,000, and future medicals specials were anticipated in the event of flare ups. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $300,000.
• A disputed liability slip and fall case occurring inside a consumer warehouse chain. Plaintiff alleges that as she was shopping inside the refrigerated cooler section, she slipped and fell on a grape as well as on some alleged condensation/water on the ground. Plaintiff alleges inter alia that the area was not inspected for more than 1 hour prior to the incident, that the flooring was not appropriate in terms of slip resistance, and that the particular cooler was functioning at above the appropriate temperatures, thus causing leaking. Defendant argued inter alia  that there was no notice, that an inspection occurred minutes before, and also challenging some of Plaintiff’s injuries as pre-existing. Plaintiff’s injuries were serious necessitating a arthroscopic procedure to her knee followed by a total knee replacement, as well as a fusion surgery to her L-spine. Plaintiff also alleged the necessity of at least two future surgeries. Plaintiff’s past medicals were approx. $430,000 and anticipated future medicals were in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $4,750,000.
• A disputed liability case involving an auto v. semi. Specifically, Plaintiff was driving her vehicle in the early morning hours while it was dark outside and alleges that defendant’s semi-truck pulled out of a driveway as Plaintiff’s vehicle was approaching such that the truck was facing the opposite direction to traffic with its trailer perpendicular to the road, i.e., the trailer was horizontally obstructing the Plaintiff’s flow of traffic. Plaintiff was unable to stop in time and her car struck the trailer and partially went underneath it. Plaintiff was extracted from her vehicle and suffered a concussion. Plaintiff’s injuries necessitated approx. $48,000 in past medical specials (including 2 ESIs, as well as a plethora of diagnostic testing including but not limited to imaging, MRI as well as testing for TBI/MTBI), and an anticipated approx. $15,000 in future medical treatment.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $250,000.
• A disputed liability and damages case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that as she was driving a beverage golf cart between holes at the country club where she worked, the breaks malfunctioned causing the golf cart to crash. Plaintiff suffered injuries to her neck, shoulder, thighs/legs, and wrists.  Plaintiff received approx. $35,000 of treatment through the Workers Compensation system, and alleged that in addition to approx. $4,000 in LOE, she may need approx. $40,000 in future medical care (ESIs and carpel tunnel surgery) that may not be covered by the Workers Compensation system. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $200,000.
• A disputed liability and damages slip and fall case wherein Plaintiff, after parking her car to purchase food at defendant’s restaurant and on her way back to her car, lost her footing and fell due to a measurable pothole in the parking lot’s ground.  Plaintiff suffered both soft tissue injuries as well as a potential fractured patella and a compromised shoulder and wrist (with the shoulder potentially needing arthroscopic surgery). Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $20,000 to $25,000. Defense argued open and obvious, comparative fault, pre-existing conditions, amongst other positions. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $250,000.
• A disputed damages case involving a severe MVA rear-end collision which caused the Plaintiff to suffer significant soft tissue injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine, radiculopathy etc., necessitating 2x ESIs as well as making Plaintiff a candidate for cervical discectomy and a potential fusion surgery. Past medical specials were approx. $50,000 and anticipated future medical specials for the surgery(s) was approx. $120,000. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $975,000.
• A disputed liability and damages premises liability and intentional torts case. Plaintiff was a patron at a restaurant about to finish his meal at which time he was hit (allegedly repeatedly) by a person he understood to be a security guard working for said restaurant as part of, or in continuation, or another argument/commotion that said guard was involved in with other patrons. Plaintiff suffered a fractured orbital in addition to a plethora of soft tissue injuries that exceeded $115,000 in past medical bills. Plaintiff also claimed approx. $20,000 in past LOE and almost $500,000 in future LOE due to his physical and emotional injuries have interfered with his ability to get/keep work.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $1,000,000.
• A disputed liability and damages slip and fall case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that while shopping she slipped on a measurable amount of oil and some broken glass. Plaintiff feel to the ground in doing so injuring her cervical and lumbar spine as well as her shoulder.  Plaintiff had a plethora of imaging work to her spine and shoulder, which after treatment with a DC and other various Ortho and Pain Management consultations precipitated into three ESIs to the cervical spine as well as an arthroscopic shoulder surgery for a partial thickness tear of the labrum and rotator cuff. Plaintiff’s past medical bills were approx. $230,000.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $450,000.
• A disputed liability and damage dog bite case. Plaintiff, a tow truck driver, alleges that he was told by the defendant to deliver his vehicle all the way into his driveway, and in doing so the Plaintiff came into proximity with the defendant’s pitbull. Plaintiff alleges that he asked the dog to be moved from his proximity as it was barking and acting aggressively. Plaintiff contends that he was reassured that the dog was safe. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff alleges that he was bitten on the arm, causing him to fall (braced by his hand and arm) which also caused him some soft tissue injuries that necessitated one ESI and approx. $40,000 in past medical special damages. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $134,000.
• A disputed liability and damages case wherein the Plaintiff, who was a long-haul truck driver, arrived at a cargo/container terminal to receive a commercial container to transport. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant loaded the wrong container on the chassis attached to his trailer. During the process of lifting the wrong container back up, Plaintiff alleges that a part of the chassis did not disengage from the container causing the chassis to be raised a measurable distance off of the ground, in turn causes significant movement, lifting, and jolting of the trailer wherein he was seated.  Plaintiff’s injuries were to his neck, back, low back and shoulder, which necessitated inter alia a shoulder surgery along with multiple ESIs. Plaintiff’s past medical bills were approx. $220,000 in addition to approx. $70,000 in Workers Compensations benefits received.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $1.5 Million.
• A disputed liability and damages slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleges that as she was shopping at the Defendant’s store, and unbeknown to her, there was a rather large spill of a slippery substance believed to be shampoo directly in front of her. Plaintiff alleges that she slipped but did not fall because she was able to brace herself on her shopping cart. However, as a result of the incident, Plaintiff injured her shoulder, ankle and knee, and three of which necessitated separate arthroscopic procedures. The past medical specials were approx. $90,000. Given Plaintiff’s age and the severity of the injuries, it was claimed that the interference with Plaintiff’s daily activities and her quality of life was significant. Defense argued inter alia no actual or constructive notice, no mechanism of injury, pre-existing degenerative conditions, and had an MSJ ready for filing based on the notice issue. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $250,000.
• Plaintiffs were passengers in a ride-share vehicle and allege that upon asking the driver to turn down the music, they and said driver got involved in a heated argument which lead to them asking to be let out, at which time Plaintiffs allege that the driver attempted to, and did in fact, hit Plaintiffs with the car (allegedly more than once) causing Plaintiffs certain bodily injuries – the driver allegedly fled the scene and was apprehended by the police. Plaintiffs combined opening demand was $1.85 million.
• Plaintiffs, mother and daughter, were exiting the freeway at which time they were rear-ended, and as a result of which both sustained soft tissue injuries that required them to be transported from the scene to the ER. Plaintiffs’ combined past medical bills were approx. $30,000, though neither was claiming any LOE or any measurable future medical specials.  Of note, the accident occurred at the freeway exit that leads to Plaintiffs’ home, which they have to use on one or more occasions every day which further compounded their pain and suffering. Plaintiffs’ combined demand was $200,000.
• A damages only case involving a severe impact between two cars. Plaintiff suffered a plethora of soft tissue injuries including to her arm, hand, neck, back and low back, and hip, which necessitated approx. $55,000 in medical treatment – chiropractic, diagnostic, ER, as well as neurology and ultimately 2x ESI and 2x FBI injections. Plaintiff alleged that her future medical treatment would amount to approx. $70,000. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $150,000.
• Plaintiff alleges that due to Defendant’s negligence and oversight in trimming a tree on his property, a large and heavy branch(es) fell on her car without notice as she was driving under the tree. Portions of the entire car was damaged, a branch broke the front windshield, struck her body and otherwise caused her significant shock, pain and suffering. In addition to the soft tissue injuries, Plaintiff alleged that she was forced to undertake an early retirement because she could no longer fulfill her managerial duties due to her ongoing pain.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $300,000.
• A property damage dispute and a bad faith claim arising from a tree collapse incident and a subsequent, though unrelated burglary incident. Plaintiff alleges that timely and complete payments were not tendered by the first party carrier which triggered bad faith remedies. The Defense argues that the Plaintiff had not timely or fully provided information to allow for additional adjustments to the claim, and that as it stands the majority of the personal property items were unsubstantiated due to no records, receipts, documents, etc.  Opening demand was $298,099.
• Plaintiff suffered catastrophic/serious injuries from allegedly being kicked in the head by a performer at a concert to did a stage dive, as well as due to crowd surge thereafter.  Plaintiff obtained a $4.5+ Million verdict against the performer, the tour company and the venue company. The instant post-judgment mediation involved issues re validity of a CCP 998 and the monies/penalties accruing as a result thereof plus negotiating the judgment against the instant defendant given a potential appeal and several pending post-trial motions.  Opening demand was $2,027,593.
• Plaintiff was a patron at a restaurant with his family. Upon sitting down on a chair, said chair collapsed causing him a variety of spine injuries which necessitated an ESI injection and discectomy at multiple levels, and potentially requiring a fusion surgery at multiple levels in his spine.  Plaintiff’s past medical special were approx. $250,000, and future medical treatment was approx. $150,000+. Plaintiff admittedly had a plethora of pre-existing conditions as well as longstanding degenerative issues with his spine given his age.  Opening demand was $750,000.
• An admitted liability auto v. auto case involving minor/moderate impact to Plaintiff’s vehicle which nonetheless caused Plaintiff to suffer injuries to his shoulder, neck, and low back. Plaintiff condition did not resolve via chiropractic care, so three ESIs were administered, which along with other treatment and diagnostic work caused Plaintiff to incur approx. $72,000 in medical special damages. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $175,000.
• An auto v. 2 pedestrian case involving only a liability dispute. Plaintiffs claim that while they were walking in their neighborhood, Defendant’s car struck one of the Plaintiffs at which time contact was also made with the second Plaintiff, causing both to sustain injuries to their neck, shoulders, back, hip and knees which necessitated approx. $70,000 of medical treatment, and which still caused Plaintiffs residual pain.  Plaintiffs combined opening demand was $380,000.
• This is a disputed liability case involving a fire incident in the BBQ area of an apartment complex.  Plaintiffs were attempting to turn on a BBQ unit as part of a birthday celebration. It was alleged that some aspect or component of the BBQ unit malfunctioned and/or the gas line was not connected properly such that when the BBQ was turned on it called first and second degree burns to the two Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered first and second degree burns to their stomach area and hair, and knee, respectively.  While Plaintiffs’ past medical specials were limited, their future medical bills were alleged to be significant for purposes of scar revision, as well as their past and future general damages especially for one of the Plaintiffs who was/is a model.  Plaintiffs’ combined demand was $350,000.
• Plaintiff was a patron at clothing store, at which time she alleges that one of the lower level shelving units immediately next to her fell on the floor in response to which, and in an effort to not be struck by it, she fell back landed on her back and on her knee(s). Defendant disputes liability and damages. Plaintiff's incurred approx. $60,000 in various medical treatments for her serious soft tissue injuries which were also an aggravation of prior and longstanding neck/back and knee issues.  Plaintiff’s spine had objective signs of injury and Plaintiff was a candidate for both injections and potentially a surgery. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $495,000.
• A disputed damages MVA wherein Plaintiff alleges that in addition to a variety of soft tissue injuries, he also suffered a TBI/MTBI as a result of the impact of the vehicle, his head impacting the interior of the vehicle, all of which caused him a concussion as well as to vomit at the scene of the accident. Plaintiff also alleged that the impact caused him to have complications with a prior hip surgery. Plaintiff alleges that the TBI/MTBI injuries has caused him to become forgetful, lose focus, and have cloudy thoughts and a general inability to focus and stay on track. Plaintiff’s opening demand was the policy limits.
• This is a disputed damages case involving a rear-end collision MVA. The impact to Plaintiff’s vehicle was severe, causing air bags to deploy.  Plaintiff suffered serious soft tissue injuries to her lumbar spine and shoulder, necessitating ESIs and ultimately ending up in a recommendation for micro-decompression surgery which had not occurred because of Plaintiff’s weight (no pre-op clearance) and due to two intervening pregnancies. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were in the range of $85,000, and it was anticipated that her future medical treatment may be in the six figures not to mention a sizable potential past and future LOE claims. Plaintiff’s opening demand was policy limits at $300,000.
• Liability and damages were in dispute in this negligence/premises liability case.  Plaintiffs, mother and daughter, were visiting a Public Storage facility to rent some space. They were told to ride in a golf cart to take them around the premises to view some rent/space options. After embarking the golf cart, but before they had fastened their seatbelts, it was alleged that the employee who was driving the golf cart suddenly accelerated causing one plaintiff to fall out from the back and landing on her head, and causing the other Plaintiff to fall on her knees while trying to protect her minor child from also making contact with the ground.  Plaintiff #1 primarily claimed a TBI injury, she had approx. $30,000 in past medical specials, anticipated $200,000 in future medicals, and also $400,000 in past and future general damages. Plaintiff #2 primarily claimed soft tissue spine and knee injuries, with approx. $16,000 in past medical specials, with $25,000 in anticipated future medicals, and $400,000 in past and future general damages.  Plaintiffs combined opening demands were $1,000,000.
• A disputed liability case MVA. Plaintiff contends that he had the green light and as he was going through the intersection, the Defendant’s vehicle, believed to be speeding, caused a severe impact between the vehicles causing Plaintiff’s vehicle to veer off and hit a wall. Plaintiff alleges to have suffered both soft tissue injuries as well as TBI which has manifested as inter alia as forgetfulness, decreased daily performance, mood swings, etc. Plaintiff opening demand was policy limits.
• Liability and damages are in dispute in this involving a Student and a High School. Plaintiff is a student at a school and alleges that the school should not have permitted him to participate in any athletic activities because he did not have the allegedly prerequisite medical clearance/physical, and Plaintiff further alleges that he sustained a shoulder injury as a result of being allowed to practice/train for his desired team such that he could “make the team.” Plaintiff further alleges that but for the school’s negligence in not precluding him from the training, he would not have been injured, that he would have made the team, and that he would have been eligible for potential sports scholarship. Plaintiff alleged both physical and emotional injuries. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $235,000.
• Plaintiff was struck by a reversing postal truck while Plaintiff was walking to and from a community post box. While liability was not in dispute, Defendant disputed the amount of damages, argued that Plaintiff was comparatively at fault, and furthermore there was a pending MSJ on calendar as well as some other legal arguments/defenses in play. Plaintiff’s soft tissue injuries necessitated approx. $57,000 in past medical specials, and it was anticipated that her past and future general damages may likely be in the six-figure range. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $607,466.56.
• This is an admitted liability UIM auto v. auto rear end collision case. The impact between the vehicles was minor to moderate. Plaintiff alleges a plethora of soft tissue injuries, most notably to her lumbar spine as well as a possible annular tear in that same region given that her body was twisted immediately before the impact. Plaintiff received extensive PT and other treatments (Acupuncture, etc.) totaling approx. $50,000 in past medical specials, and was also a candidate for injections. Plaintiff’s opening demand was policy limits at $250,000.
• This is an admitted liability rear end auto v. auto collision case. The impact between the vehicles was moderate to severe.  Plaintiff complained of soft tissue injuries to his back and shoulder(s), and received treatment beginning at the ER, and later from pain management and other treaters as well as various diagnostic work.  Ultimately, Plaintiff received two ESIs to his lumbar spine and was recommended to have lumbar surgery.  Plaintiff’s past medical special were approx. $25,000.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $1,000,000.
• This is a dispute liability auto v. auto case. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the impact he injured his neck, left shoulder, low back and left knee. After MRIs, trigger point injections were completed in the low back area. Thereafter, ESIs were completed which did not resolve the Plaintiff’s pain in his low back. A micro-decompression disk surgery was completed. Plaintiff’s past medical specials are approx. $212,000, and it was estimated that as of the time of the mediation, Plaintiff had incurred approx. $24,000 in LOE.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $1,950,000.
• Plaintiff was walking her dog with her boyfriend, at which time one of two dogs, both off-leash, attempted to attack Plaintiff’s dog. During Plaintiff’s efforts to rescue her dog, Plaintiff was bitten on the inside of her thigh. Plaintiff’s injuries included the bite itself, as well as subsequent infection, and the trauma from the event necessitated her seeking therapy which revealed that she had PTSD as well as an aggravation of ongoing anxiety issues. Most notably, Plaintiff was an aspiring actress and a model, and it was anticipated that but for this injury, her acting/modelling career was about to blossom. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $225,000.
• Plaintiffs were mother and daughter travelling in their vehicle on a freeway at which time it was alleged that they vehicle was side-swiped by a truck with an attached trailer causing Plaintiffs’ vehicle to veer off to the left, across multiple lanes, and made contact with the center divider. Plaintiffs’ were transported to an ER, wherein one of them was discharged the same day and the other was hospitalized for 3 days. Plaintiffs injuries included fractured wrists, a plethora of soft tissue spine injuries with commensurate MRI findings of bulges as well as radicular pain, as well as injuries to knees, etc. One of the Plaintiffs resorted to multiple epidurals, and was also a surgery candidate.  Plaintiffs’ past medical specials were in the range of $200,000 to $250,000. Plaintiffs’ combined opening demand was $625,000.
• Plaintiff was a patron at a 99 Cents Store at which time she alleges that she slipped and fell on water on the floor which allegedly was leaking from a nearby refrigeration unit.  Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to her upper and lower back, as well as a torn meniscus to her knee which necessitated arthroscopic surgery, and which also significantly interfered with her daily activities as well as causing her to suffer plantar fasciitis. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $600,000.
• A two-vehicle accident involving two Plaintiffs (Driver and Passenger) both in their early 20’s. Based on the severe impact, both airbags in the Plaintiffs’ vehicle deployed, and both vehicles were declared a total loss.  Plaintiffs’ injuries were moderate/severe necessitating in approx. $55,000 and $26,000, respectively, in past medical special damages, and an anticipated approx. $55,000 and $230,000, respectively, in potential future medical treatment most notably ESI, microdiscectomy/laminectomy and possible fusion surgery. Plaintiffs’ opening demands were $900,000 and $1,000,000, respectively.
• This is a disputed liability cases resulting from an auto v. motorcycle accident, wherein the Plaintiff suffered a plethora of soft tissue injuries as well as serious injuries to his clavicle (which required surgery) as well as injuries to Plaintiff’s hip.  Plaintiff’s past medical special damages were approx. $80,000, and it was anticipated that the future surgeries to Plaintiff’s shoulder (total shoulder replacement) and hip (total hip replacement) would cost approx. $200,000+.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $975,000.
• A disputed liability and damages case involving an MVA causing the Plaintiff to sustain injuries to his neck, upper back, lower back and shoulder. An MRI of the shoulder showed both impingement and a tear.  Plaintiff, in his golden years and with other serious pre-existing conditions, underwent arthroscopic surgery to his shoulder and received a plethora of other treatments for his other soft tissue injuries. Plaintiff’s past medical special damages were approx. $80,000. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $1,000,000.00
• A dog bite case wherein the Plaintiff was bitten on the buttocks causing her to also fall and suffer additional injuries to her hip/waste areas as well as other soft tissue injuries.  Plaintiff treated with a DC and was later referred to a Pain Management expert wherein she had 1 ESI. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $25,000 and it was anticipated that her future medical specials would also be approx. $25,000. Plaintiff’s opening demand was policy limits at $100,000.
• A disputed liability MVA, wherein Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained significant damages upwards of $9,000 and the impact in which caused the Plaintiff to suffer a plethora of spine, chest, arms/shoulders and leg pain necessitating Chiropractic and Pain Management treatment including epidural injections totaling approx. $45,000. Plaintiff continues to suffer from residual pain and alleges significant interference with his daily activities. Plaintiff’s opening demand was policy limits at $100,000.
• Liability was not in dispute in this MVA case. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant was DUI at the time of the incident. Plaintiff suffered lumbar and cervical spine soft tissue injuries, and after chiropractic treatment, various orthopedic consultations, and one ESI, Plaintiff’s past medical special damages were approx. $33,000, and he also claimed approx. $8,000 in LOE. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $100,000.
• Liability was not in dispute in this MVA case. Plaintiff’s vehicle, while sustaining approx. $3,000 of damage, did not visually appear to have been impacted by any significant force, and as such the defense took the position that this was a minor impact which could not create the force or mechanism for the injuries alleged. Plaintiff, in addition to a plethora of soft tissue issues with her spine, alleges injuries to her left wrist and hand. Further complicating the medical care/treatment was the Plaintiff’s birth defect with her right arm/shoulder.  Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $22,000, and all experts agreed that a future hand/wrist surgery would cost upwards of $35,000. Lastly, Plaintiff alleged approx. $80,000 plus in past LOE as well as future LOE especially if she has the surgery. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $100,000.
• Plaintiff was rear-ended while driving on the freeway, causing his vehicle to also make contact with the vehicle in front. While the optics of the property damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle appeared nominal/minor (it was a work/pick-up truck), the Defendant’s vehicle was a total loss. Plaintiff’s injuries were predominantly to his shoulder and cervical and lumbar spine.  Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $17,000, and his anticipated future medical treatment was estimated at approx. $55,000 (various injections: PRPs to the shoulder, and FBIs to the cervical and lumbar spine, as well as RF ablation to the spine at multi-levels). Plaintiff’s opening demand was $100,000.
• Plaintiff was a pizza deliveryman and alleges that due to poor lighting and a cantilevered brick planter between the driveway and the walkway towards the front door, he tripped and fell causing him a fractured shoulder in addition to other soft tissue issues.  The shoulder fracture ultimately had malunion and shoulder hemiarthroplasty was the only viable plan of action.  While Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $7,000, he alleged that his future medical costs could be in the region of approx. $100,000, and that his past and future general damages possibly valued in the high six figures. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $250,000.
• Plaintiff was involved in an MVA between semi-truck and a car. Plaintiff alleged suffering injuries to his head, neck, left shoulder, back and left knee, and with time, it also turned out the impact also aggravated a series of pre-existing medical conditions.  Plaintiff had multiple ESIs to his cervical and lumbar spine and was also diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff to his left shoulder, which ultimately required a decompression surgery. Plaintiff’s past medical special were approx. $230,000, and his estimated future care also well in the six figures. Defendant disputed medical causation as to the majority of Plaintiff’s injuries as well as arguing that the impact could not have reasonably aggravated Plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $1,000,000.
• Liability and damages were in dispute in this 2 car MVA accident. Plaintiff's airbags deployed and he was transported to the ER with serious injury to his hand and wrist, as well as injuries to his neck and back. The injuries to Plaintiff’s hand/wrist required two surgeries and caused visible and likely permanent scaring on the hand/wrist. Plaintiff also alleged ongoing residual pain to the wrist/hand/fingers, and continuous decrease in functionality thereto. Plaintiff alleges extensive future medical care as well as significant (potentially 7 figure) past and future LOE damages. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $2 million.
• Plaintiff had an arrangement with a property owner wherein he would do certain types of repair and maintenance on Defendant’s property in exchange for rent. Plaintiff contended that the duties that he agreed to undertake in exchange for rent were limited and were all within his knowledge and experience. On the date of the subject incident, Defendant asked Plaintiff to go up on the room of a building on the premises to do some roofing work, which Plaintiff agreed to do. Plaintiff alleges that the structure upon which he climbed was not permitted, was not code compliant, was constructed by an unlicensed person, that no notice was given to Plaintiff as to the foregoing. Plaintiff fell from the roof as a result of the structure collapsing causing him to suffer a fractured hip as well as other injuries which necessitated at least one surgery as well as rendering Plaintiff to be wheelchair and/or walker dependent.  Opening demand was policy limits at $500,000.
• Plaintiff was a returning patron to a large chain store, and on the date of the incident, she was there only to exchange one item. Upon entry, and upon asking a clerk where the item sought was located, Plaintiff alleges that she took 5-6 steps in that direction at which time she feel on what she later found out to be oily liquid and possibly some glass.  The Plaintiff alleges that she was not warned about the substance on the floor, and that while there was a cone placed out, said cone was far away from the actual location of the fall.  Plaintiff’s alleged injury were soft tissue in the regions of her neck, back, arm, elbow, wrist, hip, etc., but more significantly, she alleged TBI arising from a concussion and alleged loss of consciousness which have manifested since the incident as repeated, long lasting, and frequent headaches which most recently forced her to visit the ER 3-4 times as well as to consult with a neurologist.  Plaintiff’s pas medical specials was approx. $13,500. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $500,000.
• This is a disputed premises liability matter. Plaintiff alleges that she was the, if not one of the, first customer(s) entering the defendant’s store to purchase some items. She alleges that she slipped and fell on some liquid or slippery substance at or near one of the showcases or nearby refrigeration units.  Plaintiff suffered injuries predominantly to her right foot, i.e., partial to near tear of the ligaments, allegedly twisting it so badly that it required future surgery.  Plaintiff’s past medical specials totaled approx. $33,000, and Plaintiff contended that her future medical treatment (i.e., stem cell injections and possible future Bostrom procedure, further rehab/PT, etc.) would amount to approx. $80,000+.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $625,000.
• Plaintiff alleges that a neighbor walking two pit pulls on a leash was attached by both dogs, at which time his own dog was also attacked during the melee. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s dog who was not on a leash ran out and attached the Defendant’s two pit bulls, at which time the Plaintiff was bitten on his pinky finger while trying to rescue his own dog from the alleged dog fight. Plaintiff alleges to have suffered soft-tissue injuries from falling, as well as a bitten pinky finger that required skin grafting, and treatment for psychological injuries.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $100,000.
• Plaintiff, 80+ years old, drove to a nationwide consumer store to buy some supplies. Using a shopping cart as a walker, she attempted to lift a case of water bottles into the shopping cart, and in doing so the three cases of water underneath the one she was trying to lift toppled over, striking her, and causing her to fall down. Plaintiff alleges that the cases of water bottle were stacked such that they were “hanging off” the end of the shelving there were on, and thus below the standard of care in the community/industry. Plaintiff’s injuries included right knee and low back issues, and she was recommended to possible ESI for her spine pain and Total Knee Replacement Surgery.  Plaintiff’s past medical bills totaled approx. $20,000, and Plaintiff estimated that her future medical specials would be approx. $200,000. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $500,000.
• Plaintiffs, mother and son, were driving at which point they allege that they were T-boned by a police cruiser. Each side contends that they had the green light. Plaintiff (Mother) was transported to the ER wherein she had a plethora of diagnostic tests done give that she bore the brunt of the force/impact.  Despite the impact, Plaintiffs’ injuries were limited to soft-tissue complaints, for which they received treatment. Plaintiffs’ combined past medical specials were approx. $50,000.  Plaintiffs’ combined opening demand was $170,000.
• Plaintiff was a guest at a wedding located at a property that was being rented. Plaintiff alleges that near the end of the party she was asked to help bring a cat from outside to the inside of the property. While another person was helping, Plaintiff ultimately attempted to grab the cat at which time several cement cinder blocks collapsed on top of her.  Over and beyond her soft tissue injuries, Plaintiff suffered scarring on her inner thigh, knee and ankle. She also experienced complications with dermatitis, infections, etc., which necessitated a brief hospital stay as well as her needing in-home care as well as needing to use a walker for up to 6 months.  Plaintiff also complained of nerve damage.  Plaintiff’s past medical special damages were approx. $11,000 and her future medical specials for scar revision surgery was estimated at approx. $40,000.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $450,000.
• Plaintiff worked for a bakery and alleges that due to poor facility management, no policies and procedures, and/or inadequate sweeps, she slipped and fell on bread crumbs on the floor during her shift.  The incident required her to have Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF), with hardware installed, and a second surgery to remove said hardware.  Plaintiff’s past medical special damages are approx. $110,000, and she is also claiming approx. $70,000 in past/future LOE and $30,000 for future medical treatment. Defendant relied inter alia on the defense of notice, open and obvious and comparative fault.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $500,000.
• Plaintiff was a patron at Defendant’s store. Plaintiff went into the changing room to try something on and alleges that due to no chair or the like, she slipped and fell. Plaintiff’s injuries were primarily a fracture of the distal radius (wrist), causing it to be splinted. Plaintiff’s past medical special damages was approx. $17,000; in addition, Plaintiff was claiming past and future LOE; and her husband was making a loss of consortium claim. Plaintiffs’ combined opening demand was $248,000.
• Plaintiff who was in his 80’s was walking outside a store speaking on his phone. Defendant was driving a work truck, and not seeing the Plaintiff ran him over causing inter alia a significant degloving of his leg, laceration to bilateral knee, left knee to ankle and bilateral ankles, full thickness tear of right quad tendon, dislodgment of patella screw, etc. Plaintiff’s past medical specials are approx. $360,000. The Defendant’s carrier had tendered its policy limits and the sole issues at mediation involved valuation and Defendant’s contribution towards a potential settlement. Opening demand (new money) $500,000.
• Plaintiff’s vehicle was rear-ended. While the impact allegedly “appeared” to be minor, records indicated that there was 3.5 hours of frame work done causing approx. $7,000 in property damage. Plaintiff alleged that the movements in the vehicle and the force of impact caused him to suffer cervical and lumbar issues, but more significantly, he suffered from a torn meniscus in his knee, requiring arthroscopic surgery for the meniscus tear. Plaintiff’s past medical special damages were approx. $109,000.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $500,000.
• Plaintiffs (mother and minor daughter) were walk-in patients at a hospital. Another person vomited on the ground at which time a security guard covered it up with some medical pads. Plaintiff Mother walked over the pads not knowing of what was underneath, slipped and ended up doing the splits.  Plaintiff Mother suffered soft tissue injuries to her upper and lower extremities necessitating both chiropractic and orthopedic treatment/consultations. Plaintiff Daughter alleged having PTSD from seeing her mother’s fall which allegedly caused the minor to have nightmares, sleep issues, bouts of crying, etc. 
• Plaintiff was a patron at a bar. She alleges that as she was walking from the bar to the bathroom she slipped and fell on both of her knees due to fluid on the floor. Plaintiff alleges that no cones were out prior to her fall and that she was not otherwise alerted to the spill, and that cones were put out after the incident. Defendant alleges inter alia that cones were out prior the incident, that employees were cleaning it up contemporaneous with the incident, and that the Plaintiff was intoxicated giving rise to comparative fault. Plaintiff’s injuries were mainly to both of her knees causing approx. $7,000 in past meds, $15,000 in past LOE, and it was anticipated that she will require knee replacement surgery.  Opening demand was $350,000.  
• Plaintiff was a patron in store at which point she fell as her foot was caught in an uneven portion of the flooring. Plaintiff sued the store owner (tenant) and the landlord from whom the store owner was renting space from. Plaintiff was transported to the hospital wherein x-rays showed that she had suffered a severely fractured ankle which required open reduction internal fixation surgery.  Plaintiff alleged to have incurred approx. $19,000 in past medical specials, and approx. $35,000 in LOE, and she further anticipated future medical treatment to be in the range of $10,000 to $50,000.  Plaintiff’s opening demand to the Landlord and the Store Owner was $500,000.
• Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident which the defense categorized as a minor impact causing only alleged minor property damage.  Nevertheless, Plaintiff underwent significant and serious treatment including but not limited to: injections, rhizomoties, cervical spine surgery, extensive pain management and other treatments totally, to date, approx. $330,000 in past medical special damages, with additional future medical treatment anticipated at least in the amount of $150,000 for a lumbar surgery. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $3,000,0000.
• Plaintiff, a minor, and her parents were patrons at a local coffee shop. Plaintiff’s mother ordered a hot tea for her minor daughter with the understanding that the barista knew that said drink was for a minor. Plaintiff contends that the water in the cup of tea was much hotter than necessary and outside the normal range as dictated by the standard of care within the community. As Plaintiff was attempting to handle and/or drink from the cup for the first time, hot water spilled on her thighs causing her 1st and 2nd degree burns to her lower extremities.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $175,000.
• Plaintiff was a patron at Defendant’s store at which time it was alleged that a wooden piece affixed/attached to the cashier’s station broke and struck the e Plaintiff’s foot/ankle causing a suspected non-displaced fracture, and otherwise causing her to incur approx. $12,000 in past medical bills and possibly future medical treatment yet to be determined.  Opening demand was $120,000.
• Plaintiff was a patron at Defendant’s store at which time it was alleged that a transient person entered the store, provoked the Plaintiff and thereafter struck him in the face causing a fractured orbital bone and jaw among other injuries. Plaintiff incurred approx. $30,000 in past medical bills and alleged that his general damages were significant. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $250,000.
• Liability was not contested in this MVA involving two vehicles and allegedly 2 to 3 impacts between said vehicles at an alleged high speed.  Plaintiff suffered a plethora of soft tissue injuries forcing her to incur approx. $65,000 in past medical special damages for chiropractic and orthopedic treatment, MRIs, Acupuncture as well as two ESIs. The Defendant had a limited policy and it was the Plaintiff’s position that said policy was open and that extra-contractual monies must be offered. Opening demand was $150,000.
• This is an uninsured motorist claim involving an MVA wherein the property damages to Claimant’s vehicle was moderate to severe.  Claimant’s past medical special damages were approx. $10,000 for treatment of his soft tissue injuries (most notably a 4mm disc bulge in the lumbar spine), and it was anticipated that Claimant was a candidate for ESIs in the near future as he is still symptomatic with chronic lumbar pain. Claimant also alleges that due to his injuries he was unable to personally handle construction activities on a house that he was intending to renovate and rent, and as such had to hire contractors to do so – incurring approx. $40,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.  Claimant’s opening demand was $100,000.
• Liability is not in dispute in this Auto v. Pedestrian accident. Plaintiff was struck by a vehicle as it was reversing. She was transported to the ER on the date of the incident, and thereafter she received treatment from a Pain Management specialist as well as an orthopedist (MRI, xrays, etc.). In addition to soft tissue injuries, Plaintiff complained of radicular pain in both directions.  Plaintiff’s past medical specials are approx. $14,000, and future treatment is estimated at approx. $17,000.  Opening demand is $100,000.
• Plaintiffs’ vehicle was rear-ended by Defendant who was arrested at the scene for DUI and driving at an unsafe speed. The impact was severe and both Plaintiffs suffered significant injuries forcing one Plaintiff to incur approx. $110,000 in past medical specials (including a fusion surgery after ESIs were administered) and the other Plaintiff incurred approx. $65,000 in past medical specials. Both Plaintiffs estimated that their future medical care could be significant, and one of the Plaintiffs also alleged approx. $50,000 in past and future LOE.  Plaintiffs global opening demand was $750,000.
• Plaintiff was shopping with her 90+ year old mother at a grocery store. Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on what appeared after the fact to be a loose and squashed grape on the floor. Plaintiff alleges that she did not see the grape prior to the incident. Plaintiff’s injuries included a focal full-thickness tear of her right shoulder which necessitated approx. $7,000 in past medical special treatment, with the possibility of future surgery.  Plaintiff’s opening demand is $275,000.
• An adult Plaintiff and a minor Plaintiff were involved in a two-car accident causing moderate impact to the vehicles. Plaintiffs’ vehicle sustained approx. $16,000 in property damage forcing the Plaintiff to incur a further $2,500 in rental expenses.  The adult Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries, most significantly a 7mm bulge at L4-L5 and a 5mm bulge at L5-S1, and necessitating approx. $21,000 in past medical special damages including 1 ESI. The adult Plaintiff alleged that his pain in ongoing, and that he will imminently be having additional ESIs as well as considering his options re surgery.
• This was a disputed liability case involving both property damage and bodily injuries. Plaintiffs were neighbors in an apartment complex.  A fire ignited in one of the units and quickly affected the neighboring unit as well. Only one of the Plaintiffs received medical treatment for exposure to smoke. Both Plaintiffs contended to have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal property, either due to burning, smoke/soot contamination, and/or theft during a period of time when the unit was quarantined.  The defense argued that no benefits were due because both tenants/Plaintiffs had failed to acquire renter’s insurance and as such were in violation of the lease, and that as to one Plaintiff, she had signed a release which served as an affirmative defense to the allegations in this case.  Plaintiffs’ combined opening demands were upwards of $700,000.
• This was a damages-only cases arising from a two-motor vehicle accident causing moderate impact to Plaintiff’s vehicle while the defendant allegedly attempted to make an illegal u-turn striking the side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. While the paramedics arrived at the scene of the accident, Plaintiff was not transported. However, she went to the Urgent Care the day after the incident, at which time she was diagnosed with contusion of the right front wall of her thorax and abdominal wall, as well as other soft tissue spine sprain/strains.  Plaintiff also complained of, and was treated for, TMJ and tinnitus as a result of the accident. Altogether, Plaintiff’s past medical special damages totaled approx. $52,000 including two facet block injections at L4-L5. Plaintiff’s opening demand was the policy limits at $100,000.
• Liability is not in dispute in this 2 vehicle accident case.  The impact was moderate to severe, causing the Plaintiff to go to the ER on the day of the incident with complaints of chest wall pain, as well as neck and shoulder pain which necessitated a CT scan at the ER. Thereafter, Plaintiff consulted with an M.D. for his lumbar and cervical pains as well for headaches and related insomnia and anxiety, etc.  Plaintiff was treated by an Orthopedic surgeon who also ordered MRIs of the cervical and thoracic spine.  Plaintiff received 24 session of PT before having two ESI to his cervical spine. Plaintiff’s past medical special damages are approx. $60,000, and anticipated future treatment (excluding potential surgery) would be another $20,000. Plaintiff’s opening demand is $595,000.
• This was a first party UIM claim. Claimant alleges that the under-insured at-fault driver caused him to suffer extensive bodily injuries, including but not limited to injury to his chest, ribs, and neck. Claimant was transported to the ER, and a day later sought the following treatments: Urgent Care, a combination of P.T. and D.C. care, Acupuncture. He later consulted with a Neurologist and had several MRIs.  Claimant continues to have neck and back pain, as well as continuing issues with his balance and equilibrium.  Claimant’s past medical specials totaled approx. $28,000. Claimant demanded the policy limits of his own UIM coverage less the amount recovered from the under-insured at-fault party.
• This was an admitted liability 2 car accident case. The impact to Plaintiff’s vehicle was moderate, though the Plaintiff alleged to have suffered serious soft tissue injuries forcing her to seek treatment, and many instances of diagnostic care, from an Orthopod, D.C., P.M., Acupuncture, etc.  Most notably, MRI revealed that Plaintiff had 8mm bulge in her lumbar spine, though she also admittedly had a plethora of pre-existing degenerative issues including an annular tear in her lumbar spine.  Plaintiff’s past medical special damages was approx. $22,000. While she has thus far refused several ESI recommendations, Plaintiff anticipated that ESI and possible laminectomy and/or fusion surgery will likely be a reality in the near future – future medical specials estimated at approx. $300,000 plus. Plaintiff’s opening demand was policy limits.
• This is an admitted liability case. Plaintiff’s vehicle was rear-ended while at a stand-still, causing approx. $7,000 of property damage, including damage to the car’s frame. The impact was moderate but ultimately cause collisions between 3-4 other vehicles in front of the Plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff suffered significant bodily injuries to his low back, knee, neck, and shoulder.  Plaintiff sought treatment from ad DC, and later and MRI found 5-6 mm protrusions at L3-L4, 2-3 mm protrusion at L4-L5, and 2mm at L5-S1. Plaintiff had cervical radicular pain, and ended up having three ESIs. Plaintiff’s knee suffered a partial meniscus tear, and necessitated a meniscectomy as well as other arthroscopic procedures. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $135,000, and Plaintiff contended that he needed approx. $200,000 in future medical treatment and surgery for his cervical spine injuries.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $750,000. 
• Liability is not in dispute in this rear-end collision personal injury matter.  The date after the incident, the Plaintiff presented at the ER reporting neck pain, headaches and numbness in his left hand and wrist. Plaintiff also alleges to have suffered an exacerbation of prior issues with his lumbar spine (he had a prior L5-S1 lumbar fusion and was receiving ESIs about a week before the subject incident). Plaintiff received treatment from DC, OD, and thereafter PT.  Due to ongoing pain, Plaintiff had more ESIs and later a fusion surgery of L4-L5. Plaintiff has ongoing residual pain, and has been deemed as Permanently Disabled. Plaintiff alleges to have approx. $44,000 in LOE damages, and approx. $212,000 in past medical special damages. Plaintiff’s opening demand was policy limits of $100,000.
