Last week I had to fulfill my civic duty by serving on a jury. With the other six jurors, I can say that listening to written and taped depositions can be one of the most boring experiences ever. Because the case involved a no fault insurance claim (in Michigan we have the no fault automobile accident insurance law), there was a lot of testimony from doctors. Doctors are busy lads, so all of their testimony was by deposition.
In a case of this kind, the plaintiff presents his case first, and then the defendant presents his case. I've reversed the order here for clarity.
Basically, the insurance company was trying to get out of paying a medical claim for an automoblie accident that occurred back in 1995. The plaintiff was injured in the accident and had surgery on his neck in 1996 because of the accident. After that surgery, nothing more was heard from the plaintiff by the insurance company until 2004 when the pain in the his neck got so bad that he sought relief and went to several doctors who prescribed medication and nursing aid, and he reopened his claim to the insurance company. The insurance company tried to prove there was no causal connection between his current pain and the original accident, and they also implied that he was lying and that his claim was fraudulent.
The big witness for the insurance company was a prominent neurosurgeon who testified that the plaintiff wasn't suffering from the pain he said he was, and that even if he were, the pain had nothing to do with the accident, but was the natural result of aging. Needless to say, there were inconsistencies in this expert's opinions and findings which we, the jury, found puzzling. He contradicted the radiologists readings of the MRI's and based his conclusions upon his own "objective" observations which were less than objective, given the medicated state of the plaintiff when this "expert" examined him.
The insurance company also showed a surveillance tape of the plaintiff trying to prove that the plaintiff was doing things that someone supposedly in his condition oughtn't to be doing. We watched this video of a guy who was obviously in pain courageously trying to do things normal people do, like holding his niece in his arms and jumping a dead car battery. The video didn't prove anything. It was a big waste of money on a PI by the insurance company.
We overwhelmingly accepted the opinions of the doctors who were actually treating the plaintiff. All of them agreed that the plaintiff's current problems were caused by the accident and that he wasn't faking anything.
The plaintiff wasn't exactly the most loveable kind of person. He had a big chip on his shoulder against "society" in general, which showed up in his testimony and made him less than endearing. However, that was irrelevant, and his testimony was devastating to the insurance company's case. The insurance company made a big thing out of prior accidents the plaintiff had suffered, like partially falling through rotting boards on a porch. He hadn't hurt his neck in any of those accidents, and interestingly enough, even if he had, according to the no fault law, if an auto accident exacerbates a pre-existing condition, the insurance company is still required to pay for all subsequent treatments for the injury no matter how long it takes. The plaintiff had been thrown through the windshield of the car in the accident and had injured his neck. The insurance company had paid for the neck surgery on the plaintiff a year after the accident, tacitly admitting thereby that the accident caused the plaintiff's neck problems. What the plaintiff had done before or after the accident was not relevant to the fact that he was still suffering from the aftereffects of the accident.
Anyway, it was my privilege as the foreman of the jury to read our verdict. It took us only an hour to reach our verdict, and there was no disagreement over how we interpreted the evidence. The seven of us unanimously found for the plaintiff and awarded him all of the money he was due. We left the courtroom after delivering our verdict, so I don't know what else transpired. I suppose the insurance company has to cover any treatments the plaintiff has to have from now on.
If you get called up for jury duty, be prepared to hear lots of boring and confusing testimony. But people have rights under the law, and it's up to us, the citizens of this wacky country to see that they get justice.
In a case of this kind, the plaintiff presents his case first, and then the defendant presents his case. I've reversed the order here for clarity.
Basically, the insurance company was trying to get out of paying a medical claim for an automoblie accident that occurred back in 1995. The plaintiff was injured in the accident and had surgery on his neck in 1996 because of the accident. After that surgery, nothing more was heard from the plaintiff by the insurance company until 2004 when the pain in the his neck got so bad that he sought relief and went to several doctors who prescribed medication and nursing aid, and he reopened his claim to the insurance company. The insurance company tried to prove there was no causal connection between his current pain and the original accident, and they also implied that he was lying and that his claim was fraudulent.
The big witness for the insurance company was a prominent neurosurgeon who testified that the plaintiff wasn't suffering from the pain he said he was, and that even if he were, the pain had nothing to do with the accident, but was the natural result of aging. Needless to say, there were inconsistencies in this expert's opinions and findings which we, the jury, found puzzling. He contradicted the radiologists readings of the MRI's and based his conclusions upon his own "objective" observations which were less than objective, given the medicated state of the plaintiff when this "expert" examined him.
The insurance company also showed a surveillance tape of the plaintiff trying to prove that the plaintiff was doing things that someone supposedly in his condition oughtn't to be doing. We watched this video of a guy who was obviously in pain courageously trying to do things normal people do, like holding his niece in his arms and jumping a dead car battery. The video didn't prove anything. It was a big waste of money on a PI by the insurance company.
We overwhelmingly accepted the opinions of the doctors who were actually treating the plaintiff. All of them agreed that the plaintiff's current problems were caused by the accident and that he wasn't faking anything.
The plaintiff wasn't exactly the most loveable kind of person. He had a big chip on his shoulder against "society" in general, which showed up in his testimony and made him less than endearing. However, that was irrelevant, and his testimony was devastating to the insurance company's case. The insurance company made a big thing out of prior accidents the plaintiff had suffered, like partially falling through rotting boards on a porch. He hadn't hurt his neck in any of those accidents, and interestingly enough, even if he had, according to the no fault law, if an auto accident exacerbates a pre-existing condition, the insurance company is still required to pay for all subsequent treatments for the injury no matter how long it takes. The plaintiff had been thrown through the windshield of the car in the accident and had injured his neck. The insurance company had paid for the neck surgery on the plaintiff a year after the accident, tacitly admitting thereby that the accident caused the plaintiff's neck problems. What the plaintiff had done before or after the accident was not relevant to the fact that he was still suffering from the aftereffects of the accident.
Anyway, it was my privilege as the foreman of the jury to read our verdict. It took us only an hour to reach our verdict, and there was no disagreement over how we interpreted the evidence. The seven of us unanimously found for the plaintiff and awarded him all of the money he was due. We left the courtroom after delivering our verdict, so I don't know what else transpired. I suppose the insurance company has to cover any treatments the plaintiff has to have from now on.
If you get called up for jury duty, be prepared to hear lots of boring and confusing testimony. But people have rights under the law, and it's up to us, the citizens of this wacky country to see that they get justice.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
I was called for jury duty last summer, thankfully got out of it....but good for you!