In March of 2016, Harrison & Hull attorneys Richard Harrison and Rocio Gosewehr defended their client Guadalupe Padilla in the 193rd District Court, Judge Carl Ginsberg presiding. They won the day with a $0 judgement against Ms. Padilla.
Facts + Allegations
As reported by Verdict Search, on June 27, 2013, plaintiff Nina D. White, 33, was driving a 1998 Buick Century sedan with her son, age 7, on northbound Hampton Road in Dallas. She stopped at a red light in the left-turn lane at Davis Street. Guadalupe Padilla, in a 2006 Chevrolet Avalanche, stopped behind her and then rear-ended her. White sued Padilla for negligently rear-ending her. Prior to trial, Padilla stipulated to liability.
Injuries / Damages
White claimed headaches and neck and back injuries, including disc herniations and protrusions, and her son claimed back pain. They went to a chiropractic clinic on the day after the accident. The clinic would not treat the boy because of his age, but White underwent physical therapy and chiropractic care.
Three days after the accident, she went to the emergency room and complained of head and neck pain. CT scans of the head and cervical spine were unremarkable, and she was prescribed medication for pain.
On July I8, White resumed treating at the chiropractic clinic, and her treatment continued through the end of August. In September, she started physical therapy at a different clinic, where she treated until Feb. 24, 2014. She also underwent cervical trigger point injections, on Feb. I 9.
At trial, White’s chiropractor opined that the disc protrusions and herniations were caused by the accident. White claimed that the impact was very hard and that it caused visible damage to the bumpers of both vehicles. She sought a little more than $19,000 for her past medical bills and sought $987.39 for her son’s past medical bills. She also sought damages for her own future medical bills and her own past and future physical pain, mental anguish and physical impairment.
The defense denied that the accident was the cause of White’s injuries, if any. Padilla said that, when she took her foot off-her brake, her vehicle rolled into the plaintiffs’ rear bumper at less than 5 mph, causing a very minor impact. She said she could not see any damage [to the vehicles].
The defense expert, a chiropractor, also testified on accident reconstruction and biomechanics issues, opining that Padilla was going Jess than 5 mph at impact and that the plaintiffs could not have sustained any significant injury in the accident.