• This is a first-party uninsured claim. Claimant alleges that he was making a protected left turn on a green light at which time the uninsured driver ran a red light at a high rate of speed and collided with Claimant’s vehicle.  Claimant alleges that the impact was severe, and as a result, he suffered from severe and permanent physical injuries. Claimant was transported to the ER and was kept overnight. His injuries included chest pain, upper back pain, hand/thumb pain, and general muscle pain. A CT of the chest revealed a midsternal nondisplaced fracture and related coronary issues. Claimant is current symptomatic with low back pain on a daily basis, and that his bodily injuries have and continue to disrupt his daily activities. Claimant purports to have incurred approx. $70,000 in past medical special damages (including ESIs), and that he is a candidate for either future pain management or surgery, in either case anticipating approx. $150,000 in future medical treatment.  The Respondent inter alia argued that the post-Howell reasonable medical specials are approx. $21,500, that there was a significant gap in Claimant’s treatment, that some or all of the Claimant’s injuries were pre-existing conditions, etc.  Claimant’s opening demand was $300,000.
• Plaintiff arrived at Defendant’s home where he was receiving a class. This was the first-time Plaintiff was at Defendant’s house. Plaintiff alleges that he entered Defendant’s house, completed the class, and was shown out of the house via a back/rear door forcing him to walk through the backyard. While walking through the backyard, Plaintiff opened a gate facing the parking area in the front of the house which had a 9+ inch drop.  Plaintiff inter alia alleges that said condition was not disclosed to him, it was not otherwise open and obvious, that said condition violated the applicable building code(s), etc.  Plaintiff’s injuries necessitated approx. $86,000 in past medical specials, and Plaintiff alleged that he needs further surgery(ies) in the future.  The Defense’s position was inter alia that the property was complaint with the applicable building codes, that there was no condition on the property that needed any warnings and that if there was any such condition was open and obvious, that the Plaintiff’s own comparative fault/negligence was the substantial cause of the incident; etc.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $299,000.
• Plaintiff worked for a vendor that had a tasting/sample station located inside a grocery store. Plaintiff alleges that she was moving away from the tasting/sample station and towards another nearby area of the store at which time she slipped and fell on what was later discovered as salsa that had leaked from a salsa container.  Plaintiff alleges that she did not drop the container, and that she did not see anything on the ground as she was walking to the other area of the store, that she did not see anything on the ground as she was walking back (when she fell), and that the ground surface was unreasonably slippery even before the spill had occurred. Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries, and also alleged that she has suffered mild TBI injuries.  The defense argued inter alia: open and obvious; timely and appropriate sweeps; no causation and no objective findings re TBI; comparative fault, etc. Opening demand was $250,000.00
• Liability is not in dispute in this rear-end collision accident. Plaintiffs (husband, wife, and two minor children) were rear-ended and allege that the defendant attempted to drive away from the scene but was ultimately refrained from doing so. The adult Plaintiffs suffered soft tissue injuries, generally to the neck and back, as well as some radiating pain, which necessitated approx. $11,000 and $8,000, respectively, in past medical treatment.  Plaintiffs also contended that they would likely need some additional future care and treatment.  The Defendant’s position was that there was a significant delay in treatment, that there was one significant gap in treatment, and that the medical bills were not reasonable and that some of the medical care was not necessary.
• Plaintiff’s vehicle was rear-ended by the Defendant while in stop-and-go traffic, causing Plaintiff’s vehicle to make a second/subsequent impact into the vehicle immediately in front.  The defense did not dispute liability, but the main issue is valuation. The main issues of contention were: The defense thought that there was a 6 week delay of treatment; that upon presenting to a DC, the Plaintiff only reported knees injuries/pain, and not any injury to the neck and back; that the MRI of the lumbar and cervical spine were not warranted based on the Plaintiff’s non-reporting of cervical/lumbar pain, and that nevertheless said MRIs showed no/minimal injuries; that it was questionable whether PRP injections in to the knee were appropriate and/or whether they even helped with the pain; the likelihood of future injury was unknown.  The Plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that: there was a double impact, and that the primary rear impact was moderate; that the primary injury was to both knees and the cervical and lumbar issues were reported later because Plaintiff was focusing on the primary injury; that the plaintiff’s treatment was conservative and that the plaintiff otherwise would make a great witness. Opening demand was $50,000.
• This is a dispute liability case. Plaintiffs were driving straight through an intersection at which time it was alleged that the vehicles to the left of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, in both lanes, were at a complete stop.  The Defendant was trying to make a left turn through the intersection.  The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiffs’ vehicle was speeding, had not slowed down despite the vehicles to their right having come to a complete stop (to allow for the Defendant to make and complete the left turn), and as a result, the Plaintiffs’ vehicle collided with the Defendants.  Each of the two Plaintiffs (Driver and Passenger) incurred approx. $8,000 in past medical expenses arising from a variety of soft tissue injuries, and both alleged that future medical treatment may be likely. 
• Plaintiffs, three of them, were driving in a car together, at which time it is alleged that the defendant, while DUI, rear-ended their vehicle at a high rate of speed causing the Plaintiff’s vehicle to veer off and make contact with the center divider.  Plaintiff 1 (passenger) suffered significant internal injuries requiring him to be hospitalized for at least 3 days, and causing him to incur approx. $72,000 in medical expenses.  Plaintiff 2 (passenger) also suffered various compression fractures at the lumbar spine, was also hospitalized for a few days, and incurred approx. $41,000 in medical expenses. Plaintiff 3 (driver) suffered soft tissue injuries, and incurred approx. $1,500 in medical injuries. The Defendant had only a $15/$30 insurance policy which was tendered, and the gravamen of the dispute was apportionment of said funds and the defendant’s contribution towards a settlement, if any.
• This is a rear-end collision MVA, wherein the Plantiff’s vehicle sustained approx. $3,000 in PD and the Defendant’s vehicle sustained approx. $6,000 in damage.  Plaintiff was transported to the ER at which point he was diagnosed with cervical and lumbar injuries, concussion, vertigo, blurred vision, and visual floaters.  Plaintiff consulted with an ophthalmologist and received 20 session of PT.  While the soft tissue injuries appear to have subsided for the most part, the Plaintiff has some residual pain.  Plaintiff’s past medical special damages are approx. $7,000, and PD claim also remains unresolved.
• Plaintiff alleges that while installing some wiring, and work related thereto, on top of a ladder, he fell off of the ladder because of a dangerous condition on the surface below him, namely a whole or a cut-out in the wood flooring beneath him. Plaintiff alleges that had the whole or cut-out of the wood flooring beneath him should have had railings around it which would have prevented the Plaintiff from even being able to use his ladder at or around that particular area. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant(s) inter alia were negligent per se because of violations of CA. Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 3212, and Labor Code Section 6400. Plaintiff incurred approx. $80,000 in past medical special damages arising from treatment for broken teeth and a broken elbow requiring a radial head replacement. Plaintiff also claims LOE in the amount of approx. $24,000, as well as potential impact on his future long-term career prospects. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $750,000.
• Plaintiff was involved in an MVA causing her to seek treatment at the ER for the following injuries: bilateral knees, left forearm, and neck, etc., and more specifically her MRI revealed multiple 3+ mm protrusions at multiple levels of her cervical spine. Plaintiff alleges to have radiating pain, and also complains of residual pain that at the very least may require PRP injections into her knee.  Plaintiff incurred approx. $19,000 in past medical special damages, and also claims approx. $7,000 in out-of-pocket damages arising from veterinarian bills for injuries to her dog as well as having to paid someone to maintain her horse.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $250,000.
• Plaintiff was involved in a hit-and-run accident. The impact to the vehicle was moderate to severe, and Plaintiff’s injuries were significant requiring treatment from a D.C., and O.D., and later from P.M. including three ESIs.  Plaintiff continues to receive treatment from P.M., and continue to suffer residual pain and symptoms.  Plaintiff alleges substantial interference with his daily functioning and lifestyle including but not limited to affecting his work and studies.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $500,000.   
• Plaintiff alleges that she entered a store, presumably to use the bathroom, and that she slipped and fell on some soapy fluid on the floor causing her to fall and injure herself.  Plaintiff suffered injuries to her neck, lower back, right shoulder, hip and foot.  She received care and treatment from a D.C., O.D., as well as having received therapy and injections from a P.M. Plaintiff’s past medical special damages were approx. $68,000.  Defendant inter alia alleges that a verbal warning was given to the Plaintiff as she came close to the area being cleaned up, that there was a visible cone near the location of the incident, that the store was actually cleaning up a spill at the location of the fall and as such was discharging its duty of care within the applicable standard of care within the community.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $275,000.  
• Plaintiff’s vehicle was rear-ended causing minor impact. However, Plaintiff’s alleges bodily injuries were significant enough to have necessitated approx. $10,500 in medical treatment, as well as having allegedly caused the Plaintiff to have also incurred approx. $50,000 in past LOE and potentially approx. $90,000 in future LOE claims. Plaintiff also allegedly suffered very painful spams that inter alia caused her significant pain, suffering, etc.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $50,000.
• This case arises from a multi vehicle car accident. Plaintiff was driving vehicle 1 of 4 involved in the crash.  She alleges to have suffered significant bodily injuries as a result of the multiple and serious impacts causing her a plethora of soft-tissue injuries as well as up to 7mm bulges at various levels of her spine.  Plaintiff was a candidate for, and was recommended to receive, epidural injections and possibly fusion surgery on her spine if ESIs did not alleviate the pain.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $500,000.
• Insurance bad faith action arising from a dispute concerning a property damage claim. Plaintiff alleges that a covered claim was opened with the carrier, that initially an offer was made by the carrier to resolve the property damage claim, but that it was later learned that said offer was made without a property inspection. Later, the amount of the damages/reimbursement became disputed, and that once the amount was agreed upon, no payment was made by the carrier despite the passage of a measurable period of time.  Defendant inter alia claimed that the individual Plaintiff had no standing to sue for contractual damages, that an entity cannot recover for emotional distress, and that the real party in interest had not been sued.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $150,000.
• This is a disputed left-turn case that took place at an intersection wherein Plaintiff’s airbags deployed.  Plaintiff was trapped in his vehicle for an appreciable period of time, and suffered injuries to his throat, left hand and wrist, left shoulder, left knee, rib pain, as well as cervical and lumbar injuries. Plaintiff’s past medical special damages are approx. $18,000.
• Plaintiff was rear-ended by a commercial truck which jack-knifed as a result of the accident. Plaintiff received treatment at the ER, and shortly thereafter with a chiropractor.  Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to her spine, as well as radicular pain necessitating a NCS/EMG study. MRIs were completed revealing that ESI would be beneficial. Plaintiff had 4 ESIs, and was later diagnosed to be a candidate for bilateral microdecompression.  Plaintiff’s past medical special damages were approx. $90,000, anticipated future medical expenses at approx. $80,000 - 100,000. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $275,000.00
• In exchange for compensation, Plaintiff agreed to help the defendant with some home repairs prior to the sale of the property.  Part of that work was to be done on the roof of the subject property.  Plaintiff alleges that he went up on the roof using the ladder provided by the defendant and that on the way down, he lost his footing and the ladder collapsed causing him to fall 6-8 feet to the ground. Plaintiff suffered significant bodily and neurological injuries requiring approx. $70,000 in past medical specials. Plaintiff contends that he lost consciousness, lost hearing in one ear, and that he also suffered mild TBI. Opening Demand was $250,000.
• Plaintiff was the middle vehicle involved in a three (3) car accident, was rear-ended and pushed into the front vehicle. Plaintiff suffered cervical and lumbar injuries, as well as now having floaters in her eyes as a result of the impact. Plaintiff incurred approx. $9,000 in past medical special damages, but more significantly also alleged significant interference with her daily activities as a result of her bodily injuries as well as from frequent headaches as a result of the incident.  Plaintiff’s husband also made a loss of consortium claim.  Plaintiff global opening demand was $60,000.
• This case involved a rear-end collision wherein Plaintiffs’ Isuzu was impacted by Defendant’s Dodge Ram.  Plaintiff No. 1 sustained injuries to her cervical and lumbar spine (with radiculopathy), right shoulder, and thumb, which necessitated chiropractic, orthopedic and other treatments including but not limited to ESIs (which were not successful in relieving her pain and as such she is not a spine surgery candidate and multiple levels).  Plaintiff also contends, and her expert cardiologist were ready to opine, that as a result of the impact and trauma from the accident, she also suffered a heart attack which she has not, and will not likely, recover from completely and which has permanently derailed the balance of her life.  Plaintiff No. 2 suffered minor injuries.  Plaintiffs’ combined past medical specials were approx. $240,000, anticipated future medical specials were approx. $260,000.  Plaintiffs’ starting demand was $350,000.
• Plaintiff alleges that while a customer at a high-volume restaurant, we slipped and fell on some unidentified liquid (believe to be oil or oil-based) causing her to fall on her side and back.  Plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck, back, hip and shoulder, necessitating chiropractic care as well as three ESIs.  Plaintiff’s MRI, most notably, showed a 9mm psuedoherniation which the defense argued was likely congenital.  Plaintiff alleges that she is still symptomatic, that the ESIs have not provided her with long-term relief, and that she is a candidate for surgery.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $150,000.
• Plaintiff contends that while viewing a rental property with her husband and one year old child, she slipped and fell on or near some steps which has some debris/gravel that caused the accident.  Defendant denied notice, denied the existence of any material on the ground and/or any condition on the property that did, or could have, cause the accident.  Plaintiff alleges that the onsite manager who was showing them the property as prospective tenants admitted after the accident that he was aware of the debris and that he knew that it needed cleaning up.  In addition to soft tissue injuries to her spine, Plaintiff severely fractured her ankle necessitating 2 surgeries (installation and removal of hardware). Plaintiff incurred approx. $45,000 in past medical specials, anticipated approx. $30,000 in future medical specials, as well as upwards of $10,000 in past LOE damages.  Plaintiff’s estimate of the total value of the case was upwards of $400,000, and the starting demand was $350,000.
• Plaintiff is his 90s, and is a tenant at defendant’s complex. Plaintiff alleges that he was on the way to dispose of the trash, taking the usual route that he had always taken, at which point he saw the property manager who told him about a shorter, alternative, route to dispose of the trash. Plaintiff follow the suggestion of the property manager and took the suggested route, which he had not taken in the past. Plaintiff alleges that due to poor lighting, he missed a step at the top of some outside stairs and fell off of all of the said stairs (approx. 5-7 steps), thus impacting the ground with his entire body, because said outside stairs did not have a railing on the side. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered soft tissue injuries to various levels of this spine as well as TBI.  The defense’s position inter alia was that Plaintiff was not wearing his eye glasses (he allegedly had very poor vision), there was no lighting issue with the location of the fall, the stair at issue were code compliant, that there was no objective medical findings that supported a TBI, and that during his life Plaintiff had multiple injuries and surgeries to his spine.  Opening demand was $750,000.
• Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle caused a severe impact upon his vehicle as the Defendant was speeding while turning left to make it to court in time.  Plaintiff sustained a plethora of injuries including but not limited to his lumbar spine and shoulder, with radiating pain, which necessitated thee ESI’s as well as surgery to his lumbar spine. Plaintiff is also a candidate for future fusion surgery, as well as a possible shoulder surgery.  Most notably, Plaintiff’s MRIs showed 5mm+ bulges at the L3-L4 region in addition to other (less serious) bulges in other regions.  The Defense was focused on inter alia medical causation and costs of treatment, and the Plaintiff’s position was that the policy was opened.  
• Plaintiff’s Honda civic was rear-ended by Defendants Lincoln Towncar, causing what the defense categorized as a minor impact. Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries which required her to seek immediate treatment at an ER, and later with an Orthopod and Chiropractor.  In addition to pain in her spine, which had radiculopathy, Plaintiff alleges pain, numbness and tingling in her left hand. Plaintiff’s past medical special damages are approx. $22,000, and she contends that she will have between $5,000 to $20,000 in future medical treatment for flare ups and follow up visits.  Defense’s position is that inter alia some of the treatment was not reasonably necessary, and that the cost of the past medical treatment should have been in the region of $6,000.
• Plaintiff alleges that as she was walking into Defendant’s store, the door closed quickly and abruptly making contact with the back of her ankle causing a deep cut around her heel and Achilles tendon. Neither side identified what part of the door did, or could have, caused the laceration, though it was not disputed that the cut occurred as a result of the door making contact with the Plaintiff’s foot. Plaintiff went to the Hospital that same day and had approx. 8-10 stiches.  After some additional treatments and therapy, Plaintiff had, what the defense characterized as “elective”, scar revision surgery.  Some complications during her recovery from said surgery, the Plaintiff alleges, has caused her to have some numbing, tingling, and pain in and around where the cut was. Plaintiff incurred approx. $80,000 in past medical special damages.
• For purposes of mediation, this was an admitted liability case. Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by Defendant’s vehicle causing Plaintiff’s vehicle to be declared a total loss. Plaintiff immediately suffered injuries to her head, neck, upper and lower back, as well as her right ankle.  Plaintiff received physical therapy, and later an MRI which revealed radiculopathy. Plaintiff consulted with an expert who recommended that she have ESI, which she did.  Plaintiff past medical special damages was approx. $25,000, and she was also considering future spine/neck surgery. 
• This is an admitted liability rear-end collision. Plaintiff, 82 years old, suffered soft tissue injuries that forced him to incur approx. $14,000 in past medical special damages, and possibly a further $10,000 in future medical treatment.  Plaintiff’s medical records presented a variety of degenerative and other age-related issues, which Plaintiff argued made him the textbook egg-shell plaintiff. Plaintiff also contended that given his age, the accident significantly interfered with his quality of life.  
• This is an admitted liability rear-end collision wherein a car impacted a work-truck that Plaintiff was driving. Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries including a 3mm disc bulge at L1-L2 and L3-L4, and a 2mm bulge at L2-L3 and L5-S1. Other than the foregoing soft tissue injuries, Plaintiff also complained of headaches and dizziness, etc.  Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $7,500, and Plaintiff claimed approx. $25,000 in LOE.  Plaintiff was recommended to have ESIs, but as of the date of the mediation, he had not had them.  Defense inter alia argued minor impact, no documentation in support of LOE claim, possible pre-existing condition, etc.
• Plaintiff went to the bar/lounge owned and operated by the Defendant with a group of friends to celebrate a recent graduation. A group of people began bothering the Plaintiff’s group. The sole security guard on shift was hailed and he diffused the situation. Thereafter, another negative interaction began between one or more patrons and the Plaintiff’s group, at which time the Plaintiff tried himself to diffuse the situation. Plaintiff alleges that at this time, the security guard was nowhere to be found.  As a result, the Plaintiff was beaten up causing him injuries including a fractured ankle.  Plaintiff contends that his past medical damages are approx. $50,000, future medical damages are approx. $50,000, and that he incurred approx. $60,000 in loss of earnings.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was $650,000.00. Defendant argues that one security guard per the number of patrons present was within the standard of care; that they bar/lounge did not have prior notice of past fights or the instant fight so as to have made the subject incident foreseeable; plaintiff assumed the risk; the actual harm was caused by the perpetrator that fled the location, etc.
• This is a disputed liability slip-and-fall at a store. Plaintiff alleges that she slipped on some unidentified greasy liquid immediately outside the store, close to the shopping cart area.  Plaintiff suffered cervical and lumbar injuries as well as torn meniscus and contusion to her knee. She was recommended to have arthrosporic surgery to repair the damage to her knee, and if that did not resolve the issues, to have a total knee replacement.  She incurred approx. $15,000 in past medical bills, and anticipated approx. $100,000 in future medical care. Plaintiff’s opening demand is $200,000.
• This is a disputed liability slip-and-fall at a store. Plaintiff alleges that she slipped on some grapes and unidentified liquid located on the ground between the produce area and the entrance of the store.  Plaintiff alleges that she fell backwards, and in doing so injured her head, back, and humeral neck fracture of the left shoulder.  Plaintiff was transported to the hospital wherein she had a borage of CT scans and MRIs.  She had follow up treatment by a Chiropractor, Orthopod, Nuerologist, and Pain Management Specialist. She incurred approx. $30,000 in past medical bills. Plaintiff’s opening demand is $250,000.
• Liability is not in dispute in this auto vs. auto case. Plaintiff’s vehicle was T-boned resulting in Plaintiff suffering serious soft tissue injuries, including but not limited to a 6mm disc bulge in his lumbar spine. Plaintiff’s past medical specials were approx. $12,000, and it was anticipated that future medical treatment was likely. 
• Plaintiff was riding his bicycle and alleged that seconds before the impact the Defendant negligently opened his car door without first checking whether it was safe to do so. The bicycle and the Plaintiff first made contact with the inside driver’s side door of the defendant, and then impacted the ground.  The defendant admitted that the impact occurred instantly after opening his door, and that the Plaintiff was fault free, though later on the defendant also took the position that the Plaintiff was listening to music, smelled like alcohol and that he was not riding his bicycle carefully.  Plaintiff incurred approx. $70,000 in past medical bills for injuries to his back and most notably a 5mm tear to his rotator cuff. Opening demand was $250,000.
• This is a disputed liability case – red light dispute wherein the Defendant’s vehicle T-Boned the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The impact was severe, and Plaintiff had to be removed from the vehicle by the emergency services.  Plaintiff’s suffered a plethora of soft-tissue injuries including to his neck, upper mid and lower back, shoulder, elbow, knee and sternum. Plaintiff’s past medical bills are approx. $15,000, and the remaining property damage and out of pocket damages are approx. $4,000.  
• This is a first party claim for coverage under Uninsured policy. Plaintiff was fault-free and was involved in a three-car accident which caused the Plaintiff’s vehicle multiple impacts and to spin.  Plaintiff suffered various soft tissue injuries most notably between 3mm to 5mm disc bulges in her lumbar spine which necessitated trigger point injections. Plaintiff also complained of radiculopathy and radiating pain. Plaintiff’s past and anticipated future medical expenses is approx. $25,000.  In addition, Plaintiff also alleges that the subject accident re-aggravated her rumatoid arthritis, as such she alleges that she is an “egg shell” plaintiff and that her injuries (as well as her loss of transportation) caused her to delay the commencement of her graduate degree program.
• Plaintiff was a passenger in a ride-share vehicle, at which time the Defendant’s vehicle impacted a third vehicle which ultimately impacted the ride-share vehicle within which the Plaintiff was riding. The impact was moderate as were the property damage to the various vehicles. Plaintiff was transported to the ER wherein she had MRI and other diagnostic work. Plaintiff’s chief complaints in this case were neck, shoulder, back and low back. Most significantly, and intern alia, Plaintiff alleges that she suffered a 6mm rotator cuff tear in her shoulder as well as 8mm disc bulge to her lumbar spine.  Plaintiff alleges that she was a candidate for ESI and possible surgery for her back, as well as a surgery candidate for her shoulder injury.  Opening demand was policy limits at $100,000.
• This case involves an alleged dangerous lane change by a truck driven by the Defendant that made contact with the Plaintiff’s vehicle causing it to veer off of the freeway and hit the barrier on an adjacent freeway on-ramp. Liability was not in dispute. The impacts upon the Plaintiff’s vehicle were severe, and Plaintiff suffered injuries to her head, neck, and throughout her spine. Plaintiff alleges ongoing/residual pain, and also alleges that future medical treatment is both likely and reasonably necessary.  Plaintiff incurred approx. $35,000 in past medical expenses, and anticipated approx. $150,000 in future medical treatment. 
• This case involves a rear end collision, wherein the Defendant’s vehicle impacted the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle which in turn caused a second impact between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the vehicle ahead of him. Liability was not in dispute.  The impacts were moderate to severe, and Plaintiff suffered soft-tissue injuries and incurred approx. $42,000 in past medical treatments including an ESI. Defendant disputed the amount of damages; argued that much of the medical treatment was not causally connected to the accident; and otherwise argued that the medical bills were inflated and for unnecessary treatment.
• This is an auto v. auto case. Liability is not in dispute, though damages are. Plaintiff was rear-ended causing what the plaintiff contended was a moderate impact, and what the defendant contended caused a minor impact. Plaintiff suffered injuries to her neck and back. After chiropractic treatment, and some diagnostic work (MRIs as well as Nerve Conduction Studies), plaintiff has two ESI’s and was later recommended to have disc decompression surgery. Plaintiff’s past medical special damages were approximately $40,000, and it was anticipated that her future treatment would cost another $200,000.  Plaintiff’s opening demand was in the range of $1,000,000. 
• This is a disputed liability case. Plaintiff claims that he was driving within the speed limit at which time he was unable to prevent from impacting the defendant’s vehicle who allegedly had ran a stop sign. Defendant in turn contends that the Plaintiff was speeding and that the defendant had safely stopped at the stop sign and entered the intersection to proceed forward.  Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries, and based on MRI’s prior to the accident, it appeared that at least some of his spine injuries were exacerbations of prior complaints.  Plaintiff incurred approx. $10,000 in past medical bills. 
• This is a disputed liability case. Plaintiff as turning left at an intersection and Defendant was driving straight through the intersection.  Plaintiff contends that at the time that she attempted to turn from the middle of the intersection the Defendant had a red light and thus should not have entered the intersection. The Plaintiff offered two witnesses; one was a pedestrian who claimed that because he had a green light to cross the pedestrian crosswalk at the time of the impact, that can only mean that the Defendant who was travelling in the opposite direction must have had a red light; the other purported to have seen that the Defendants light was red. Plaintiff incurred approx. $10,000 (post Howell) medical bills, and suffered soft tissue injuries with some residual pain. Defendant argue that Plaintiff was negligent per se or at the very least comparatively at fault.
• Plaintiff lived in a rental unit about a commercially zoned shop.  As she was walking up the exterior stairs leading up to her unit, she slipped and fell near the top of the stairs and in an attempt to prevent her fall she grabbed onto some wooden lattice structure that was fixed to the handrails. Plaintiff alleges that the wooden lattice structure was lose and defective and had it been properly fixed to the metal railings, then she would have been able to prevent her fall or at the very least minimize the injury suffered. Plaintiff contended that the landlord and/or the property manager had both actual and constructive notice of the defective railings (including the lattice structure). Plaintiff had multiple CT scans for her cervical and lumbar spine, suffered soft tissue injuries, and incurred approx. $10,000 in medical bills arising from chiropractic care, some diagnostics/imaging work, as well as several orthopedic consultations.  Defense argued open and obvious defect, plaintiff’s notice of the alleged condition, as well as comparative fault. Plaintiff's opening demand was $150,000.
• This case involved a truck v. auto accident wherein the truck side swiped the plaintiffs’ vehicle causing a significant impact. There were three plaintiffs: driver, passenger, and their minor child. The driver suffered cervical, lumbar, and thoracic injuries necessitating approximately $100,000 in medical treatment including but not limited to multiple MRIs, multiple consultations with orthopods, as well as three ESIs, chiropractic and pain management treatment. The personal injuries of the passengers were less significant. Plaintiff driver was a surgery candidate but as of the date of the mediation, no surgery had taken place.  Opening demand was approx. $500,000. 
• Plaintiff vehicle rear-ended the defendant’s vehicle based on the allegation that the defendant’s vehicle braked abruptly causing the accident.  It was also alleged that because the defendant was speeding and not following the car ahead at a safe distance, the defendant actually caused not only the accident with the plaintiff, but also an accident with the cars ahead of the defendant.  Plaintiff suffered soft tissues injuries as well as some scarring. Her past medical bills amounted to approx. $8,000, and she anticipated needing some cosmetic care to address her scar, as well as incurring past lost earnings.  
• This is a three vehicle, double impact car accident. Plaintiff was in the middle vehicle.  She was rear-ended, causing her vehicle to strike the one in front. The impact was moderate. Plaintiff suffered injuries to her neck, back, and hip, and incurred approx. $15,000 in medical bills. She was treated by a chiropractor, and was also seen by an Orthopod, and a Neurologist.  She had multiple MRI’s that showed 1-2 mm disc protrusions at various levels. Plaintiff’s NCV study was unremarkable. 4 years post accident, Plaintiff is still complaining of ongoing neck pain.
• This is a 2-car accident. Liability was not in dispute. In addition to a plethora of soft tissue injuries suffered by the Plaintiff, he also tore his rotator cuff necessitating a possible future arthroscopic surgery – which Plaintiff as of the time of his deposition had stated he did not have because of his inability to miss time off of work.  The past medical special damages are approx. $12,000, and the anticipated future medical special damages are approx. $60,000.
• A disputed liability 2-car “left turn” accident. Plaintiff contends that she was struck by the turning vehicle, while the defendant contends that Plaintiff was driving erratically, following/trying to catch up with another car, and as such allegedly sped through the intersection trying to beat the light.  The impact was moderate to severe, and plaintiff’s vehicle was declared a total loss.  Plaintiff suffered soft-tissue injuries, totaling approx. $16,000 in past medical special damages.   
• Plaintiff, a condo owner, woke up one morning to find that there was serious water leak from the upstairs unit. Plaintiff went upstairs to address the source of the leak. Unsuccessful in reaching the upstairs neighbor, Plaintiff returned to her own unit, at which time the water leak in her unit had gotten worse, which caused her to slip and fall in her unit.  Liability and damages were in dispute. The defense, inter alia, claimed that Plaintiff had undisclosed pre-existing conditions, and that she failed to act reasonably in responding to the leak. 
• This is a UM case involving a 2-car accident between the insured/plaintiff and the at-fault driver who was both uninsured and intoxicated at the time of the accident.  Plaintiff contended that she was hit without warning on the right/passenger side of her car, causing it to spin several times.  Her vehicle was deemed a total loss. The carrier contended that the at-fault driver did not hit plaintiff’s car from the right but rather that the accident was a “left turn” case wherein an appreciable amount of comparative fault should be placed on the plaintiff. The proffered reason for the discrepancy between the parties’ theories as identified in the police report arose allegedly because Plaintiff was transported to the ER prior to speaking with the on-scene police investigators.  Plaintiff suffered soft-tissue injuries amounting to approx. $12,000 in past special damages.
• This case involved a rear-end collision between a semi-truck and a car. The impact was severe. Plaintiffs were the driver and passenger of the car, and they sustained serious soft tissue injuries, and one Plaintiff suffered a compression fracture to his spine. Plaintiffs’ combined past medical specials were approx. $130,000, and there was no evidence as to future surgery or any significant necessary future medical care. Since the accident, a majority of the Plaintiffs’ complaints have remained residual, and Plaintiffs still reported having serious and life-altering pain. Plaintiffs’ combined opening demand was $1,000,000.
• A motor vehicle accident involving 2 cars. Liability not in dispute.  Plaintiff suffered injury to his neck, back and shoulder, and incurred approx. $11,000 in past medical specials.  As to Plaintiff’s future care, he was recommended ESI for his cervical injuries, and a right shoulder arthroscopic procedure. Total future medical specials are approx. $55,000-$60,000.  To date, neither of the foregoing proposed treatment has taken place because of Plaintiff’s over health complications and considerations. The opening demand was $200,000.
• This accident involved a four-car collision, wherein the Plaintiff was vehicle #3.  Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained a severe impact. Plaintiff sustained lumbar sprain/strain syndrome with lumbar radiculopathy.  In addition to chiropractic treatment, Plaintiff was also recommended to have lumbar fact injections at L4-5 and L5-S1. Plaintiff incurred approx. $8,500 in past medical bills, and anticipated incurring up to $50,000 in future medical treatment.  Plaintiff demanded the policy limits of $50,000.  Defendant argued that Plaintiff had prior accidents, prior injuries to the same body parts, etc.
• A disputed liability case wherein the Plaintiffs allege that while driving in the #3 lane on a freeway they were side-swiped by a truck hauling a trailer which was travelling in the #4 lane. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs vehicle caused the accident because of a tire blowout.  Plaintiffs incurred approx. $19,000 and $9,000, respectively, in medical expenses, and each received treatment for injuries to their cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine.  Both Plaintiffs were recommended with future treatment in the event of a flare up.
• A slip and fall case with liability and damages in dispute. Plaintiff contends that he slipped on water leaking from an alleged over-stacking of pre-packed water bottles/display.  To brace his fall, Plaintiff contends that his shoulder and his entire left side made contact with the water bottle display.  Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries as well as tear in his rotator cuff and upper bicep, necessitating a surgery.  Plaintiff’s opening demand is $600,000.
• Plaintiff is a long-term tenant at a small apartment complex in Los Angeles. The surface level garage is gated, but the gate is manually operated. On the date of the incident, Plaintiff was opening the sliding metal gate at which time it became dislodged and fell on the Plaintiff.  Plaintiff contends that she lost consciousness for an unknown period of time, and that two bystanders aided her in getting the approx. 300+ lbs metal gate off of her.  Plaintiff suffered injuries to her head, shoulder, neck, lower back and knee, and thereafter she had arthroscopic surgery to her knee to address a torn ACL and minuscus.  Plaintiff’s medical bills total approx. $100,000 and she also claimed loss of earnings of between approx. $20,000 to $60,000 subject to proof.  Plaintiff contends that the knee injury is permanent and that it has, and that it will continue to, adversely affect the quality of her life.   
• This case arises from an accident between a vehicle and a police vehicle. Plaintiff contends that he had a green light and was travelling within the speed limit and that the police vehicle did not timely activate its lights/siren and did not ‘clear the intersection’ before entering it on a red light. The collision was moderate to severe, and caused the Plaintiff’s vehicle to impact a third vehicle.  Plaintiff’s medical special damages totaled approx. $70,000 – including arthroscopic knee surgery, injections to the knee, as well as treatment for neck and back injuries, most notably for an approx. 8mm disc bulge. Plaintiff has been recommended to have back surgery.  Defendant denied liability and damages, contended that many if not all of the Plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing, and that absent a defense verdict, the Plaintiff may be apportioned a measurable comparative fault/negligence percentage. 
• Plaintiff was starting her first semester at college, and moved in to a private but dorm-like complex. Plaintiff contends that as a result of poor drainage in the garage immediately and directly below her unit, there was mold in her unit causing her inter alia to suffer from headaches, rashes, digestive issues, sleep issues, congestion, shortness of breath, etc. In addition to this alleged physical condition, which the landlord denied, Plaintiff contended that the management company was negligent in its handling of the issue, allegedly being either untimely in their responses or unresponsive, and that the remedial measure completed were incomplete and not done consistent with the standard of care. Defendant dispute medical causation and damages.
• This was a disputed liability and damages case involving an alleged side-swipe car accident that caused the Plaintiff’s vehicle to also make two further impacts with two other cars.  Plaintiff was transported to the ER where her chief complaint was low back pain. Plaintiff underwent chiropractic care, acupuncture, as well as consultation with an Orthopod which gave rise to an Epidural Steroid Injection.  Plaintiff contended that she was a candidate for further injections as well as potential surgery. Plaintiff’s past medical special damages were approx. $27,000 and her lost earning were approx. $1,100.
• This is a disputed liability and damages care accident case involving a rear-end collision.  Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained approx. $12,000 in damages, as well as approx. $12,000 in lost earnings.  Plaintiff suffered injuries to her left chest, shoulder and arm, as well as left side of neck and radiating pain.  After an MRI, it was discovered that Plaintiff had a tear in her shoulder.  Plaintiff’s past medical special damages were approx. $8,000, with anticipated future medical special damages to be determined. Plaintiff anticipated that she was potentially a candidate for further treatment including but not limited to injections and/or surgery.
• This is a disputed liability and damages case arising from an allegation that multiple Palm Frond and other debris (weighing dozens of pounds) fell from an approx. 30-50 feet palm tree on top of the Plaintiff while he was walking towards his apartment. The trees were located on private property and were allegedly negligently maintained. The injuries necessitated a left shoulder surgery, and Plaintiff’s medical special damages were approx. $55,000, with anticipated general damages in the amount of $250,000.  The defense, inter alia, contended that the palm fronds and other debris likely fell straight down and not meandered to the side far enough to have struck the Plaintiff who was walking on the sidewalk.  
• A auto v. auto accident. Liability and damages are in dispute arising from a left-turn maneuver the defendant was making which allegedly caused the accident.  The impact was moderate to severe, causing Plaintiff to suffer soft tissue injuries to cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine.  Plaintiff’s medical bills amounted to approximately $12,000, her loss of earnings claim was approximately $14,000, and her anticipated general damages approximately and in excess of $40,000.
• A auto versus pedestrian accident.  Liability and damages in dispute.  Plaintiff, a lady in her golden years, contends that she was crossing the street with a green light at the pedestrian cross-walk. Defendant contends that he was driving straight with a green light and as he approached the cross-walk the Plaintiff stepped in front of his car.  Plaintiff was struck by the car’s side-view mirror. Plaintiff contended that she lost consciousness.  She was transported to the hospital. Plaintiff’s complains of injuries to her left hand, left ankle, left hip, left shoulder, etc.   Plaintiff’s past medical bills were $15,000.
• A first party/UIM case. Claimant was the fault-free driver who was rear-ended. Claimant had approx. $21,731 in damages, with a recommendation for epidural(s) injections and/or surgery if her pain persisted.  Claimant consulted with a Chiropractor, Physical Therapist, Orthopod, and Neurologist. Claimant allegedly suffered a disc bulge at C6-C7 in addition to shoulder pain which was radiating down her left arm. 
• This case involved a two vehicle accident. Only damages were in dispute. The accident caused a moderate to severe impact. Plaintiff had incurred various soft tissue injuries that necessitated two epidural injections, consultation with a Chiropractor, Orthopod, Neurologist, Pain Management specialist, etc. Past medical bills were approx. $55,000, and anticipated future medical special damages were estimated at $175,000.
• This is a disputed liability case. Plaintiff contended that he was driving straight and at a low speed at which time the Defendant backed out of a commercial driveway, hitting the Plaintiffs car on the front passenger's side. Defendant contended that she was not pulling out of any driveway but rather was completing a parallel park maneuver during which the rear driver's side of her vehicle was sticking out, which was struck by the Plaintiffs vehicle. Plaintiffs injuries were soft tissue with various 1 mm, 2 mm and 3 mm disc protrusions at the cervical spine levels. Plaintiffs had chiropractic and pain management treatment, and future injections and care were recommended.
• This is a two-vehicle car accident – disputed liability and damages.  Plaintiff contends that he was driving, with a green light, straight through an intersection, at which time the Defendant, travelling in the opposite direction, attempted to make a left turn.  Defendant contended that she commenced her left turn as the light was turning red and that the Plaintiff presumably accelerated to try to pass through the intersection.  Both vehicle sustained significant property damage, and Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained $15,000 (approx.) in damages.  Plaintiff suffered injury to his neck, upper and lower back, ribcage, left wrist, stomach and ankle, as well as experiencing headaches and episodic dizziness.
• This case involved a two-vehicle collision. Liability and damages were in dispute.  Plaintiff contended that she was impacted twice (once from the rear and once from the side), and the Defendant contended that the Plaintiff was speeding in the lane to the left and pulled ahead of the Defendant’s vehicle abruptly such that a collision could not be prevented.  Plaintiff complained of injury to her neck, right shoulder, chest, left arm and back, as well as suffering from headaches, and she was forced to go to the ER twice as well as to seek chiropractic care.
• This was a slip-and-fall case inside a grocery store.  Plaintiff alleged that she fell on a grape as well as an approx. 17-inch pool/puddle of water that was believed to have leaked from a nearby refrigerator.  Plaintiff contended that the store had both actual and constructive knowledge of the debris on the floor. Plaintiff also contended that the repair history of the refrigerator units showed that said units were old, needing multiple repairs, and thus likely to have leaked the water that caused the Plaintiff to slip.  Liability was disputed. Defendant relied on a sweep of the area that occurred approx. 22 minutes prior the incident, and also pointed to the fact that the subject incident occurred during an appox. 8.5-month period of time wherein there were no repair requests for the refrigerator units.  Plaintiff suffered a right knee prepatellar bursitis, which gave rise to a surgery to remove the bursa.  Thereafter, Plaintiff underwent physical therapy.
• Defendant allegedly passed out while driving and caused five plus collisions with different vehicles. Defendant's vehicle collided head on with Plaintiff's vehicle. Both Plaintiff's and her front seated passenger's airbags deployed. Plaintiff suffered a black eye, a bloody noise, as well as headaches, broken teeth, and neck/back/forearm pain.  Plaintiff has approximately $8,000-$9,000 in past special damages. 
• A first party UIM claim asserted by two Plaintiffs in their golden years against their own insurer. Plaintiff #1 had approx. $20,000 in medical specials, and Plaintiff #2 had approx. $7,500.  Plaintiffs complained of neck, shoulder, back, and knee injuries. Plaintiffs contended that they have been 'robbed' of their retirement/golden years due to the ongoing physical and emotional consequences of the incident.  Plaintiffs' combined opening demand is $180,000.
• This case involves a trip and fall that occurred as a result of a liquid substance that existed on the floors of Defendant’s public walkways. Plaintiff slipped on the puddle of liquid and impacted the left side of her body on the metal shelves. Plaintiff sought medical treatment as a result of the accident including cortisone injections and was recommended future medical care.
• This case involves a trip and fall that occurred at a medical center due to various wood and other debris negligently left and/or maintained on the premises by Defendant. Plaintiff suffered injuries from the fall, including complete rupture of rotator cuff and an ankle fracture with comminuted fracture of the distal fibula.  Plaintiff underwent an MRI and had positive findings. Plaintiff incurred a total of $35,000 in medical bills and was recommended future treatment. Plaintiff made a demand for $250,000 to settle his case. 
• A two-vehicle accident which occurred when Plaintiff was attempting a left turn and was rear ended by Defendant. The initial collision caused Plaintiff’s vehicle to spin out of control and then be struck by an additional vehicle. Defendant is claiming Plaintiff merged into Defendant’s path of travel without signaling, causing the accident, and is using the property damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle as evidence as to what their claims are. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sought medical treatment on the same day of the accident, presenting herself to the Emergency Room. No x-rays or MRIs were taken during the time Plaintiff treated. 
• This case arises from a slip and fall accident which occurred as Plaintiff was exiting a building. Plaintiff states she fell as a result of the files in front of the building not being flat, causing the heel of her shoe to get caught on the tile. Defendants’ experts were unable to find any violations of the building code.  
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant ran a stop sign and colluded with Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing Plaintiff’s vehicle to hit a pole, causing Plaintiff’s vehicle to be determined a total loss. Defendant’s insurance paid out $500 less than the Fair Market Value of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff sought medical treatment with a chiropractor and orthopedist. Plaintiff was diagnosed with segmental dysfunction of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine and also had a CT scan of his bran and MRI of his left knee. After having treated with the orthopedist, Plaintiff remained symptomatic in his left shoulder, left knee, cervical and lumbar spine and continues to have pain three to four times a week. 
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection as Defendant decided to make a left turn without checking oncoming traffic in the opposite direction. Plaintiff was facing the Defendant in the number one lane and proceeded through the intersection. At the same time, Defendant accelerated and made a left turn, colliding with Plaintiff’s vehicle and sending Plaintiffs vehicle across the intersection and head-first into a large wooden pole. The force of this collision caused Plaintiff’s airbags to deploy and Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed a total loss. At the time of the collision, Plaintiff was traveling with a front seat passenger. Both Plaintiff and his passenger suffered from multiple injuries and sought treatment.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred at a parking lot. Defendant ran a stop sign and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Because of this accident, Plaintiff sustained injuries to his neck, mid-back, lower back, right knee, right ankle, and aggravation of muscle atrophy of the right leg and right drop leg syndrome. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sought medical treatment and had significant findings in his lumbar MRI including several 5mm disc protrusions.
• A two-vehicle rear end collision which occurred as Plaintiff was attempting to make a right turn. Plaintiff incurred $6,500 of property damage to his vehicle. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sought medical treatment for his injuries and had positive findings in his MRI results including a 4mm left foraminal disc protrusion. Plaintiff received epidural injections to his lumbar spine.  Defendant has a policy limit of $100k which Plaintiff made a demand for but was offered $9,500 by Defense Counsel.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was hit by a forklift. Specifically, Plaintiff was standing near her truck when a Forklift reversed and hit her back and her vehicle. Plaintiff sought medical treatment as a result of this accident. Plaintiff was seen at the emergency room and had x rays taken which showed no evidence of fracture. Plaintiff made a $35k demand which was denied by Defendant’s insurance. Defendant’s insurance is claiming that Plaintiff had pre-existing conditions.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred as Plaintiff, who was traveling with a front seat passenger at the time, was stopped in an attempt to make a left turn and was rear ended. Defendant was traveling in a lane which was restricted for buses during the time of the collision. Plaintiff and passenger were injured as a result of the collision and sought medical treatment with a chiropractor for soft tissue injuries. The Plaintiff Driver had positive MRI findings including a 2-3mm disc bulge.
• This case arises from a vehicle v. pedestrian accident which occurred at a tri-light signal intersection. The accident occurred when Defendant made a left turn on a green light as Plaintiff was crossing the street at a crosswalk. The right front of Defendant’s vehicle came into contact with Plaintiff’s left side, causing the Plaintiff to fall onto the street. Defendant left the scene without providing identification. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries including 3-4mm disc bulges at two levels of his lumbar spine, resulting in Plaintiff being put on bedrest for three months.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred as Plaintiffs were attempting to enter their vehicle which was parked next to the curb, and Defendant crossed into the oncoming lane where Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked and hit it head on. Specifically, Plaintiff passenger had just gotten in the front seat and was attempting to put on her seatbelt, while her sister, the Driver, went to the rear of the vehicle to put her purse down in the backseat. The impact caused the Plaintiff Driver of the vehicle to be thrown into the street, unconscious. Because of the collision, both Plaintiff’s were taken by ambulance to the hospital with extensive injuries including a hematoma of the high right parietal scalp and abrasions. Defendant claims he blacked out before colliding with Plaintiff’s vehicle.
• A two-vehicle collision as Plaintiff was approaching an intersection and Defendant pulled from a stopped position across three lanes, striking Plaintiff. The impact was severe enough for airbags to deploy and cause over $30k in damages, causing Plaintiff’s vehicle to be declared a total loss. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff suffered multiple injuries including the need for a cast to her right wrist.
• A case involving two separate collisions, occurring on different dates, involving the same Plaintiff and Defendant, as well as Defendant registered vehicle owner. The first collision occurred when Defendant made a left turn directly in front of Plaintiff’s vehicle, resulting in $31k worth of property damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle. The second accident occurred between the Plaintiff and the registered vehicle owner Defendant. The collision occurred when Plaintiff, who was driving the same vehicle from the first accident, was rear ended by Defendant registered owner. As a result of the collisions, Plaintiff sought medical treatment.
• A three-vehicle chain reaction collision which occurred when Defendant rear-ended the vehicle ahead of them which was then pushed into Plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sustained multiple soft tissue injuries. Inclusive, Plaintiff was unable to get his vehicle repaired in 2 ½ years by the Defendant.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred as Defendant was exiting a shopping complex, attempting a left turn without being cautious of oncoming traffic and collided with the left side of Plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries.
• This case involves allegations that Defendant published various defamatory statements on social media websites that caused Plaintiff harm to her reputation and business. Defendant is arguing that even if they did publish various defamatory statements on social media, Plaintiff cannot prove that such statements resulted in damages to her reputation or business.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was attempting a left turn at an intersection and was struck by the Defendant. Plaintiff stated during deposition that the number one and two lanes were backed up with traffic. There were witnesses contesting that the Defendant was travelling at an unsafe speed during rush hour traffic, causing the collision.
• A multi-vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway when Plaintiff was stopped in traffic and was struck by the vehicle behind her. The vehicle behind her struck the rear of her vehicle as a result of the Defendant rear-ending a vehicle.  As a result of the collision Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred during Plaintiff’s scope and time of employment as a Traffic Officer for the Department of Transportation. Plaintiff was rear-ended at an intersection. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries including 3-4mm lumbar disc protrusions which were revealed in his MRI.
• This case involves a single side impact collision between a tractor trailer driven by Defendant and Plaintiff’s passenger van. Plaintiff was stopped at a stop light in the left turn lane waiting for her light to turn green when she saw the Defendant Payton exiting a freeway. The Defendant was driving a tractor trailer owned by AAA Highway Express. The Defendant Payton made a wide left turn. The left side of the middle his trailer struck the driver’s side of Plaintiff’s van.
• A two vehicle rear end accident which occurred at an intersection. Plaintiff was travelling with a front seat passenger. As a result of the collision, both Plaintiffs sought medical care. The Plaintiff driver suffered permanent injuries including  a 7-8 mm disc bulge and 8-9 mm disc bulge in his lumbar spine.
• A two-vehicle rear end accident which occurred at an intersection. Plaintiff was at a complete stop at a red light and once the light phased to green, proceeded forward when he was rear-ended. Because of the collision, Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained $10k in property damage and Plaintiff suffered injuries to his head, neck, low back, left buttock, left shoulder blade and left knee. Inclusive, the Plaintiff’s MRI studies revealed multiple disk protrusions to his cervical and lumbar spine.
• A case arising from a Plaintiff alleging to have fallen from a bus while attempting to exit through the rear doors. At the time, Plaintiff chose to stand in the aisle near the rear of the bus with a grocery cart in her possession, despite the fact that there were available seats to use. There is a witness on the bus that claims the Plaintiff faked the incident. Inclusive, Plaintiff claims to have landed on her right side but medical reports show complaints of pain to her left shoulder and arm.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an off-ramp of a freeway in which there were two right turn lanes, in which Plaintiff was in the first right turn exit late. As the light phased to green, Defendant, who was travelling at a high rate of speed careened into the side of Plaintiff’s vehicle, pushing it into the intersection.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection with 4-way stop signs. Plaintiff stopped and then proceeded into the intersection when Defendant ran the stop sign and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. The impact was so severe that Plaintiff’s vehicle was declared a total loss. Plaintiff sought medical treatment for injuries to his neck, back and right foot, as his foot became lodged underneath the brake pedal at the time of impact. The injury to his foot revealed that he would need future treatment.
• A case arising from a vehicle collision. Plaintiff was on his way home from physical therapy for a prior fall in which he injured his left wrist/elbow at the time of the accident. Plaintiff sought medical treatment for the accident and had an MRI which was normal. Plaintiff also received trigger point injections. Defense is arguing extensive unnecessary treatment and is claiming that Plaintiff is mentally unstable.
• A subrogation case arising from a two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant lost control of his vehicle, crossed over double yellow lines and collided with the Plaintiff. The total damages to the Plaintiff’s vehicle is more than the policy amount that the Defendant has. Plaintiff is demanding $41,614.49 and Defendant made an offer of $10,00.00. Plaintiff is seeking to recover the remaining balance from the Defendant, however the Defendant cannot afford to make payments as he is a father of three children and out of work.
• A three vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway when Plaintiff was rear-ended and pushed into the vehicle ahead of her. As a result, Plaintiff sought treatment for injuries to her neck and back. Defendant’s counsel is arguing that Plaintiff was not as injured as she claims to have been using an argument of Plaintiff having had a 6-month gap in treatment and returning to work sooner than her doctor had recommended.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred as Defendant pulled his vehicle over to the right side of the street as if to park his car and suddenly made a left\u-turn directly in front of Plaintiff’s path of travel, striking the right side of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant’s insurance initially admitted liability but abruptly changed their liability decision.
• A two vehicle rear end collision which occurred as Plaintiff came to a stop to make a left turn into a shopping center. Plaintiff was traveling with her son at the time of the accident. As a result, Plaintiff and her son sought medical treatment. Defendant is alleging that Plaintiff failed to use her left turn signal and braked suddenly, causing the accident.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection with a tri-phase light as Plaintiff entered the intersection to make a left turn on a yellow light and was struck by Defendant’s vehicle. Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant was racing another vehicle and although Defendant denies that he was racing, he admitted to travelling faster than the posted speed limit. The severity of the impact caused both vehicles to be a total loss. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff broke her fifth right metatarsal and sprained her right ankle and had scrapes and bruises on her face and legs.
• A three vehicle rear-end collision which occurred on a freeway when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant and pushed into the vehicle ahead of them. Plaintiff was traveling with her 11-year old son at the time of the collision, and the collision affected her son so significantly that he did not want to ride in a car again, his grades dropped in school and he sought psychological treatment. Plaintiffs are seeking 10k each from Defendant as a result of the collision.
• This case involves an insurance company filing a subrogation lawsuit against Defendants and is seeking recovery for total amount of property damage that it paid to its insured as a result of an auto accident. The accident involved a two-vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection. There is a liability dispute between Defendant and Cross-Defendant as to who hit who’s vehicle first.
• A three-vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway. Defendant and Former Defendant were driving their vehicles that was unreasonable given the condition of the roadway and the traffic thereon, causing a chain-reaction of rear-ended collisions. Defendant rear ended the car ahead, which caused the car to rear-end the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was traveling with a passenger at the time of the collision. As a result of the collision, both Plaintiff and passenger suffered multiple injuries, including the need for knee surgery.
• This case arises out of an automobile v. motorcycle accident. The Defendant caused his vehicle to collide with Plaintiff’s motorcycle, causing Plaintiff to be ejected from his motorcycle and collide with the roadway. Plaintiff was diagnosed with several injuries including concussion and brain injury. Plaintiff is making a claim against the defendant for property damages for the total loss of his motorcycle, pain and suffering, and loss of use.
• A two vehicle rear end collision. The Plaintiff, a chiropractor, was traveling with a front seat passenger at the time of the collision. Both Plaintiff and his passenger sought medical treatment as a result of the collision. An MRI for the Plaintiff driver revealed a 3-4mm disc protrusion. The passenger in this case has resolved his claim for three times his medical bills and Plaintiff driver is seeking an agreeable settlement amount, stating that he would utilize himself as an expert in his own right because he has been practicing chiropractic care for 32 years and understands the types of injuries that an auto accident can have on someone.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred as Defendant pulled out of a parking spot and directly in the path of Plaintiff’s vehicle who was traveling straight at the time of the collision. Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained massive front passenger side damage resulting in the total loss of his vehicle. Plaintiff was transported to the ER by ambulance due to complaints of chest pain. Plaintiff sought additional treatment for injuries to his neck and back. Plaintiff incurred $7,783 in medical expenses, including out of pocket expenses for a rental. Defendant has a policy of $15,000 and offered $5,000 to settle the claim. Plaintiff feels he is owed at minimum the market value of his car and the incurred out of pocket rental fees.
• A three vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway when Defendant initiated a lane change and rear ended Plaintiff’s Enterprise-Rent-A-Car vehicle, which was then pushed into the vehicle ahead. Plaintiff was a backseat passenger at the time of the accident traveling with two other individuals. Plaintiff, along with the driver and other passenger in the vehicle were within the course and scope of employment. The Plaintiff is an 82-year-old and suffered multiple injuries to his neck, back, chest, left shoulder and right knee. Plaintiff’s MRI revealed left humeral healed fracture, AC joint degenerative changes, labrum tear and biceps tendonitis.
• A trip and fall accident involving an elderly Plaintiff which occurred in the reception area of the Defendant’s office. Plaintiff fell as she stood up from her seat and fell upon tripping over the floor rug. Plaintiff fell forward on both knees and used her arm to break the fall. Plaintiff contends that the black area rug was not taped down, and therefore she caught the edge of the rug. As a result of the fall, Plaintiff sought medical treatment including bilateral knee cortisone shots and was recommended future medical care for her injuries.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway. The Plaintiff in this matter was a front seat passenger. Defendant claims she felt her car suddenly jerk, causing her to apply her brakes. Due to the rainy weather, the Defendant’s car slid out of control and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. The property damage to both vehicles was in excess of $5,900. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sought medical treatment and had positive findings in his MRI including a 5mm subluxation of L5-S1 and 4-5 mm asymmetric broad-based disc bulge. The Plaintiff is making a demand for the total policy limits of Defendant, $15,000.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection. Liability is being disputed as both parties contend that the other ran the red light. Although the Plaintiff had a driver behind her which agrees with Plaintiff’s statement of how the collision occurred, there was also a pedestrian present attempting to cross the street and Defendant stated that the pedestrian “jumped back” when trying to cross due to the Plaintiff’s vehicle fast approaching the intersection. Both counsels are considering whether or not the pedestrian jumped back due to the Plaintiff’s fast approaching vehicle running the red light or the pedestrian jumped back as a result of realizing their crosswalk signal changed, not allowing the pedestrian to completely cross the street before the traffic signal changed. Plaintiff received medical care in total of $9,521. Settlement discussions have not been made.
• A three-vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway. The accident occurred due of Defendant’s engine failing. As a result, the Defendant was rear-ended by the Plaintiff who was then rear-ended by the Cross-Defendant. There is dispute of liability between Cross-Defendant and Defendant. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sought medical treatment.
• A personal injury case arising from a collapsed floor in the shower of the Plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff was getting ready to health bathe her 10-year-old daughter when suddenly the floor collapsed, causing the Plaintiff to become trapped knee deep until being removed by a crew of firefighters. The Plaintiff was then transported to the hospital and was treated for injuries to her leg, foot, ankle and low back. Plaintiff contends that the manager acted negligently in maintaining a safe and habitable living space, as the Plaintiff had previously complained of loose flowing and leaking water into the garage from the upstairs shower. Plaintiff is seeking $50,000 from the property management company.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred because of Defendant making an unsafe lane change and rear-ending Plaintiff. Because of the collision, Plaintiff sought chiropractic and orthopedic care and had a total of $6,670 in medical bills. Defendant offered $2000 to resolve the claim and Plaintiff demanded $9,000.
• A slip and fall which occurred at a gas station due to a spill on the ground. Plaintiff slipped and fell outside of the gas station near a gas pump. Defendant’s argue that the Plaintiff may have taken a misstep as opposed to slipping and falling to the ground and question the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries.          
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant rear ended Plaintiff’s vehicle while exiting a freeway. Plaintiff sought medical treatment as a result of the collision. The doctor she treated with stated Plaintiff would need future medical care including epidural injections. Plaintiff has a total of $11,436 in medical specials and Defendant made an offer of $11,961.85.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant entered the intersection on a red light and collided into Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing the Plaintiff’s vehicle to spin out of control. Plaintiff was traveling with a front seat passenger at the time of the accident and both sought medical treatment, and both received epidural and steroid indulges due to dis protrusions and disc bulges of the lumbar spine. Plaintiff Driver made a demand for $145,000 and the Plaintiff Passenger made a demand for $50,000.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, who was traveling with a passenger at the time, attempted to negotiate a left turn and Defendant failed to stop his vehicle at this red stop light and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result, Plaintiff and his passenger sought medical treatment and Plaintiff had an MRI with positive findings including a 2mm broad right foraminal protrusion with moderately severe right neutral foraminal stenosis and a 2mm posterior rightward bulge. Plaintiff presents a demand for $50,000 and his passenger presents a demand for $20,000.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred in a parking lot. Plaintiff was at a complete stop waiting for a parking space to come available, when suddenly Defendant reversed out of a parking space and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff was transported by ambulance to the emergency room where she was given pain medication and diagnosed with cervical, thoracic and lumbar strain. Plaintiff also sought treatment with a chiropractor who referred client to have an MRI which resulted in positive findings including a 3-4mm disc herniation of Plaintiff’s cervical spine and a 4-5mm disc herniation of her lumbar spine. Plaintiff incurred a total of $211,568.58 and is recommended future care total 3,000,000. If case goes to trail, Plaintiff will seek no less than $7,000,000.
• A slip and fall case in which the Plaintiff entered the produce aisle of a grocery store and slipped on an unknown clear substance, causing him to hyperextend his left knee, causing injuries to both knees, back and left elbow. Plaintiff sought medical treatment for left and right knee medial meniscus tears, left elbow pain, shoulder and neck pain. Plaintiff had an MRI with positive findings, as well as a left knee arthroscopy with positive findings. Plaintiff’s past medical bills total over $75,000. Plaintiff continues to suffer from right knee pain that will require a future right knee arthroscopy with partial meniscectomy which is estimating to be $50,000 including post-operative care and treatment. Plaintiff is making a demand for $287,000.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, who was riding his motorcycle at the time, was stopped directly behind Plaintiff when suddenly and without warning, Defendant backed his vehicle into Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff to be knocked off his motorcycle and fall to the ground. Because of the collision, Plaintiff sought treatment and an MRI revealed the following positive findings: 2-3mm disc protrusion of L3-L4, 2-3mm disc protrusion of L4-L5, a tear of the superior labrum extending 3-4mm in depth, and evidence of bone contusion and fluid within the shoulder and tendinopathy. Plaintiff then sought treatment with an orthopedic doctor who recommended future care including steroid and hydrocortisone injections. The orthopedic doctor also advised that Plaintiff is a candidate for left shoulder surgery.
• A two vehicle which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff, travelling straight with passenger with a green light, was struck by Defendant who made a left turn. Defendant then fled the scene of the collision, later returning to recover debris that identified the vehicle he was driving. Defendant smelled of alcohol. Plaintiff’s sought medical treatment as a result of the accident. There has been no settlement discussion.
• A two-vehicle collision which appeared when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant. Before the collision occurred, Plaintiff noticed the vehicle in front of her had stopped in an attempt to parallel park before she was rear ended. Due to the force of the impact, the Plaintiff was pushed into the vehicle ahead of her and hit her head on the steering wheel, resulting in a cut lip. Plaintiff incurred nearly 10k in medical builds and is making a demand of $46k for future medical treatment.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred as Plaintiff was preparing to enter a traffic circle and was rear ended by Defendant. Plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed three car lengths into the circle. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sought medical treatment and had positive MRI findings including a 3mm disc bulge of the cervical spine and a 5-mm disc protrusion with stenosis. Due to the accident, the Plaintiff can no longer take part in his usual activities as a cross-fit athlete.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, who was traveling with a front seat passenger, was rear-ended. Because of the collision, Plaintiff and passenger sought medical treatment. The front seat passenger is seeking $224,956.00 and the driver has not made a demand but was recommended future treatment including injections that cost 8-$10,000.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff entered the intersection and collided with Defendant who was making a left turn. The impact caused Plaintiff’s vehicle to strike a third vehicle which was stopped at a red light. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sustained injuries and had an MRI which revealed positive findings including a 7MM disc herniation of the lumbar spine.
• A premise’s liability case in which a guest attempted to close the blinds and a metal shade cover fell off and landed on his head. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with a concussion. 
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection. Because of the collision, Plaintiff was taken to the emergency room to be treated for traumatic findings, including a left sided facial abrasion and a contusion. 
• A slip and fall incident which occurred at a school when a parent, who was volunteering in her son’s class at the time, slipped and fell outside the main administrative office at the school. According to the school’s employees, the janitors were aware that there was a spill and did not take precautionary measures to avoid the possibility of a slip and fall. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff sought chiropractic and orthopedic medical care and was diagnosed with multiple sprain/strains. Plaintiff incurred a total of $7,440 in medical costs. Plaintiff made a settlement demand of $32,000.  
• An underinsured case involving four vehicle high speed collision which occurred on a freeway when Defendant rear ended the vehicle behind the Plaintiff and pushed the Plaintiff’s vehicle onto the center divider. Defendant had a 15/30 policy which was divided between the 3 parties which were not at fault. Plaintiff is seeking to recover the policy limits of his underinsured motorist policy.
• A two vehicle rear-end collision. Liability has been accepted by Defendant for purposes of mediation. Defendant contests nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff had a cervical and lumber MRI with positive findings and also received epidural injections. Plaintiff made a demand for $65,000 and Defendant’s last offer was $20,000.
• A two-vehicle rear end collision which occurred on a freeway. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sought medical care with a chiropractor and neurologist who diagnosed Plaintiff with a concussion and musculoskeletal injuries. Inclusive, Plaintiff’s husband made a claim for loss of consortium.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection as Defendant made a left turn and collided with Plaintiff who was traveling straight at the time. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sought medical treatment and was recommended shoulder surgery by his orthopedic doctor. 
• A three-vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway. The collision occurred at the entrance of the freeway as Plaintiff was entering and the lanes merged into one. Liability Is being disputed.
• A three-vehicle rear end collision which occurred when Defendant rear-ended the vehicle in front of him which then pushed that vehicle into the rear of Plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sought medical treatment. Plaintiff has a limited policy.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when the defendant attempted to make a left turn at a T-intersection when she collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle who was traveling straight with a front seat passenger at the time. Because of the accident, Plaintiff sought medical treatment and has an MRI which revealed a 2mm broad left paramedian protrusion and a 2mm bulge at L4-L5. Due to continuing pain, she was recommended and received trigger point and facet joint injections as well as cervical epidural injections. 
• An auto v. pedestrian case which occurred when Defendant ran over Plaintiff who was seated on a curb working. The Plaintiff was painting the fire lane red when the Defendant, who was parked with his car running at the time, moved his vehicle forward and struck the Plaintiff as he was kneeling and working. The Plaintiff suffered injuries because of- the accident and was transported to the hospital via ambulance.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Defendant attempted to make a left turn and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant is alleging that Plaintiff did not come to a complete stop at the intersection which caused the collision.
• A subrogation mediation arising from a four vehicle collision which occurred as a result of Plaintiff being rear ended by the defendant. The defendant’s insured is looking to recover what was paid out to the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant’s negligence. 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Defendant attempted a left turn and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant’s vehicle continued traveling after it struck Plaintiff’s vehicle and collided with a third vehicle. Plaintiff has made a demand for property damage as well as a demand of 15k for the bodily injury claim. Defendant’s insurance made no offers due to multiple claimants. 
• A two vehicle rear end collision which occurred on the freeway. Plaintiff received medical treatment as a result of the accident and had positive findings in her MRI including a 3mm disc protrusion.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant backed out of a driveway and collided with the right side of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Although Plaintiff sought medical treatment, Defense counsel is arguing that because the impact was so slight, the medical treatment was excessive.
• A disputed liability case involving a two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff attempted to make a left turn into a shopping center and was struck by the Defendant who was directly behind the Plaintiff, attempting to pass the Plaintiff on the left side. Defendant is claiming that the Plaintiff pulled into traffic from the right side of the curb, causing the collision. Defendants allege that the Plaintiff lied during her testimony.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff contends he was rear ended by the Defendant. Defendant contends that Plaintiff cut him off. Liability is disputed. The police report placed Plaintiff at fault for making an unsafe lane change. The determination was based on the statements, damage to vehicles and distance to the next intersection. Plaintiff is alleging contusion/sprain to right shoulder, cervical sprain, thoracic sprain and lumbar sprain. 
• A subrogation claim for property damage arising from a multi-vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Defendant ran a red light and collided with a vehicle, causing the vehicle the Defendant collided with to spin out of control and strike another vehicle that was stopped at the intersection. Defendant only has coverage of $5,000 and Plaintiff's insurance is seeking a full recover of all money paid, $4,188.98.
• A two vehicle rear-end collision which occurred as Plaintiff was slowing down to traffic congestion and was rear-ended by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was traveling with her nine year old daughter who sustained injuries. Defendants are questioning reasonable medical expenses. 
• A two vehicle rear-end collision which occurred on the freeway. Plaintiff was traveling with a rear seat passenger at the time of impact. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sought medical treatment and had the following positive findings in her MRI: evidence for lumbar straight and a 2mm posterior disc bulge at L5-S1 extending into the central canal. Plaintiff’s passenger also suffered injuries resulting in receiving trigger point injections and a Toradol injection to help ease his pain. 
• A two vehicle “T-bone” collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff was stopped to attempt a left turn and was struck by Defendant who was driving a commercial van at the time. The collision caused massive damage to the front end of Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing the airbags to deploy. Due to the severity of the impact, both vehicles were deemed a total loss. 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Defendant attempted a left turn and collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Liability is being disputed as Defendant’s counsel believes that the Plaintiff was traveling over the speed limit and for the conditions present at the time of the accident. Inclusive, there is dispute over the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries. 
• A subrogation case arising from a three vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant was driving too fast for road conditions at the time and lost control of his vehicle, striking the Plaintiff and another vehicle. Plaintiff is seeking to recover for the damages to their vehicle and loss of use for a total of $19,071.93. Defendant has offered $5,726,91. 
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff made a left turn on a green in front of Defendant. Liability is disputed. Because of the collision, Plaintiff sought treatment with a chiropractor and received epidural injections. 
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Defendant made an unsafe left turn and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. The impact caused the Defendant to lose control of his vehicle and strike a metal fence of a private home. Plaintiff’s passenger was taken by ambulance to the hospital and was treated for his injuries. Plaintiff also sought treatment and had positive findings of cervical disc protrusion in her MRI results. 
• A two-vehicle rear-end collision which occurred on the freeway. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sought medical care and received three cervical epidural injections. Plaintiff made a demand for 95,000 and Defendant offered $28,000. 
• A two vehicle rear end collision which occurred at an intersection. As a result of the collision, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed a total loss. Plaintiff sought medical treatment and had a cervical and lumbar MRI which revealed a 3mm disc bulge to her cervical spine as well as a 2-3mm bulge left foraminal protrusion to her lumbar spine.
• An auto v. auto rear end collision which occurred at an intersection. Plaintiff was traveling with his wife at the time of the accident. As a result of the collision, the Plaintiff sought medical treatment and was given two series of platelet-rich plasma injections to his right elbow. The Plaintiff’s wife also sought medical treatment for her injuries and ultimately received a facet block injection and a trigger point epidural injection to alleviate her pain. Inclusive, Plaintiff, who worked as a mechanic, was unable to perform his normal job duties which resulted in a loss of wages.
• An Auto v. Pedestrian accident which occurred in an alleyway when Plaintiff, who was working at his place of employment at the time of the accident, was struck by Defendant’s vehicle. At the time of the accident, the Defendant reversed his vehicle as the Plaintiff was standing in the alley outside his place of employment. Although liability has been accepted, the facts of the accident and level of impact are disputed.
• A three-vehicle rear end collision which occurred on a freeway Defendant rear-ended the vehicle ahead of him, pushing that vehicle into Plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of the collision, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was declared a total loss and Plaintiff sought medical treatment. Plaintiff’s MRI revealed a 2mm disc protrusion at C-5 C-6 and was recommended a series of trigger point injections.
• A two vehicle intersection which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff, who was traveling with two children at the time of the accident, was in the process of making a left turn as the traffic light phased from green to yellow and Defendant ran a red light and collided with Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sought medical treatment at an emergency room and it was determined through x-rays that she had C4-C5 and C5-C6 disc space narrowing, and straightening/slight reversal of the upper cervical lordosis. The Plaintiff’s two year old passenger also began experiencing discomfort and was taken to his pediatrician for an evaluation who believed that the Plaintiff’s child may have fractured his ribs but was too young to perform an x-ray due to the radiation. Plaintiff’s 12 year old passenger also sought medical treatment as a result of the accident.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred as Defendant was exiting an alleyway attempting to make a left turn and collided with Defendant’s vehicle who was traveling straight. There was a parked truck that was blocking view for both parties involved. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sought medical treatment and had positive findings in her MRI revealing a 4mm posterior protrusion a the C4-C-5 level and C-6 C-7 level.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant made an unprotected, illegal left turn and collided into Plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of the collision, the Plaintiff sought medical treatment and was recommended trigger point injections. The Defendant’s insurance company made an offer to Plaintiff which did not make a counter-demand at the time the offer was made. 
• An auto v. auto case in which liability is being disputed by the Defendant. Defendant claims that the Plaintiff, who was at a complete stop in front of the Defendant at an intersection on a red light, suddenly reversed his vehicle into the Defendant’s vehicle. Plaintiff contends they were rear ended by the Defendant.  
• An automobile v. pedestrian case. Plaintiff alleges they entered a marked crosswalk on a green light and was struck by defendant who was turning right. Defendant alleges they made a right turn at 5 mph and plaintiff suddenly stepped into the street and made contact with Defendant’s vehicle.
• A 2nd court district of appeals matter in which a trial judge conducted a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to set aside as void the judge’s order, granting Defendants’ SLAPP motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff contends that the trial judge’s order granted defendants SLAPP motion, after the judge impermissibly considered evidence and that the judge had no foundation to conclude would be admissible at trial, weighed conflicting evidence, made determinations of credibility, resolved disputed issues of fact himself rather than referring them to a jury for resolution and thereupon made findings of fact. Plaintiff contended the judge repeatedly violated Plaintiff’s right to due process under the 14th amendment and Plaintiff’s right to a jury trial to determine disputed facts and conflicting evidence. Plaintiff contends that the Order granting the Defendants’ SLAPP motion is void.
• A property damage only subrogation claim for $5490.50 which arises out of a car accident involving two vehicles. Interestingly, there is an independent witness to corroborate each account of how the accident occurred.   
• Plaintiff alleged Defendant failed to yield right of way to oncoming traffic. Defendant had a stop sign and after stopping moved forward into the intersection. Defendant disputed liability and alleged that Plaintiff was driving at an unsafe speed and therefore caused the accident. Plaintiff sought chiropractic care and orthopedic consultation. Defendant claimed Plaintiff had prior injuries.
• A property damage only subrogation claim for $20,100.38 which arises out of a car accident. Defendant’s insurance made a pro rata settlement offer of $2,973 and plaintiff is demanding all sums.
• Defendants got into an accident which caused one Defendant to ricochet and hit the Plaintiff head on. Plaintiff was in his vehicle with his spouse and a child. At same time, the accident caused another vehicle to hit Plaintiff from the rear causing a double impact. Plaintiff lost two front teeth.
• Plaintiff was rear-ended by Defendant 1. Defendant 2 rear-ended Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 rear-ended Plaintiff again. Major property damage to Defendant 1 vehicle. Plaintiff was transported to a hospital at the scene of accident and suffered lumbar and shoulder injury. Plaintiff was candidate for epidural injections and lumbar decompression surgery.
• Defendant clipped the side of Plaintiff’s vehicle when making a lane change. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant was making an aggressive passing maneuver going at a high rate speed which caused him to hit Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff had an independent witness to support this theory. Plaintiff was a contractor and had a loss of earnings claim for not being able to work, along with a bodily injury claim. Defendant denied the loss of earnings claim due to Plaintiff’s inability to substantiate the amounts.
• Defendant made a left at a yellow light when she was struck by Plaintiff who was driving straight. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff ran a red light. Defendant also claimed that Plaintiff had pre-existing conditions. Plaintiff claimed she was driving through an intersection that had a green light that had just turned yellow when Defendant made a left turn. Plaintiff had lumbar injuries which she treated with epidural injections. Plaintiff admits to prior back pain however states that she was fully recovered prior to this accident.
• T-bone accident/liability dispute. A two-vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff, who was traveling with a front seat passenger at the time, was struck by Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant lost control of her vehicle while attempting a left turn at a red light and collided with Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff’s vehicle to spin several times. As a result of the accident, Plaintiffs sustained multiple injuries. Plaintiff incurred $14,235.00 in medical expenses.
• Liability Dispute. A two-vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant attempted a U-turn and collided with the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries as a result of the accident.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff attempted a left turn and collided with Defendant who was traveling straight on the opposite side of the street. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries to his neck and back. Plaintiff sought treatment with a chiropractor and physical therapist. Defendant is alleging that Plaintiff caused the collision by failing to yield right of way.
• A two vehicle accident which happened at an intersection when Defendant ran a red light and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff was traveling with a front seat passenger at the time. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff and his passenger sought medical treatment for their injuries.
• A two-vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff, who was at a complete stop, was rear ended by the Defendant. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained injuries to cervical and lumbar spine and had an MRI with positive findings.
• Uninsured Motorist rear end accident that resulted in a total loss of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff was traveling with a 10-year-old front seat passenger at the time of the accident. As a result of the accident, both Plaintiffs sustained multiple injuries and the Driver had positive findings in an MRI of the cervical spine.
• A two vehicle rear end collision which occurred when Plaintiff attempted to enter a driveway. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed a total loss. Plaintiff sustained right ankle, right wrist and back injuries. Plaintiff also had positive findings in her MRI, including a 2.3mm disc bulge at L1-2 and 2.9mm disc bulge at L5-S1 with loss of disc height.
• A three vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant and pushed into the vehicle in front of her. Defendant is disputing the nature and extent on Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff contends to continue experiencing right wrist pain; however, x-rays of the wrist are normal.
• Defendant did not stop and yield for traffic while exiting a parking lot, causing a violent accident that resulted in total loss of Plaintiff’s vehicle. The impact also caused visible injuries to Plaintiff’s chest area, head, back and bruising to the left side of her neck. As a result of the impact, Plaintiff’s daily activities became restricted and she could no longer lift or play with her daughters.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant was parked and pulled his vehicle out directly in front of the Plaintiff who was traveling straight in the number 2 lane. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed a total loss. Plaintiff was transported to the hospital via ambulance due to difficulty breathing after the collision. Plaintiff sought chiropractic treatment and physical therapy.
• A two vehicle rear end collision. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained neck and back injuries. Plaintiff sought chiropractic treatment and physical therapy. Plaintiff had positive findings in his MRI including a 3.4 mm disc protrusion at L2-3, L3-4 and L5-S1.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Defendant made a left turn in front of Plaintiff who was traveling straight at the time. Liability is disputed.
• A 4 car rear end collision. Plaintiff was rear ended and pushed into the vehicle in front of him. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sought medical treatment with medical expenses.

• A rear end accident so severe that it resulted in Plaintiff’s vehicle being determined a total loss. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sought chiropractic and orthopedic treatment, and also had an MRI which had positive findings.

• A multiple vehicle collision which occurred on the freeway and caused Plaintiff’s vehicle to spin out of control. Plaintiff was cut off when entering the freeway which resulted in a chain reaction of collisions with oncoming traffic. Plaintiff suffered multiple injuries and was transported to the hospital via ambulance. Plaintiff suffered several fractured ribs as a result of the accident.
• Plaintiffs were involved in a two car collision which occurred when Defendant made a U-Turn in front of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant claims that the Plaintiff’s injuries were not significant enough to incur so many charges.

• A two car collision which occurred when Defendant made a left turn in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff was driving next to a semi-truck which obstructed the views of both Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff’s injuries were severe enough that he had to undergo surgery for his right knee.
• A rear end accident which occurred on the freeway and resulted in a total loss of Plaintiff’s vehicle.
• A rear end accident. Although Defendant does not dispute liability, Defendant contends the medical bills are unreasonable, unnecessary and excessive.
• A two car collision which occurred when Plaintiff was entering an intersection on a yellow light and Defendant made a left turn in front of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Liability is disputed.
• A two car collision which occurred when the Defendant made a left turn in front of Plaintiffs vehicle. Defendant was arrested at the scene for felony DUI. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff had to undergo two life-altering surgeries.
• A two car collision which occurred when Defendant ran a red light and collided with Plaintiff. The collision was so severe that Plaintiff had to be removed from her vehicle with an emergency device. Prior to the accident, Plaintiff was regularly active at the gym but as a result of this accident can no longer walk without any pain.
• A two car rear end accident. Although liability is not disputed, Defendant claims that such a minor impact could not have resulted in a personal injury.
• A two car collision which occurred when Defendant, an unlicensed driver, made a left turn in front of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s vehicle was determined a total loss. Plaintiff was taken to the hospital via ambulance.
• A two car collision that occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff was traveling southbound through an intersection whose light had turned from green to yellow. The Plaintiff was struck by Defendant on the front passenger side. Liability is disputed.
• A two car collision that occurred at an intersection. The collision occurred when Defendant collided with Plaintiff who was attempting to make a left hand turn.
• A three car collision that occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by the Defendant, who was also rear ended and pushed into Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant was uninsured at the time of the accident, so Plaintiff filed an uninsured motorist claim and was granted $15,000 as a result of the accident. Plaintiff continues to have cervical and lumbar pain.
• A two car collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by the Defendant. Plaintiff was a seat belted passenger in a vehicle being driven by her husband. The force of the collision was so severe that it cracked Plaintiff’s rear bumper and pushed Plaintiff’s vehicle forward into a third party’s vehicle in front. Plaintiff was taken to the hospital via ambulance as a result of the accident.
• A motor vehicle collision that occurred at an intersection when Defendant intended to make an unprotected left turn and failed to yield to oncoming traffic, striking the Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff suffered cervical and lumbar injuries, including disc protrusions.
• A two vehicle collision that occurred at an intersection when Defendant made a left turn in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that he entered the intersection with a green light. Defendant contends that she made her left turn on a yellow light. The impact resulted in the total loss of Plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff suffered serious injuries to his left shoulder, cervical spine, thoracic spine and lumbar spine and required surgery.
• A two vehicle collision that occurred at an intersection when Defendant made a left turn in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was traveling straight. Plaintiff had a front seat passenger in the vehicle. The impact was severe enough that airbags deployed and Plaintiff became trapped in her vehicle. The passenger had to let the Plaintiff out of her vehicle. As a result of the accident, both the Plaintiff driver and passenger sought medical treatment at the hospital. The Plaintiff’s passenger suffered more severe injuries and required surgery to his left leg.
• An auto v. bus collision which occurred when a vehicle collided with a bus. Plaintiffs were passengers riding in the Defendant’s car during the collision. As a result of the accident, Plaintiffs are alleging multiple injuries. Defendant contends this was a low impact collision and that the medical treatment sought by Plaintiffs was unnecessary and potentially fraudulent.
• A two vehicle t-bone collision which occurred when Defendant struck Plaintiff on the driver’s side while pulling into an intersection in front of the Plaintiff. Defendant’s view was obstructed by parked cars. Plaintiff sought treatment for injuries sustained as a result of the accident.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was attempting to make a left turn and was struck by Defendant. The collision was so severe that both vehicles were deemed a total loss. Plaintiff went into shock after the accident and vomited for three days.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant rear ended Plaintiff stopped at a red light. The impact was severe enough that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed into the middle of the intersection.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway when Plaintiff was rear ended by the Defendant.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant made a left turn in front of the Plaintiff. This is a liability dispute claim. The Defendant claims that she entered the intersection with a yellow light while attempting a left turn. The Plaintiff sustained neck and back injuries as a result of the accident.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Defendant made a left turn in front of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that she was rear ended by a phantom vehicle, causing her vehicle to be pushed into the intersection and collide with the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when the Defendant ran a red light and collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Defendant was inattentive and entered the intersection at an unsafe speed. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff was transported to Olympia Medical center and sought treatment for the following injuries: post-traumatic cephalgia; post-traumatic sleep disorder, cervical and thoracic sprain/strain with sublixation, shoulder enthesopathy, bilateral forearm, elbow and hand contusions and sprains and nervousness/anxiety disorder.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant ran a red light and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. The accident was severe enough that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed a total loss.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when the Defendant made a left turn in front of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff was a passenger.
• A three vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant. This was a two impact collision. Defendant admits fault and claim that she initially rear ended the Plaintiff’s vehicle but was rear ended seconds later which caused the second impact. The dispute is on apportionment between Defendant and Plaintiff.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at a four way stop sign when Plaintiff was struck on the passenger side while proceeding through the intersection after coming to a complete stop. The force of the impact spun the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant is contending that the Plaintiff did not stop at the sign. As a result of the impact, Plaintiff, and his passenger sustained multiple injuries and sought chiropractic treatment.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff attempted to pass Defendant on the left colliding with Defendant’s vehicle. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant made an unlawful left turn from the second of two lanes.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant. Plaintiff was stopped because her lane was being closed off by traffic cones by a city construction crew. The impact caused approximately $3,700 in damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff suffered neck, back and shoulder injuries requiring substantial physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, diagnostics and orthopedic evaluations.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Defendant made a left turn in front of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant did not see any oncoming vehicles. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff suffered injuries to his left shoulder, right forearm, right wrist, right knee, neck, head and eyes, anxiety, mental exhaustion, sleeplessness, memory lapses and other emotional issues.
• A three vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection. This is a disputed light accident. Defendant claims he entered the intersection on a yellow light. Upon impact, Defendant’s car rolled over and hit a third vehicle. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed a total loss and Plaintiff had to be transported to the hospital via ambulance.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with Plaintiff, which had two passengers in the vehicle, while entering the intersection. The defendants and his insurance company believe that this was a staged accident. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff suffered headaches, neck and back pain.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant rear ended Plaintiff. Plaintiff made a pre-litigation demand which was not accepted.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant. Liability is not disputed. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries to her neck and back.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant. Plaintiff was stopped at a red light and had two passengers in her vehicle. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck, back and left shoulder.
• A two vehicle collision liability adverse case which occurred when Defendant pulled out of a driveway in front of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant’s view was obstructed. Defendant struck Plaintiff’s passenger side of the vehicle. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries. Although liability is not an issue, Plaintiff is demanding more than what the Defendant is offering.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Defendant’s vehicle came into contact with the right quarter panel of Plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff alleges he sustained injuries to his neck, lower back, shoulders, temporary memory loss and pain in the back of his head.
• Property Damage for vehicle struck by Party running a red light. Plaintiff was driving a Mercedes and demanded over $37,000 for the damages to his vehicle.
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant rear ended Plaintiff.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant rear ended Plaintiff. Defendant was driving at a speed that was much greater than the flow of traffic. The impact was severe enough that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was determined a total loss. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries and was taken via ambulance to the hospital.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when the Defendant, an underinsured driver, made an unsafe turning movement. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant, which was parked at the time pulled out from the curb and caused the collision to Plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant made a left turn in front of Plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant. The force of the first collision resulted in a second collision when the Plaintiff’s vehicle struck the vehicle in front of him.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant made a left turn in front of the Plaintiff. Liability is not disputed. The chiropractic bills are considered to be high by the Defendant and Medi-Cal payments/adjustments were possibly made.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Defendant ran a red light and struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. Both vehicles had a front seat passenger. The impact was severe enough that the Plaintiff’s air bags deployed and their vehicle was deemed a total loss. The Plaintiffs were transported to the hospital via ambulance.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant. Although liability is not disputed, the extent of the bodily injury claim of Plaintiff is in question. The MRI results for Plaintiff showed significant protrusions, including a 6-7mm disc protrusion at L-5-S1level. As a result of the collision, the Plaintiff will need future medical treatment that could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Inclusive, the Plaintiff is a nurse and now has issues performing her normal job duties.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, a cancer survivor, was rear ended by Defendant. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sustained injury to her breast which not only causes the Plaintiff pain but fear as well that the cancer may have returned.
 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway when Plaintiff was rear ended and pushed into the vehicle in front of her. The individual who caused the accident by rear ending the Plaintiff admitted liability and Plaintiff was rewarded the Policy Limits of $25,000. Plaintiff is now pursuing coverage through her own policy for underinsured motorist coverage.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant after completing a left hand turn. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries to her neck and back.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant initiated a red turn into Plaintiff’s path of travel, causing moderate damage to both vehicles. Defendants admit fault for the accident but dispute the nature and extent of Plaintiffs’ damages.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, who had multiple passengers in his vehicle, was rear ended by Defendant. As a result of the accident, the Plaintiff driver was transported to the hospital via ambulance. Plaintiff sustained a torn rotator cuff and his wife, who was a front seat passenger at the time of the accident, underwent a Carpal Tunnel Release Operation. Although liability is not disputed, Plaintiffs are not in agreeance of the offer from Defendant’s insurance of $20,000. Defendant has a 50/100 policy and Plaintiff’s are seeking policy limits.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, who was driving with her 1 ½ year old daughter restrained in a child seat in the rear of her vehicle, was rear ended by Defendant. As the Plaintiff got out of her car to see if her child was okay, her left knee buckled and Plaintiff fell to the ground on her hands. The Plaintiff continues to have pain and discomfort in her left knee. Liability is not disputed.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle, was rear ended by Defendant. Police Report places Defendant at fault for speeding. Plaintiff had an MRI and there were findings of a 2mm posterior bulge with central canal stenosis and a 1mm leftward bulge with mild left neural foraminal stenosis. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff missed several weeks of work.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff, who was stopped at a red light, was rear ended by Defendant, who was driving a commercial vehicle at the time. Plaintiff had her son with her at the time of the accident. The severe nature of the impact caused major injuries to Plaintiff and minor injuries to her son. Plaintiff is still suffering residual injuries. Plaintiffs contend that reasonable value of this cause is damages in excess of $75,000.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at a parking lot when Defendant, driving a UPS truck, reversed into Plaintiff’s vehicle, which had three passengers.
 
• A collision which occurred when the Defendant, under the influence at the time, struck 8 parked cars while traveling straight. Plaintiff was a front seat passenger at the time that his vehicle was struck by the Defendant. Plaintiff was tying his shoes at the time of impact and upon being struck, was injured as his head hit the window and he body was thrown from side to side.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, a front seat passenger, was struck by Defendant’s vehicle which was pulling out of a driveway. The impact caused the Plaintiff’s vehicle to roll over three times and crash into a tree. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries, 3mm disc protrusions at his cervical spine.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, who was stopped at a red light, was rear ended by Defendant. The impact was so severe that it pushed Plaintiff’s vehicle forward about 12 feet.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant on the freeway. Plaintiff is seeking policy limits of $15,000 for this accident. Plaintiff’s medical expenses total $6,996.25. Defendant’s insurance claimed that the impact was not significant enough to incur so many medical charges.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, an underinsured motorist who was 9 weeks pregnant at the time of the accident, was rear ended while stopped at a red light. As a result of the accident, the Plaintiff was transported to the hospital via ambulance and sustained vaginal bleeding. Inclusive, Plaintiff underwent severe anxiety until the time the baby was born normal.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Liability in this case is clear. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries to his neck and back.
 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway when the Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant and pushed forward into the vehicle in front of them. Defendant contends that Defendant cause the accident by rear ending the Plaintiff and pushing her vehicle forward causing a second rear end accident. No settlement offers have been extended.
 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, who had a front seat passenger in his vehicle, was rear-ended and pushed into the vehicle in front of him, causing a second rear-end accident. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff and his passenger sustained multiple injuries including cervical, thoracic and lumbar sprains, strains. Inclusive, the front seat passenger was transported to the hospital via ambulance.
 
• A two vehicle accident which occurred when Defendant, who was parked at a curb, pulled out into traffic and collided with Plaintiff. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained a soft tissue injury to his cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant pulled out of a parking lot in front of Plaintiff and struck the vehicle on the rear passenger side with enough force that the Plaintiff’s vehicle spun violently clockwise twice. As a result of the impact, the Plaintiff was taken to the hospital via ambulance, and her car was deemed a total loss. Inclusive, Plaintiff’s medical bills totaled $39,788.48.
 
• A two vehicle collision that occurred at an asphalt plant when the Plaintiff was rear-ended by the Defendant. Specifically, Defendant was in a dump truck and backed into the Plaintiff who was not paying attention at the time and was looking down while reading. As a result of the impact, the Plaintiff suffered multiple injuries including upper and lower back pain. Inclusive, Plaintiff is claiming loss of earnings.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection. Defendant contends that he was traveling northbound in the middle lane and as he was crossing the intersection, was struck by the Plaintiff’s vehicle which was traveling westbound. Plaintiff suddenly struck the right side of Defendant’s vehicle causing it to spin several times and hit the curb. Plaintiff testified during his deposition that he entered the intersection on a flashing greenlight, however, the traffic controls at the intersection are not controlled by a flashing green light. Defendant has issues with Plaintiff’s medical treatment due to the fact that Plaintiff waited six days to seek treatment after the accident.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant. Both vehicles had moderate damage. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries including mild scoliosis and multilevel degenerative disc disease. Several demands have been made by the Plaintiff, however Defendant has not agreed to the amount that Plaintiff is requesting.
 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred on the freeway. Plaintiff alleges negligence against the Defendant, however the Defendant has filed a cross complaint against a third driver. Defendant contends that the third driver slammed on his breaks on purpose, causing the Defendant to swerve to avoid a collision and thus, striking the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Liability is being disputed.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff, who was stopped for pedestrian traffic, was rear-ended by Defendant. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries including headaches, cervical, thoracic and lumbar pain, bilateral shoulder and arm pain as well as recent memory loss and difficulty sleeping.
 
• 15/30/10 policy case in which a two vehicle collision occurred at an intersection when Defendant ran a traffic signal and struck the Plaintiff. Defendant was traveling with her 6 year old daughter at the time of the accident while the Plaintiff was traveling with a front seat passenger. Defendant alleges that it was the Plaintiff who ran the traffic signal. Liability is disputed. Defendant claims that the Plaintiffs were under the influence at the time of the accident and were yelling at the Defendant and her daughter. When police arrived to the scene, Defendant claims that the Plaintiffs were pouring water over their heads in an attempt to sober up.
 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff was rear ended and pushed into the vehicle in front of her. As the Plaintiff approached the intersection, the traffic light turned red and she controlled her car to a complete stop. When the light turned green, Plaintiff was rear ended. Defendant failed to pay attention to the flow of traffic.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred in a parking lot when Defendant pulled out of a parking stall and struck the left side of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant is claiming he was parked at the time of the impact and that Plaintiff collided into his vehicle.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant. The Plaintiff was the passenger of the vehicle which was struck. As a result of the accident, the Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries including severe sprain of the cervical, lumbar and right shoulder, as well as contusion of both knees with traumatic chrondromalacia of the patellofemoral joints.
 
• A three vehicle collision involving two parked taxis which occurred when Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff’s taxi and pushed it forward into another parked taxi in front of Plaintiff. Plaintiffs are claiming personal injury and Defendant is disputing that medical treatment was necessary due to the low velocity impact.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by the Defendant. Liability is not disputed. Plaintiff demanded $162,000.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant’s vehicle “tapped” Plaintiff’s vehicle, resulting in $292.36 worth of property damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant is contending excessive and unnecessary treatment which was sought by the Plaintiff as a result of the impact caused by Defendant. Plaintiff has $47,766.27 worth of medical bills.
 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff who was traveling with a front seat passenger at the time was rear ended by the defendant. The Plaintiffs suffered a second impact when their vehicle was pushed into the vehicle in front of them. Defendant has admitted liability. Due to the severe initial rear-end impact, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed a total loss.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff, who was stopped at an intersection, proceeded through the intersection when light phased to green and was struck by Defendant who ran a red light. Liability is not disputed. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff suffered a concussion and continues to suffer from pain to his head, neck and back. Plaintiff who was once an avid basketball player can no longer play.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, who was traveling with a front seat passenger, was struck head on by Defendant who was attempting to make a left turn in front of the Plaintiff. The impact caused Plaintiff’s airbags to deploy and also caused Plaintiff to careen into a stopped vehicle. Liability is not disputed.
 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff’s friend, also a Plaintiff, was stopped and rear ended by Defendant, thus pushing her into Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of her. Liability is not disputed. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff who was initially rear ended went to Kaiser the same day and sought treatment for her injuries.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway when Plaintiff, who was at a complete stop for traffic, was rear ended by Defendant. The impact was so severe that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed a total loss.
 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred on the freeway when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant. Plaintiff states that the vehicle ahead of her came to a sudden stop and she applied her brakes accordingly, however she could not brake in time and rear ended the car in front of her. The Defendant then rear ended the Plaintiff. Liability is disputed. Defendant is arguing necessary medical treatment as a result of this accident. Plaintiff has about $30,000 in medical bills.
 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred on the freeway when Defendants failed to stop for slowing traffic ahead of them and caused a chain reaction of rear-end collisions. The Plaintiff was the first vehicle to be rear ended.
 
• A multi-vehicle accident which occurred when Defendant’s vehicle came into contact with another vehicle which then came into contact with another vehicle. As a result of the subject accident, Defendant suffered an irreparable loss as her 8 year old son was ejected from the vehicle and died. Liability is not disputed. Defendant has a minimum policy and Plaintiff demanded its full principal balance.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff was stopped at a red light and was rear ended by the Defendant. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff and her front seat passenger were transported to the emergency room via ambulance. Liability is not disputed.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway when Plaintiff, who was driving with a front seat passenger at the time, was rear ended by Defendant. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries. Liability is not disputed.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred on the freeway when Plaintiff was rear-ended by Defendant. The impact was so severe that it caused more than $3,000 in property damage to Plaintiff’s SUV. Plaintiff also sustained multiple injuries, including nausea, dizziness, and vomiting blood as a result of biting her tongue upon impact.
 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant and was then pushed into the vehicle in front of her. Defendant was also rear-ended by co-defendant.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff, who was slowing down for traffic ahead, was rear ended by the Defendant who was approaching very quickly. As a result of the impact, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred on the freeway when Plaintiff was slowing down for traffic ahead and was rear ended by Defendant. The impact surprised Plaintiff, causing him to release his brakes and his vehicle was pushed into the center divider. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant backed out of an alley and collided with Plaintiff’s right front side of vehicle, resulting in $2,957.74 in damages. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained neck and back injuries which exacerbated injuries sustained from a 2008 automobile accident. Liability is not disputed.
 
• A multi-vehicle rear end collision involving two defendants which occurred when Defendant 1 saw Defendant 2 turn on his turn signal as though he was going to change lanes, but drove his vehicle back ahead of Defendant 1. Defendant 1 did not have time to brake therefore causing rear-end damage to Defendant 2’s vehicle which was then pushed into Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was driving with a front seat passenger. As a result of the impact, Plaintiffs sustained multiple injuries.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by Defendant’s vehicle as she was proceeding through a four-way stop sign intersection. Halfway through the intersection, Plaintiff saw Pedestrians and was forced to slow and stop from the curb line. Defendant, who was traveling at about 50mph, struck Plaintiff’s vehicle with such force, it caused airbags to deploy and the vehicle to rotate and travel to the curb. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries in which she had to be transported via ambulance to the hospital.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff’s driver was proceeding through an intersection after having stopped at a stop sign and was struck by Defendant that did not stop. Plaintiff was a front seat passenger and was 8 months pregnant at the time. Defendants state that the Plaintiff’s driver bears some responsibility, due to the fact that he was warned prior to the collision by Plaintiff that the Defendant’s vehicle was traveling too fast and driver responded to her that he had the right of way.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant made a left turn vehicle at an intersection when it was not safe to do so and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff had a front seat passenger at the time of the accident. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed a total loss. As a result of the collision, both Plaintiffs sustained neck and back strains including disc protrusions requiring substantial physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, diagnostics and orthopedic evaluations.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Defendant made a left turn on a red arrow in front of Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was proceeding through the intersection at a green light. As a result of the impact, Plaintiff sought medical treatment and final medical bills were $33,533.10. Liability is not disputed.
 
• A case which arises out of two separate two vehicle collisions. The first accident occurred on the freeway when Defendant 1 rear ended Plaintiff, pushing Plaintiff’s vehicle forward and causing an additional rear end accident. Three days later, Plaintiff was involved in a separate accident in which his vehicle was side swiped by Defendant 2. Liability is not disputed for the first accident. Liability is being disputed for the second accident. Plaintiff began treatment with a chiropractor the day of the second accident.
 
• A personal injury incident which occurred when a Plaintiff ran into Defendant’s vehicle. Liability is being disputed.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff was slowing to a stop and was rear ended by the Defendant. As a result of the impact, Plaintiff sustained several injuries.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Defendant made a left turn and was stuck by Plaintiff operated by a cross-complainant. Plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle of cross-complainant. As a result of the impact, both vehicles were deemed a total loss and plaintiff sustained multiple injuries including disc desiccation.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway when Plaintiff was rear ended. As a result of the impact, Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries totaling $5,179.90 in medical expenses. Inclusive, Plaintiff, who works in the television and film industry as a prop person is claiming loss of wages for three months in the amount of $38,840.00.
 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff and Defendant’s vehicle collided head on. Defendant was attempting to make a left hand turn in front of Plaintiff who was traveling straight. Due to the impact, Plaintiff’s vehicle spun around 180 degrees and struck others.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was rear ended by the Defendant. Plaintiff suffered the following injuries: severe lumbar, chest and cervical pain with radiation into her left lumbar, hip pain radiating into the right leg, as well as a 3-4mm bulge on L4-5 as well as 4mm bulge on L3-4-3.
 
  
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Plaintiff was stopped at a red light and was rear ended by Defendant. Liability is not disputed. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained injuries to his cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine and continues to experience pain.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection when Plaintiff who was stopped for a red light, was rear ended by Defendant. As a result of the impact, Plaintiff sustained multiple soft tissue injuries. Liability is not disputed.

• A two vehicle collision which occurred in a parking lot when Plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped in a parking space. Plaintiff’s passenger proceeded to step out of the vehicle when the Defendant was fast approaching and struck the rear passenger side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing the passenger’s body to twist and move from side to side. Liability is not disputed; however, Defendants are contending the extremity of the impact and medical necessity for expenses as a result of this accident.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway when Plaintiff was rear ended by the Defendant. Plaintiff had two passengers in his vehicle at the time of the accident. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff and passengers sustained soft tissue injuries.
 
• Defendant turned right onto main street and collided into Plaintiff’s motorcycle. Parties agreed that the sun’s light was blinding and made it more difficult to see the motorcycle. Plaintiff suffered injuries such as right foot contusion, acute cervical strain, right shoulder sprain, and an occult fracture of the right scaphoid. Plaintiff also had loss of earnings claims for approximately $25,000.
 
• Liability Dispute. Plaintiff contends he was cut off on the 405 freeway. Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries including traumatic brain injury and memory loss as a result of this accident. Plaintiff initially demanded $50,000 and increased his demand to $100,000.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant, driving a motorcycle, made a left turn on a red light in front of Plaintiff who had begun to drive through the intersection on a green light. Liability is not disputed. Defendant is contending that the collision was not severe enough that the Plaintiff had to seek so much medical care.
 
• Plaintiff was riding his bike on the sidewalk when Defendant struck plaintiff on his knee while exiting a driveway. The impact occurred in the middle of the driveway. Liability is being disputed. Plaintiff stated that he saw Defendant applying makeup while pulling out of the driveway. As a result of the impact, Plaintiff was transported to the hospital via ambulance. Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries and sought chiropractic treatment and physical therapy.
 
• Plaintiff was riding bicycle with her child that was secured into a front child seat when defendant failed to yield for traffic on the sidewalk, resulting in multiple injuries for plaintiff and her child.
 
• Collision occurred as Plaintiff was riding his bike on the sidewalk and Defendant was exiting a driveway. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff was transported to the hospital via ambulance.
 
• Plaintiff, a minor, was crossing the street when a vehicle traveling at approximately 10 mph struck her. Plaintiff was transported to the hospital via ambulance. Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injury to her wrist. Defendant contends that plaintiff attempted to cross the street approximately 15-25 feet outside of the designated pedestrian crosswalk at the time of the incident. Defendant further contends that the duration and expense of treatment for physical therapy was excessive.
 
• An incident which occurred when Plaintiff was crossing the street at a crosswalk and the Defendant made a left turn striking the Plaintiff and running over his foot. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff went into the emergency room and was treated for an acute fracture to his foot. Plaintiff also suffered injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine.
 
• An accident which occurred between two vehicles and a bicycle. The incident occurred as a result of Defendant making a right hand turn on a green light and collided with Plaintiff who was walking his bicycle in the crosswalk. The impact threw the bike into the right side of Plaintiff’s body.
 
• This incident occurred in a parking lot when Plaintiff’s purse was caught on the Defendant’s side view mirror. Defendant states that she had just entered the parking lot and passed about 4-5 cars when she saw Plaintiff walking in the parking lot car path to the left of Plaintiff’s car. Defendant moved her car to the right as much as she could but the Plaintiff’s purse still got caught in the side view mirror. Although the Plaintiff did not fall to the ground, her cousins yelled at the Defendant to provide her insurance information.
 
• A personal injury claim which occurred at a parking lot in which Plaintiff claims she was struck in the knees by Defendant’s vehicle which reversed at a high speed in an effort to scare the Defendant. Plaintiff claims Defendant was drunk at the time of the incident and has presented social media videos as proof. Defendant is a well-known social media persona with several hundred thousand fans. Lawyer for Defendant claims that she was simply playing a part to her social media fans.
 
• A personal injury case in which Plaintiff was standing on a ramp loading a company truck and the Defendant moved the truck forward, causing the Plaintiff to fall several feet off the ramp and sustain multiple injuries. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff was transported to the hospital via ambulance. Liability is disputed. Defendants are alleging that they did not see Plaintiff in the back of the truck and that Plaintiff should have heard the truck start. No settlements have been proposed.
 
• A property damage only subrogation claim arising out of a car accident.
 
• A subrogation claim which was made due to a two vehicle collision.
 
• This is a subrogation claim for property damage for the amount it paid out on behalf of its insured involving a two vehicle collision which occurred as a result of an unsafe lane change. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed a total loss. Liability is disputed.
 
• A property damage subrogation claim which arises out an auto collision. As part of its contractual obligations to its insured policyholder, Plaintiff paid property damage and is seeking to collect the amount paid as well as recover their insured’s $1,000 deductible.
 
• Plaintiff is seeking subrogation from Defendant for an auto collision. Defendant has filed a cross-complaint against the driver of Plaintiff’s insured vehicle. Plaintiff’s named insured also has an out-of-pocket diminished value claim against Defendant. Plaintiff has attempted to settle the matter but has been unsuccessful due to the insured diminished value claim that remains unsettled.
 
• Plaintiff is seeking subrogation from Defendant which arises out a five vehicle rear-collision which occurred on a freeway. The carrier for the vehicle which started the multi-vehicle collision offered a pro-rata in the amount of $1,079.04. Plaintiff rejected that amount and sought recovery of all money paid by means of contribution to the vehicle which initially rear ended the vehicle ahead of him and caused the multi-vehicle collision.
 
• A subrogation claim made by Plaintiff against Defendant as a result of a vehicle collision in which Defendant lost control of her vehicle and struck a parked vehicle insured by Plaintiff. At the time of the accident, the Defendant’s policy insured for property damage in the amount of $10,000 but drops down to $5,000 for permissive drivers who are not named insureds. Defendant was a permissive driver who was not a named insured.
 
• Due to a displaced sidewalk, Plaintiff fell and fractured her right foot. As a result of the injury, the Plaintiff, who earned her living as a street performer, was unable to work for several months and demanded loss of earnings in the amount of $57,000. Inclusive, Plaintiff was once an avid hiker and is no longer able to enjoy hiking due to her injury.
 
• A trip and fall accident which occurred as Plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk with her son and tripped over a 2 ¾ crack that was left on the left side of the sidewalk. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained a complex fracture, broken dental bridge and the loss of three teeth.
 
• An incident which occurred as a result of mold contamination. Plaintiff moved into an apartment building suite and was subject to illness caused by the mold. Plaintiff notified manager, but the issue was never completely resolved. Manager sprayed the mold area with bleach, yet the mold reappeared days later.
 
• An incident which occurred at a supermarket. Plaintiff was an business invitee of the supermarket and was standing in line at the checkout when the cashier dropped a glass bottle of vinegar, causing it to shatter and spread glass shards on the floor. The glass shards struck the Plaintiff on the lower part of her calf. Plaintiff sustained a laceration approximately 4 cm in length on her left Achilles tendon.
 
• A personal injury case in which Plaintiff, a former tenant of a residential property suffered from injury due to asbestos exposure. Previously, Plaintiffs’ parents filed a law suit against different defendants based upon the same set of facts as the subject action. Both Plaintiffs provided medical records regarding treatment at Kaiser; however, several physical exams concluded that there was no evidence of asbestosis. Defendants contend Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that asbestos caused them any injury.
 
• An incident which occurred when Plaintiff was walking her dog and was attacked by two unleashed german shepherds. Plaintiff sustained lacerations to her left thumb, right middle and right ring fingers. Several days later, Plaintiff began experiencing pain to her neck, shoulders, low back and both feet. Plaintiff sought treatment with an acupuncturist and orthopedic doctor.
 
• A personal injury as a result of a dog bite. Plaintiff was sweeping leaves from her driveway when Defendants’ dog, which was outside of their front yard, went toward the plaintiff and bit her lower right leg. As a result of the bite, Plaintiff sought treatment at the hospital where she received stitches and was prescribed medication for an apparent infection.
 
• Defendant struck the rear end of Plaintiff’s vehicle on the highway. Plaintiff had prior injuries which she claimed were exacerbated by this accident. Defendant claimed her injuries were from prior to the accident and not related.
 
• Defendant had metal drywall trim sticking out from the back of his truck. Plaintiff was a pedestrian walking and she ran into the metal drywall trim and was injured. Plaintiff sued Defendant for creating a dangerous condition. Defendant contends that Plaintiff was on her phone and did not watch where she was walking and that Defendant had placed red tape on the piece sticking out with a ‘DANGER’ sign.
 
• Plaintiff fell down stairs that she claimed were wet, soapy and slippery at her apartment complex. Defendant had recently washed the steps with water and detergent. Plaintiff claimed the Defendant left the steps in that condition without proper caution signs. Defendant denied liability and stated that although the stairs had been cleaned that day, they were washed off and dry. Defendant claimed the Plaintiff had a history of making personal injury claims.
 
• Plaintiff was 33 weeks pregnant and slipped and fell at the market on some liquid on the ground. Plaintiff claimed Defendants did not have a caution sign. Plaintiff suffered injuries to her knees and low back. Defendant claimed that their staff monitored the premises reasonably and kept a log that showed sweeping every thirty minutes.
 
• Plaintiff slipped and fell and broke left hip. Plaintiff was transported to the hospital via ambulance. Plaintiff’s medical bills totaled $43,471.40.
 
• Plaintiff slipped and fell due to a water substance on the ground which caused significant injuries.
 
• Plaintiff fell off the stairs leading to the backdoor of her apartment because the landlord failed to provide any lighting in the dark alleyway where the unsafe narrow landing was located. Plaintiff suffered two deep cuts on her right arm which lead to permanent nerve damage.
 
• A premises liability case in which Plaintiff forcefully walked into a metal beam where no warnings or cautions were posted. Plaintiff suffered nasal and neck injuries and was transported to a hospital via ambulance.
 
• An accident which occurred at a supermarket near the produce aisle. The Plaintiff slipped and fell due to a dirty water puddle on the ground. Plaintiff claimed injuries to her knees, back and neck.
 
• An accident which occurred in the parking lot of a restaurant when Plaintiff tripped and fell over an unpainted wheel stop, causing the Plaintiff to go the emergency room and undergo two separate corrective surgeries. Before the accident occurred, Plaintiff was an avid hiker and founder of the Happy Hikers Hiking Club Over 50. Plaintiff now finds it difficult to complete even a simple walk around the neighborhood.
 
• An incident which occurred when Plaintiff allegedly tripped over a raised wooden joint between two slabs of the cement walkway.
 
• Plaintiff is a 74 year old woman who sustained an injury while shopping. The accident occurred in the produce section of the store when she accidently stepped on a tomato that was on the floor, resulting in her slipping and falling to the ground. Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries.
 
• This case arises out of a personal injury incident which took place at a Home Goods store when an item fell on Plaintiff’s face as she was pulling a basket from a store shelf. The incident did not cause any bleeding. Plaintiff underwent nasal surgery two years later and claims it was as a result of the accident in the store. Defendants do not believe the surgery was necessary or as a direct result of the incident which took place at their store.
 
• An incident which occurred while Plaintiff was shopping and slipped and fell due to a puddle of clear liquid on the floor. Liability is disputed. As a result of the accident, the Plaintiff sprained her right ankle and was diagnosed with a chip fracture of her left navicular bone. Plaintiff continues to experience pain.
 
• This case arises out of a premises liability case in which the Plaintiff was struck on the head by a stack of items. Due to the head trauma, Plaintiff was transported via ambulance to the Hospital. Plaintiff has brought a negligence and premises liability claim against Big Lots and another customer, who Big Lots claims caused the accident by moving boxes of heaters on the shelf.
 
• A slip and fall accident that occurred at a supermarket due to liquid on the ground. On the way down to the floor, the Plaintiff, a 90 year old man, became caught between the counter and register and his shoulder was grabbed by a man who he believed to be the store manager. Said slip and “catch” caused injuries to Plaintiff’s shoulder, back, neck, spine, his left arm, and twisted his left knee.
 
• A slip and fall incident which occurred at a supermarket when Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a grape in the produce section. Plaintiff stated her left leg and knee made contact with the ground and moved to a sitting position immediately after. Defendant disputes any serious or acute significant injury.
 
• A trip and fall premises liability claim which occurred when Plaintiff fell and collided with a Sales Associate who was carrying merchandise at the time. Liability is disputed as Sales Associate claims the Plaintiff stepped backwards and onto Sales Associate’s foot causing them both to fall to the ground.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred as a result of Defendant’s negligent driving, causing a rear-end collision. Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries and pain and suffering.

• A personal injury case deriving from an object falling from a shelf above eye level. Specifically, Plaintiff was reaching for a mattress cover and had to reach above and far back on the shelf to retrieve it. In reaching for the mattress cover, a metal piece of the shelf fell and struck Plaintiff’s right hand. Plaintiff presented herself to the emergency room and had negative findings in the x-ray. Inclusive, Defendant’s mediation brief suggests that Plaintiff received unnecessary treatment, including chiropractic care and spinal manipulation.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occurred on the freeway when Defendant rear ended Plaintiff at a low rate of speed during stop and go traffic. Plaintiff is seeking 25k in pain and suffering as well as an additional 25k for emotional distress. Defendant has not made any settlement offers and believes that because it was a low impact accident, the demand of the Plaintiff do no coincide with the amount he is seeking.
 
• A two vehicle collision which occured when Defendant attempted a left hand turn and collieded head on with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff was traveling with a front seat passenger and 3 children at the time of the accident. As a result of the collision, Plaintiffs (driver and passenger)sought medical attention. The driver had the following positive findings: evidence of lumbar lordosis, a 2-3mm bulge at the lumbar spine. The front seat passenger had the following findings: Positive results for Cervical Compression, Cervical Distraction and Soto-Hall tests. Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for their injuries and damages in the amounts of 30k for the driver and 15k for the passenger.
 
• A five vehicle rear-end collision which occurred at an intersection when Respondent lost control of his vehicle and caused a chain event of rear-end collisions. Respondent has a limited policy and there are five claimants. As a result of the collision, the initial Claimant who was rear ended first sought treatment for his injuries and resulted in the following findings: 3mm disc bulge.
 
• A two vehicle rear end collision that occurred at an intersection and Plaintiff, who was at a complete stop, was struck by Defendant’s vehicle. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff was transported via ambulance to the hospital where she sought treatment and was diagnosed with pain to her neck and back. Defendant’s are contending that because it was a minor impact, Plaintiff sought unnecessary and excessive treatment.
 
• A three vehicle collision which occurred on a freeway when Plaintiff was rear ended by Defendant and pushed into the vehicle in front. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sought medical treatment as well as an MRI which had positive findings including a 3mm disc protrusion
 
• A three vehicle collision which occured on a freeway. Liability dispute. The middle vehicle claims that the vehicle in front stopped for no reason and gave this statement to the California Patrol Highway Officer, however, during deposition, the middle vehicle claimed that she was rear-ended by the vehicle behind her and pushed into the vehicle in front. All cars were deemed a total loss
 
• A personal injury case which occurred when Plaintiff went over to Defendant’s house to do labor work and while on the ladder, the ladder broke causing the Plaintiff to fall and get injured.
 
• A subrogation case arising from a two vehicle collision which occurred at an intersection. Liability is disputed due to the fact that some comparative fault should be attributed to the Plaintiff for speeding at the time of the accident. Defendant has a limited insurance policy for property damage of $5,000. Defendant counsel claims that the Plaintiff’s vehicle should not have been rendered a total loss and was repairable for the amount of $9,318.27. Plaintiff made a demand for $18,522.75 and Defendant has offered $5,000.00.
 
• A subrogation case arising from a three vehicle collision which occurred on the freeway when Defendant collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle which then caused the Plaintiff’s vehicle to rear end the vehicle in front of her. Total damages to Plaintiff’s vehicle is $24,709.83 and Defendant extended pro rata limits of $3,345.33. Defendant is unwilling to make any offers of contribution towards the remaining balance.
 
• A subrogation case arising from a two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant made an unsafe lane change and forced the Plaintiff up onto the curb. Liability is disputed. Defendant contends that Plaintiff is the one who made an unsafe lane change. Plaintiff seeks damages for the total  loss of their insured. Based on a 50/50 liability apportionment, Defendant has offered 50% of the value of the repairs determined by Defendant’s expert.
 
• A subrogation case arising from a two vehicle collision which occurred when Defendant lost control of his vehicle, crossed over double yellow lines and collided with the Plaintiff. The total damages to the Plaintiff’s vehicle is more than the policy amount that the Defendant has. Plaintiff is demanding $41,614.49 and Defendant made an offer of $10,00.00. Plaintiff is seeking to recover the remaining balance from the Defendant, however the Defendant cannot afford to make payments as he is a father of three children and out of work.

view all

• An individual disability discrimination, constructive termination, failure to engage, etc., case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that in response to requests for accommodations based on medical limitations, the employer affirmatively stated that no accommodation was possible. Plaintiff's opening demand was $650,000.
• An individual age discrimination case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that after 15+ years of employment, he was wrongfully terminated due to his age, and as a pretext for which the company used an alleged inappropriate social media message. Plaintiff position was that the company had undertaken phases of layoffs and termination in an effort to oust older employees. Opening demand was $150,000.
• An individual wage and hour case with additional allegations re disability discrimination and failure to engage based on at least one industrial injury that interfered with Plaintiff's work abilities and which caused her to require accommodations and other restrictions in her duties as Housekeeping person. Opening demand $350,000.
• An individual wage and hour case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that he was paid below minimum wage for an extended period of time and throughout his employment, was not paid OT, and otherwise was not afforded meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff's opening demand was $140,000.
• An individual wage and hour and wrongful termination case as between a domestic employee and her former employer wherein the Plaintiff alleges that after 15 years of employment she was paid below minimum wage, was provided no meal breaks or rest breaks, was provided with no wage statements, and other subjected to harassing and retaliatory acts leading to her alleged constructive termination. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $285,000.

• A disability discrimination and wrongful termination action, as well as some ancillary wage and hour claims, by a pizza delivery driver against his former employer. Plaintiff was injured while working for another employer (during a second job) and his injuries therefrom caused him to be taken off-work for many months. Once the Plaintiff presented his Pizza employer with a release to work letter with certain restrictions, Plaintiff alleges that he was told that the employer couldn’t accommodate his restrictions and that he was essentially terminated based on his disability. Plaintiff also alleges inter alia that the employer also failed to engage in an interactive process vis-à-vis finding him an accommodation during the period that his restrictions were in play. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $280,000.
• Plaintiff was employed by a transit company wherein she was driver of wheelchair accessible vans. During the course of her employment, plaintiff suffered an injury that necessitated her to go on disability for several years. She was at first placed on temporary total disability, and later released to work with permanent restrictions. Plaintiff alleges that she presented her doctor’s note with her new restrictions, and sought an accommodation. Plaintiff further alleges that her employer did not provide her with a reasonable interactive process nor offered her any accommodation or alternative light duty work. In addition to a claim for disability discrimination and wrongful termination, Plaintiff also maintain a wage and hour claim based on uninterrupted meal breaks and rest breaks not being provided. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $300,000.
• A individual wage and hour case wherein 2 plaintiffs allege that for the entirety of their employment at a garment company they did not received: uninterrupted meal breaks, uninterrupted rest breaks, overtime hours were paid at the regular rate, as well as waiting penalties, PAGA penalties and attorneys fees. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $85,000.
• A disputed liability and damages case wherein the gravamen of the claims were for disability discrimination. Plaintiff alleges that he was hired by a temp/staffing agency and assigned to work for another company, the special employer, during which time he sustained an industrial injury. A few days after his injury and after reporting his disability and his work restrictions, Plaintiff alleges that he was written up twice in 5 days and ultimately reassigned to another, less desirable, position and terminated thereafter on a pretextual basis. Opening demand $180,000.
• A disputed liability and damages employment matter wherein the Plaintiff alleges sexual harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she and her “boss” were first friends, later became employer-employee, and later still became romantically involved. Thereafter, it is alleged that a variety of incidents occurred between the Plaintiff and her boss, e.g., emails, text messages, and other in-person situations, that not only caused their personal relationship to sour but also the employment relationship. Plaintiff alleges that after her termination, several attempts were made to re-hire her. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $695,000.
• A disputed liability individual wage and hour case wherein the Plaintiff, who was the night warden/patient custodian at a facility alleges that he was not allowed uninterrupted meal breaks and rest periods for many years. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $120,000.
• A dispute liability disability discrimination case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that after suffering a workplace injury, and while he was receiving treatment and under a doctor’s prescribed work restrictions, his employment was abruptly terminated when he refused to sweep the floor as requested. Plaintiff further contended that he was led to believe that he was being terminated on that day as opposed to merely being sent home for the day for insubordination. Opening demand was $180,000.
• A disputed liability disability discrimination case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that she worked for many years as a housekeeper for a hotel/motel. Plaintiff was injured on the job, and after taking a few days of medical leave per her doctor’s suggestion, her hours/work was significantly cut upon her return because she was asking for reasonable accommodations and modified work based on the doctor’s prescribed work limitations. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $500,000.
• A disputed liability “joint employer liability” case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that as a result of an injury both “site employer” and the staffing agency discriminated against the Plaintiff based on disability, retaliated against the Plaintiff based thereon, failed to provide accommodations, failed to engage in a good faith interactive process, and ultimately wrongfully terminated said employee. Opening demand was $240,000.
• A disputed liability employment case wherein the focus of the case was pertaining to disability discrimination, failure to engage and failure to accommodate an alleged disability arising from a workplace accident. While there was a companion workers comp case, that case was not at issue. Plaintiff alleges that she was not provided with an opportunity to find other work, was not offered a reasonable accommodation, and that she would have been able to satisfy the essential job functions of other positions if offered to her. Plaintiff was a 20+ year veteran in her position, and alleges that since her termination, her life has taken a turn for the worst. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $85,000.
• A disputed liability disability discrimination case. Plaintiff worked as a general laborer for an office furniture manufacturer. He alleges that he was carrying boxes, and in doing so had his foot/ankle run over by a forklift truck causing him serious personal injuries and causing him to ultimately be reported as P&S with permanent restrictions. Plaintiff alleges that the employer did not participate in a reasonable interactive process nor provided him with adequate accommodations or alternative work. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $240,000.
• A disputed liability religious discrimination case. Plaintiff alleges that she has worked at a company for upwards of 20 years and that during the entire period her religious beliefs and affiliations were well known to the employer such that she was never asked to work on a Sunday (even though the company’s shifts required every similarly situated employee to work 2 Saturdays and 2 Sundays every month) because of her belief that it’s “God’s Day” that she used for service to her church and community as well as for rest and contemplation. Plaintiff alleges that her employment was wrongfully terminated when she refused to work on Sundays given the then new fiscal constraints on the company necessitating said work by Plaintiff on Sundays. Opening demand was $480,000.
• A disputed liability case against a restaurant chain alleging failure to provide uninterrupted meal breaks and rest breaks, failure to furnish wage and hour statements, waiting time penalties as well as emotional distress and attorney’s fees, totaling an alleged $500,000 plus in damages. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $340,000.
• A dispute liability wage/hour and PAGA case arising from an employment relationship that ended. Plaintiff alleged being owed for meal breaks, rest breaks, OT, as well as for a variety of wage statement violations. Plaintiff's opening demand was $180,000.
• A disputed liability wage and hour case that also involved an alleged wrongful termination based on retaliation and sexual harassment. Plaintiff, who worked for a pharmacy alleged that she was repeatedly sexually harassed, ultimately terminated and that during the term of her employment her hours were short on her time sheets and that she was not paid OT or 2xOT as required. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $225,000.
• A disputed liability and damages wage and hour case wherein Plaintiff who worked as a printing machine operator for a publishing company alleges inter alia that he was not paid his entitled overtime, was not provided with uninterrupted meal breaks and rest breaks, as well as claims under PAGA. Plaintiff's opening demand was $950,000.
• A wage and hour case wherein the Plaintiff, a chef, alleges that he was not paid overtime, was not provided meal breaks or rest breaks, was not provided with accurate wage statements, and was not reimbursed for both working off the clock or for expenses that he advanced for the employers by using his car for errands. Plaintiff's opening demand was $200,000.
• A disputed liability and damages employment matter alleging inter alia wrongful termination, disability discrimination, failure to engage, and failure to accommodate, etc. Plaintiff, a 17 year veteran of the company was injured during work, and alleges that she was forced to take an extended leave of absence despite being released back to work though with restrictions. Employer claimed that the restrictions made Plaintiff unable to perform essential job duties. Plaintiff alleges that upon having her restrictions removed, the employer had already undertaken to hire a replacement, and that she was not offered a comparable position. Plaintiff also alleges that while she was on 'forced' leave, the employer did not engage her in an interactive process and also failed to properly accommodate her based on her disability. Plaintiff's opening demand was $950,000.
• A disputed liability and damages employment matter alleging inter alia harassment, discrimination based on disability (and related claims for failure to accommodate and have an interactive process) and national origin, wage and hour violations, wrongful termination, etc. Plaintiff was a handyman/tradesman working for a property owner/management company, and alleges that a direct supervisor harassed him, did not reimburse him for items, and otherwise discriminated against him and verbally cast him in negative light. Opening demand was $360,000.
• Liability and damages are in dispute in this three Plaintiff employment case against one employer wherein the gravamen of the allegations pertain to sexual harassment by a direct supervisor, battery and constructive termination among other claims. Plaintiffs allege that their direct supervisor showed them pornographic pictures, propositioned them, touched them without consent, etc., all of which was reported with no meaningful response by the employer, and which ultimately gave rise to their constructive termination. Plaintiffs’ combined opening demand was $500,000.00
• A disputed liability and damages employment case. Plaintiffs worked for a dental office. They allege that: (1) each of their employments were wrongfully and constructively terminated because of a disability; (2) that the employer failed to facilitate an interactive process; (3) various meal break, rest break violations; (4) wage statement violations; and (5) retaliation for whistleblowing the employer’s alleged violation of certain patient safety regulations/standards of care. Plaintiffs sought recovery of past and future lost wages, statutory penalties, as well as emotional distress. Plaintiffs’ combined opening demand was $350,000.
• Plaintiff was unloading a truck during, and as part of, his regular work duties, at which time something fell on his foot injuring him. He requested to go to the doctor for treatment. The details of the balance of the alleged facts are in dispute. Plaintiff alleges that due to his injury, the time he had to take off work for treatment and doctor’s visits, and not being provided with reasonable accommodations (and alleged failure to enter into an interactive process), he was ultimately wrongfully terminated. The Defendant points to a violation of the company’s tardy/late/absence policy and that the doctor’s note(s) provided did not support the Plaintiff’s absence from work, rather they only supported a need for alternative work duties/accommodations, which the Defendant allegedly provided. Opening demand was $145,000.
• Plaintiff alleges that inter alia that the Defendant discriminated against him based on his age and disability in ending the employment relationship and otherwise failed to enter into an interactive process to discuss reasonable accommodations. Defendant contends inter alia that the lay-off was due to closures of one or more locations which no longer necessitated the Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $120,000.
• This is a FEHA, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination case. Plaintiff alleged inter alia that having reported sexual harassment by another employee upon yet another employee (or two), that his employer retaliated based on the foregoing complaints/reports and as such said employment was constructively terminated. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $120,000.
• Plaintiff was a former employee at Defendant’s restaurant. During the term of his employment, Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive overtime, was not provided with rest and meal breaks, he was not provided with his last paycheck on time, and a variety of other claims such as PAGA claim, waiting time penalties, conversion, unfair competition, etc. Plaintiff claimed that his claims as well as the PAGA penalties were approx. $65,000, and the opening demand was $165,000.
• Three Plaintiff case alleging hostile work environment which allegedly forced all three Plaintiffs to leave their jobs. It was alleged that the Manager of the business repeatedly made three broad categories of comments to each of the Plaintiffs – one based on sexual orientation, national origin, and race. It was also alleged that the business started to cut the employees hours in response to their complaints about the foregoing treatment. Plaintiffs’ further allege that they had to seek therapy and psych treatment as a result of both the alleged hostile work environment as well as from losing their jobs and having to find new employment. Plaintiffs’ collective demand was approx. $435,000.
• This is a gender, association, harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation case. Plaintiff has been an employee of the Defendant since 2000. The gravamen of her complaints arise from a series of alleged events wherein she was sexually and otherwise harassed by a co-worker and/or supervisor, and thereafter a series of event arising from Plaintiff’s work performance and alleged wrongful withheld promotion(s). Plaintiff’s opening demand was $625,000.
• Two former employees, who are mother and daughter, bring an action for wrongful termination, harassment, failure to prevent harassment, retaliation, etc., arising from allegations that a co-worker was sexually harassing the daughter which went unchecked, and that upon the daughter’s and the mother’s reporting of said harassment, both were not invited to come back to work – the mother’s claim was inter alia an associational claim of retaliation. The employer, a temp. agency, and the company wherein the Plaintiffs worked, denied liability claiming no notice of any alleged bad acts, that the downsizing was a result of a down-tick in business as well as a piece of machinery being broken, and that their investigation did not yield a finding of sexual harassment. Each Plaintiff demanded $350,000.
• Plaintiff worked as a valet and parking lot attendant. Plaintiff claimed inter alia that he was wrongfully terminated, that his wages were improperly calculated, that his hours were rounded down, that some of his hours were not paid, that his overtime was paid in cash at his regular rate of pay as opposed to 1.5x. He further claims that he was not afforded his meal and rest breaks based on the hours that he worked on any given day. Lastly, Plaintiff claimed that due to a foot injury, he was unable to properly perform his duties without pain and discomfort, and that we he informed his employer they failed to engage in an interactive process to address the issue. Opening demand was $500,000.
• This case arises from a dispute between Plaintiff, who was hired by Defendant, a wholesale shoe company. Plaintiff was hired as a graphic designer with a background in shoe design. Defendants are stating that Plaintiff was underqualified for the position after reviewing her initial shoe designs in comparison to others that they had hired in the past. Plaintiff sued Defendants with complaints of discrimination and claimed to have been denied meal breaks.
• This case involves a Plaintiff who is suing his former employer based on discrimination and failure to prevent discrimination. Plaintiff on several occasions took an exam to grant him a promotion but was continually rejected despite having excellent test scores. Plaintiff contends that he was discriminated against due to his age and cultural background.
• This case involves an individual and his former employer. Plaintiff believes he was wrongfully terminated. Specifically, Plaintiff took time off from work due to an injury and when he returned to work with a doctor’s note, his supervisor advised the Plaintiff to pick up his final check. Defendant’s believe that the Plaintiff’s immigration status may be in question, as the doctor’s note the Plaintiff presented had a different name.
• This case arises from an appeal from summary judgment entered in favor of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores on all of Plaintiff’s employment-related claims. Plaintiff worked for Walmart for ten years and was terminated for job abandonment. Plaintiff requested and used protected FMLA/CFRA leave for adoption placement of her baby nephew following the death of the child’s father. Due to the holiday rush, the store manager requested the Plaintiff to return to work. Plaintiff was denied a second request for FMLA leave due to not having worked a certain number of hours. Store manager suggested cutting Plaintiff’s work hours so that she may use her vacation time to complete the adoption process. Plaintiff was then terminated from Walmart and was told by Human Resources that the store manager had also been terminated. Plaintiff sought employment at another Walmart store but was blocked by the Human Resources manager from being hired due to misconduct.
• A case in which Plaintiff claims she was wrongfully terminated as a result of her disability, Cerebral Palsy. At the time, Plaintiff was terminated after a two day training period. Plaintiff’s husband is an employee of the company and recommended his wife as an employee. Defendant states they were unaware of Plaintiff’s disability at time of hire.
• Employment case on appeal for enforcement of an Arbitration clause. Underlying case included claims for Discrimination, Retaliation, Failure to Present Discrimination and Retaliation, Failure to provide reasonable accommodation, Failure to engage in good faith interactive process, and wrongful termination. Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as a general assistant. Plaintiff terminated. Plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer. Plaintiff immediately informed his employer that he would require surgery and time off from work due to his condition. Plaintiff underwent surgery and took a one month leave to recover. Plaintiff returned to work with doctor’s work restrictions. The restrictions given to Plaintiff by his doctor included no lifting more than 20 pounds. Despite providing Defendants with his work restrictions, Plaintiff’s managers did not offer Plaintiff modified work and directed Plaintiff to continue working as normal. Plaintiff was regularly asked to violate his doctor’s restrictions and lifted heavy items. Following his return to work, Plaintiff’s managers began treating him differently and began looking for reasons to reprimand him. Defendants discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating his employment after Plaintiff informed Defendants of his disability or perceived disability, medical condition or perceived medical condition, and request for accommodations.

view all

• A breach of contract, fraud, etc., action wherein Plaintiff alleges that she was scammed by a trusted and long-term acquaintance to accept shares in an LLC that was not profitable in exchange for agreeing the defendants to use her personal information to obtain a business line of credit to aid in business development. Plaintiff further alleges that instead of a line of credit, three credit cards were opened, thousands of dollars charges (some for alleged personal use), and that approx. $40k-$60K in balances were generated, with one such credit card now being in default/collection. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $305,000.
• A disputed liability habitability case as well as an underlying landlord and tenant dispute involving allegations of deferred maintenance, alleges prior water intrusion, poor weatherproofing, termite infestation, mold, etc., that caused at least one of the tenants to show allergic reactions and causing a variety of bodily injuries, general damages, etc., from not only exposure but also from temporarily being relocated, etc. Opening demand was $150,000.
• A breach of contract and fraud case between shareholders in an entity that was operating one or more hospices. Plaintiff alleges that his percentage was reduced year after year because of his alleged shortcomings in generating business even though he was orally promised that even with a lower percentage share, his K1’s would still be high or will increase, which Plaintiff alleges never happened. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that in 2014 the entity filed tax returns indicating that he had received a K1 from said entity even though Plaintiff alleges that he did not, and which resulted in his being assessed significant taxes, interest and penalties for essentially a K1 distribution which he did not receive. Plaintiff’s opening move was $650,000.
• A breach of contract case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that the parties entered into an agreement back in 2012 for Plaintiff to provide some tax consulting services, specifically in finding tax credits available to the Defendant. Defendant alleges that its performance was excused because Plaintiff did not provide a particular services as part of the Plaintiff’s contracted services. Plaintiff inter alia alleges that the particular service was never contracted for, was provided a few times as a courtesy and that the Defendant had both notice of this and the ability to take corrective measures to prevent/mitigate any damages alleged in this action.
• A dispute between business neighbors wherein Plaintiff alleges that several times in the past, water has intruded into his property causing damages to the property arising from alleged poor drainage on the shared roof as well as the parking lot.  Defendant denied causation and damages, alleging that the damage to Plaintiff's property was due to other sources of water intrusion unrelated to the Defendant. 

• Plaintiffs purchased a SFR in Los Angeles. The same brokerage represented both buyers and sellers, though each side had different agents from said brokerage.  Plaintiffs allege that after COE, they foudn out that the house had suffered extenstive fire damage that was a latent condition which should have been disclosed by the sellers and/or their agents.  Defendants allege that Plaintiffs received timely disclosures that put the buyers on notice, though the buyers allege that they never received said notice/disclosure.  Plaintiffs' opening demand was approx. $500,000.
• A real estate dispute arising from a purchase of two vacant lots. Plaintiff contends that seller and seller’s agent did not disclose/concealed that a neighboring lot was, and had been for years, using one of the two lots at issue for ingress and egress based on necessity. Plaintiff seeking rescission and monetary damages in excess of $150,000.
• Plaintiff alleges that she entered into a contract with Defendant for debt relief as well as credit repair, whereas Defendant contends that it made several verbal and written representations that it was not providing any credit repair services.  Plaintiff alleges causes of action based on tort, fraud, contract as well as violations of The Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), and further alleges that she is entitled to monetary damages, punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees.  Opening demand is $175,000.
• Plaintiff, a public agency, contracted with defendant for certain IT solutions. Plaintiff alleges that as part of said agreement, Defendant was to provide inter alia periodic onsite and offsite backups of their data. Plaintiff alleges that as part of an upgrade/expansion of their server capacity, all or almost all of their data was lost to the extent that most, if not all of it, was not readily or easily recoverable.  Defendant dispute liability and damages, and alleged that essentially a third-party vendor was the one responsible for the data loss because Defendant had acted within the standard of care and otherwise consistent with its scope of work per the contract with the Plaintiff. Opening demand was $118,000.
• A loan dispute between merchants including an alleged third-party guarantor for the alleged loan. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $250,000. 
• Defendants served as the Plaintiff’s Real Estate Agent and Broker in the sale of the subject property. Plaintiff intended to do a 1031 Exchange to defer capital gain taxation. Plaintiff enrolled the assistance of the Agent to complete the 1031 Exchange transaction, which was not timely handled and as such Plaintiff contends that he was hit with approx. $130,000 in federal and state taxes, as well as having lost the income stream from the Target property as well as its future appreciation in value. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $187,000.
• This is a property damage dispute involving upstairs and downstairs neighbors at a condo complex. Plaintiff, the downstairs neighbor, alleges that the defendant, the upstairs neighbor, negligently caused water intrusion into his unit, and in support thereof presented evidence that the source of the leak was underneath the Defendant’s kitchen sink. Cross-Defendant HOA was also involved in the case.  Opening demand was $120,000 to account for not only the repair of the premises, but also for pack-in, pack-out, as well as temporary housing during the repairs/remediation.
• Plaintiff operates a hotel that shares a 250+ feet common wall with a Church. Plaintiff alleges that due to poor/inappropriate drainage and/or issues with the water protection of the wall/stucco etc., the interior of the hotel sustained $60+ thousand dollars’ worth of damage, as well as other damages such as past and future loss of income.  The germane legal issues included causation as well as statute of limitations issues. 
• Plaintiff contracted for a mobile storage container and alleges that the container was lost in transit. Plaintiff sues for the value of the content, and his starting demand was $300,000.00.
• Purchaser of a shopping center alleges that he had instructed the seller and all brokers involved that none of the then existing leases should be renewed and that otherwise the status quo should be maintained because (Plaintiff alleges that it was well known by all that) Plaintiff intended to convert the shopping center in to a mixed-use property requiring some if not all current tenants to relocate during construction. Plaintiff alleges at despite his instruction, the seller nevertheless extended one of the then current leases by another 5 years.  The Buyer’s opening demand was $150,000 and the tenant’s opening demand was also $150,000.  
• Plaintiff and his son were tenants in the Defendant’s residential rental property beginning on or about 2013.  Plaintiffs allege that beginning 2013 and last through 2017 when the Plaintiffs vacated due to an alleged constructive eviction, that various serious conditions existed with the rental unit including but not limited to water intrusion, mold, and other related issues/conditions. Plaintiffs allege that they made several written and verbal complaints to the landlord’s property manager, and that they also complained to the Department of Health and Safety – who inspected the property and found merit to some of the conditions alleged. Defendant inter alia alleges that the Plaintiffs did not provide access for purposes of fixing the conditions, and that the Plaintiffs moved out before said conditions could be remediated. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $118,900
• Plaintiffs were tenant at the Defendant/Landlord’s premises. Plaintiffs allege that at various times, landlord attempted to evict them and/or attempted entry to the unit via a variety of alleged notices that were not properly served. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant on multiple occasions, verbally and in writing, expressed some extreme language, profanity, alleged threats, and some including alleged anti-Semitic references. Defendant Landlord also was asserted a cross-complaint for inter alia assault and battery.  Opening demand was $350,000.
• This case arises from the sale of a pizza restaurant. Plaintiff/seller alleges that defendant/buyer knew throughout the transaction that buyer needed to submit certain financial information to the landlord such that the landlord would approve the assignment of lease so that the seller would be relinquished from said lease.  The Buyer satisfied all condition of the sale, tendered purchase price, etc., and began operation, but allegedly, for one reason or another, did not finalize the assignment of lease requirement. After a few months, seller issued a 3-Day Notice, in response to which the buyer vacated, taking all equipment and most fixtures.  Plaintiff/seller’s opening demand was $175,000, and the Defendant/buyer’s counter-claim was for $225,000.
• Plaintiff purchased the subject property, at which time he alleges that he informed both the seller and the real estate agent(s) that the functioning of the water well was a material term/condition to the transaction.  Plaintiff alleges that upon close of escrow, the water well did not produce the necessary amount of water for their intended use of the property despite having asked the real estate professionals for certificates/reports as to both potability and quantity of water produced by the water well. Plaintiff stated various claims based on fraud as well as failure to disclose against the seller and the real estate professionals involved.  Plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $1.4 million.
• This is a neighbor dispute arising from purported competing rights to a common driveway.  Plaintiff contends that a prior court order is binding on both neighbors re neither neighbor being allowed to obstruct access and/or use of the drive to the exclusion of the other.  Defendant contends that the prior court order was superseded by a written agreement between Defendant and the prior owner of the neighboring lot (from whom Plaintiff purchased the property). Plaintiff further contends inter alia that the aforementioned written agreement is not binding on him, and that when he purchased the property was not even recorded and that the prior owner did not have a legal interest in said property to encumber the property that Plaintiff purchased. 
• Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a software use/licensing agreement. The contract had an initial 3-year term, and provided that it would renew annually. After many years without any issues, Defendant purported to give notice to terminate the agreement. Plaintiff’s position is, among other things, that the while the agreement can be terminated with notice, upon termination the Defendant is still responsible for payments for the balance of the calendar year within which the agreement was terminated.  Defendant’s position is that the contract is vague as to various material terms regarding termination, and that the contract is silent on whether or not the cancelling client is still responsible for monthly payments even after terminating and for the rest of the year within which the contract was purportedly terminated.
• This is a wrongful foreclosure case. Plaintiff made a loan to a third party, said loan was subordinate 2nd position. The third party went into default on the 1st loan, and said loan and the property securing both loans went into foreclosure. The property was sold at non-judicial foreclosure.  Plaintiff contends that he/his agent did not receive any notice of the foreclosure, and that when it was discovered at the eleventh hour and contact was made with the Trusee, said Trustee did not stay the foreclosure based on the allegation of no notice. Plaintiff contends that had he known about the foreclosure, he could have and would have bid to purchase the foreclosing 1st position, thus retaining his interest in the property.  The defendants contend that all statutory notices were properly given.
• A case involving a divorced couple and their daughter. Plaintiffs (wife and daughter) are suing Defendant (husband and father) as a result of monies owned for a jointly owned property. The subject property is a residential house which the family lived together in until the Plaintiff and Defendant decided to separate and finally divorce. Defendant and Plaintiff executed a Marital Settlement Agreement whereby Defendant agreed to transfer ownership of the property to Plaintiff as her separate property. Plaintiff then transferred the title of the property to include her daughter. Defendant named his ex-wife as a nominee of the property he purchased.
• A Landlord-Tenant dispute case. Plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result of Defendant’s negligent maintenance of his property. When Plaintiff first moved in, he made a request for the bathtub\shower to be repaired, as there were no grab-bars installed and the tub had no anti-slip material. While Plaintiff was taking a shower one afternoon, he raised his leg and fell backwards, crashing through the glass shower door and causing glass to be embedded on multiple parts of his body and landed on both knees. As a result, Plaintiff transported by ambulance to the emergency room where he was treated with open wound lacerations and was recommended future medical care for both knees including bilateral knee surgeries.  Plaintiff made a demand of $124,999 which has expired.
• This case involves the sale of a property. The Plaintiff, an elderly man, bought the from Defendant. The Plaintiff is alleging elder abuse, alleging the seller took advantage of his poor eyesight when signing the documents.
• A case involving AirBnB in which the Plaintiff alleges she was caused emotional distress due to being evicted from her hotel. 
• A case arising out of a home fire incident. Plaintiff is seeking damages from a construction company which was remodeling the home. Defendants concede that there were multiple areas of debris due to the remodeling. Inclusive, the fire was caused by a furnace which was manipulated by the home owners to serve as an electrical heater with a thermostat. 
• Plaintiff was the owner of an apartment building which was sold to Defendant. Plaintiff felt they were scammed. The real estate broker led Plaintiff to believe that the Defendant was going to add the property to their portfolio. Defendant failed to present various documentation including proof of funds and loan application. Plaintiff claims they were rushed by the broker into signing the agreement prior to discussing property issues.
• A case involving Plaintiff performing construction services at Defendants residence for which the Defendants refuse to pay all the amounts due. Defendants acted as owner-builders at their property but then opted to hire a general contractor. Defendants entered into a cost-plus contract with Plaintiff, an agreement based on the cost of subcontractor services, materials, any labor together with an amount of overhead and profit. The contract had a stated amount of $195,478, however it was an estimate. During the construction, Defendants made a total of 43 change orders which were never signed. Defendants were habitually behind on payments and ultimately stopped paying without explanation.
• This is a claim pursuant to the recorded Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, Reservations and Rights of Way. The Plaintiff and Defendants are neighbors. Plaintiff claims that Defendants allowed their tree to grow to a height that restricts the view of the Plaintiffs, resulting in a sharply diminished value of their property.
 
• Dispute among tenants in common regarding improvements and management as it pertains to the value of each partner’s share in proceeds from sale.
 
• A family rift involving ownership and ownership interest in a jointly owned property.
• Plaintiff alleges Defendant owes business taxes for the tax periods 2004-2011.

view all

• A disputed liability student, a minor, v. school/district case wherein the Plaintiff alleges while an athletic coach was treating him for shin splits with a heated compress, the Plaintiff was left unattended for 10-15 minutes during which time the compress moved from one location to another and caused a 2nd and 3rd degree burn on his lower extremities. Plaintiff’s injuries included scarring as well as the possibility of future revision surgery. Opening demand was $400,000.
• A disputed liability case against a City defendant for serious bodily injuries arising from a trip-and-fall as a result of an apparent 2-inch sidewalk elevation/up-rise. Plaintiff suffered a fractured proximal Ulnar shaft, ended up needing an ORIF procedure and had hardware installed. In addition, Plaintiff alleges injuries to her shoulder and elbow due to over-compensation in use and weigh bearing from her injured arm. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $350,000.
• Plaintiff was leaving the VA Hospital at which time she alleges to have been hit by a bus near the front entrance. Plaintiff suffered a plethora of injuries inter alia to her neck, back, shoulders and knees, which necessitated treatment including an ESI to her C-spine and an ESI to her L-spine. Plaintiff's past medical specials were approximately $65,000, and she anticipated up to two further surgical procedures to her knee and shoulder(s), with an anticipated cost of $60,000-$100,000. Plaintiff's opening demand was $350,000.
• A disputed liability case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that he was helping a city employee working in garbage collection load a toilet seat into the back of a garbage truck. Plaintiff alleges that the city employee acted negligently in that regard causing the toilet to break as it was being loaded and to seriously cut Plaintiff’s arm causing him permanent nerve damage and scarring. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $500,000.
• A disputed slip and fall case wherein Plaintiff, a few days after giving birth, slipped on some water near the showers/nurse's station in the maternity ward. Plaintiff injuries to her back and primarily to her knees, necessitating injections and other procedures. Plaintiff's past specials were approx. $60,000. Plaintiff's opening demand was $250,000.

• A disputed liability slip and fall case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that as she and others were disembarking a bus from a casino, she tripped and fell on a loose/compromised vault cover causing her various soft tissue injuries as well as injury to her knee that required a surgical procedure for debrisment. Plaintiff's past specials were approx. $30,000. Opening demand was $180,000.
• A disputed liability and damages trip and fall case wherein Plaintiff alleges that while he was walking with his young child, he tripped and fell on an uplifted pavement slab causing him to fall on his knees and wrists. Plaintiff's past medical specials were approx. $30,000, his past LOE was approx. $40,000, and that he had very high anticipated future lost earnings/earnings capacity given that he was a musician needing to use his hands/wrists daily. Plaintiff's chief complaint with his wrists were Kienbock's Disease and Osteonecrosis. Plaintiff's opening demand was $1,000,000.
• A disputed liability trip and fall case against a City in Los Angeles County involving a lady in her 60s. Plaintiff alleges that as she was walking from a grocery store to go pick up her grandchild from school, she tripped and fell on 1.5-2.0 inches of raised portion/lip of a city sidewalk/concrete slab. Plaintiff sustained head, neck, jaw, shoulders, arm, etc., and after being transported to the ER, she underwent an ORIF procedure to a fractured distal radius bone. Plaintiff sustained approx. $24,000 in post-Howell past medical specials, and alleges that she may also need future shoulder surgery arising from the same incident. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $275,000.
• A dispute liability and damages slip and fall accident. Plaintiff, an elderly man, alleges that on new years eve and as he was walking towards a taxi to embark, he slipped and fell on mud and other debris that had washed down and accumulated in front of his house and without his knowledge. Plaintiff alleges that the LA DWP’s work/activities further up the street caused the material to wash down near his house. The incident occurred in the evening and Plaintiff alleges that he did not see the debris that caused him to fall. Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries, though due to a plethora of other health issues, it was not quite clear how/which of the injuries were caused by the incident and which were aggravations of prior conditions. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $50,000.
• Plaintiff was struck by a reversing USPS truck while Plaintiff was walking to and from a community post box. While liability was not in dispute, Defendant disputed the amount of damages, argued that Plaintiff was comparatively at fault, and furthermore there was a pending MSJ on calendar as well as some other legal arguments/defenses in play. Plaintiff’s soft tissue injuries necessitated approx. $57,000 in past medical specials, and it was anticipated that her past and future general damages may likely be in the six-figure range. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $607,466.56.
• Plaintiff alleges that while walking down a sidewalk, he tripped and fell on a portion of a pavement was that 1.5-1.75 inches elevated, causing him to suffer a fractured wrist and a fractured elbow. While Plaintiff's past medical specials were in approx. $15,000, he claimed that his past LOE claim as well as damages from allegedly being forced into an early retirement due to his injuries was in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. Plaintiff sued the City and the property owner who owned the tree whose roots had allegedly caused the pavement to become elevated. Plaintiff's opening demand was $350,000.
• This is a disputed liability case involving two vehicles, one of which was operated by a DWP employee during course and scope of employment. Plaintiff alleges that she was travelling in the No. 1 lane during unusually heavy rains at which time the defendant’s work truck pulled forward from the east trying to make a left hand turn in front of the Plaintiff at which time Plaintiff’s vehicle T-boned the Defendant’s vehicle. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff alleges to have suffered an eye laceration, as well as injuries to her spine and knees which necessitated approx. $70,000 in medical bills (2x ESI in the L-Spine as well as arthroscopic surgery to her right knee to treat a torn meniscus), and potentially $50,000 or more for future care including but not limited to surgery to the left knee. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $500,000.
• Plaintiffs, mother and son, were driving at which point they allege that they were T-boned by a police cruiser. Each side contends that they had the green light. Plaintiff (Mother) was transported to the ER wherein she had a plethora of diagnostic tests done give that she bore the brunt of the force/impact. Despite the impact, Plaintiffs’ injuries were limited to soft-tissue complaints, for which they received treatment. Plaintiffs’ combined past medical specials were approx. $50,000. Plaintiffs’ combined opening demand was $170,000.
• Due to a displaced sidewalk, Plaintiff fell and fractured her right foot. As a result of the injury, the Plaintiff, who earned her living as a street performer, was unable to work for several months and demanded loss of earnings in the amount of $57,000. Inclusive, Plaintiff was once an avid hiker and is no longer able to enjoy hiking due to her injury.
• A trip and fall accident which occurred as Plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk with her son and tripped over a 2 ¾ crack that was left on the left side of the sidewalk. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained a complex fracture, broken dental bridge and the loss of three teeth.

view all

• This is a pre-litigation matter. Claimant alleges that he is a director in the corporate entity that currently hold the licenses for inter alia medical and adult use which the entity uses to operate its dispensary, as well as being an owner, either legally or equitably, of said entity given that the claimant had obtained the original license pre-MAUCRSA. Claimant’s alleges that at some stage, the original license that he had obtained was transferred to an mutual benefit entity wherein he claimed an interest, and as such he retained said interest in the ultimate for-profit entity that currently holds all of the operative licenses.  Claimant contends that his percentage ownership interest should be based on the approximate $5 million-dollar price tag that said licenses fetch in the market. Respondents assert that Claimant was never an owner, director, or interest holder in the entities at issue in this case, and that he was (more than) adequately compensated for the value of the original license that he obtained many years ago.  Claimant’s opening demand amounted to approx. $3,000,000.00.

• This is a pre-litigation matter. Claimant owns a unit in a small (<20) unit condominium complex. Claimant contends that for more than a year, noise and vibrations have been continuously penetrating from the maintenance room located below their unit in the subterranean parking structure. The noise and vibrations are loud, constant, and can be sensed throughout Claimant’s unit. Claimant has made efforts to have the HOA address this issue, allegedly to no avail. Claimant’s wife is pregnant which has compounded the issues arising from the alleged long-standing noise and vibration issues. Claimant inter alia alleges loss of use, diminution in value, interference with quite use and enjoyment, as well as a BI claim on behalf of his pregnant wife. Further aggravating the dispute is that the Claimant has had other maintenance issues with the HOA which have allegedly remained unaddressed and/or inadequately address such that his confidence in the HOA’s intention and willingness to resolve the issues has come under question.
• This case arises from a dispute between owner for real property Plaintiff and Defendant and the property management company Defendant. Plaintiff’s property is part of a complex of condominiums governed by the HOA. Plaintiff alleges that the property continues to be damaged by water intrusion issues from various sources that are owned, managed or controlled by the HOA.
• A case involving a Plaintiff owner and the upstaris neighboring owner arising from an ongoing nuisance by caused by Plaintiff’s upstairs neighbor. Plaintiff suffers health problems and the neighbor habitually smokes and causes smoke to enter Plaintiff’s unit. The neighbor also throws butts below outside of Plaintiff’s window which have accumulated by the hundreds. Plaintiff notified the property management on several occasions, but the issue continued. The lawsuit is against the HOA for failure to enforece the operative CC&Rs and failure to otherwise prevent the upstairs neighbor from creating an ongoing nuisance.