San Diego North County Small Claim Court 37-2014-00302283-SC-SC-NC Julie Balotin v. William M Gilbow
On February 7th, Julie was waiting for the red light on the corner of El Camino Real.William M Gilbow hit her car on the passenger side, and caused Julie Balotin suffered for a lower right-side back pain and left neck pain. Julie suits William for a total of $7500 for medical expenses and car damages. She did not suffer that pain when the accident was happened, but she went to an urgent care on February 11 to check the pain she felt after that accident. The professional suggested her to do a physical therapy to improve the pain of her lower right-side back and neck. She was “cured” after that treatment at that time, but the pain came back one month later. By that time when she went back to the urgent care, the doctor suggested her to find a lawyer, because the condition of her body. The amount she claimed to collect from the defendant includes the car damage, the rental car for 30 days, the $50 extra charges for the rental car cleaning, the medical bills, the loss of wage, the fee for hire people to take care of her and cook for her, and the pain and suffering. The Judge directly refused she to collect the amount for the loss of wage, because she is self-employed, and cannot approve the amount of her regular income. She paid all of those losses by her auto insurance and medical insurance. Without discuss with the insurance company, she personally think that all the expenses should not go throw her insurance, but pay by the defendant.
The defendant claims that the plaintiff has already collected $2900 from him. The defendant also doubt that the accident he made caused the health problem of plaintiff, because he found that the plaintiff has involved into 3 accident within 3 month, which includes the accident with him. He claims that the accident made by him was the second accident. He believes that there are some of the plaintiff’s car damages are from prior accidents. The Judge rejected to believe that because the defendant’s insurance company paid the plaintiff’s damage in full. The defendant also provided evidences showed that the plaintiff went to hiking with friend during the treatment, and saying she is doing fine.
The plaintiff explained that other two accidents she was involved was tiny. One was happened in the parking lot, and only made a scratch on her bumper. The other one was on a drive throw, the other car hit her bumper as well. She believes that two accidents were very minor to possibly make any damage to her. She also explained that the hiking was just a walk with friends. She said that she was just drive with friend to the top of the mountain and walked for a few, then drive down from the mountain. But the Judge mentioned that on her Facebook page, she wrote that she was hiking. The plaintiff also invited a witness to the court. The witness was the woman she hired to cook for her during the pain she was suffered. The witness claimed that she could easily figure out the pain the plaintiff suffered. The witness also said she saw the plaintiff can barely take care of herself while she was hired to cook for her.
Loudin v. Radiology & Imaging Services, Inc., et al (128 Ohio St.3d)
The case of Loudin v. Radiology & Imaging Services, Inc., et al (128 Ohio St.3d) is the case of the medical malpractice claim. This case is similar to the case of Julie in terms of the demand of the plaintiff. In case of Loudin v. Radiology & Imaging Services, Inc., et al (128 Ohio St.3d), the plaintiff required the compensation of damages caused by malpractice of the medical staff of Radiology & Imaging Services, Inc. The patient suffered considerable deterioration of health because of the malpractice conducted by the medical staff. The plaintiff required the compensation and coverage of health care services costs, just as was the case of Julie.
The case of Cisak v. Bhoval
The case of Cisak v. Bhoval is another case involving physical health damages suffered by the plaintiff, who attempts to compensate damages from the defendant, just as is the case of Julie. Cisak suffered a severe injury but Bhoval, his physician, admitted Cisak to training, which though had a negative impact on his health and prevented him from the full recovery. As a result, the plaintiff demanded the compensation of damages for the loss of profit and coverage of health care services costs which the plaintiff needs and is likely to need in the future, just as is the case of Julie. Cisak attempts to gain compensations from the physician, whose action or, to put it more precisely, inaction resulted in health problems of the plaintiff.
Health damages comprise the core issue of the case since Julie has suffered injuries in the result of the car accident and she has filed a lawsuit to demand damages to be paid off to her to cover her health services costs. The compensation of health care services costs is important because they comprise a large part of Julie’s expenses. Health problems, which Julie has already suffered and is likely to suffer in the future will be costly because she still suffers from her problems and the pain returns to her over and over again. For example, the pain returned to the patient in a month after her first treatment that means that the plaintiff may need a long recovery that will need more money to cover health care costs and rehabilitation. The question that begs is whether the plaintiff has already recovered or will need more time to recover. Then it is unclear how many time and money the plaintiff will need more. The identification the time and costs of the treatment determine the scope of damages William will have to compensate Julie for physical injuries, which has suffered in the course of the accident.
However, at this point, William insists that Julie did not have any complaints right after the accident. Therefore, the defendant insists that there is no correlation between the accident and physical injuries the plaintiff has suffered. On the other hand, the medical examination and the position of health care professionals and experts proves that it was the accident that triggered the development of serious health problems in the plaintiff. In such a situation, the compensation of damages and the coverage of health care costs by William become virtually essential and the court is likely to take the side of the plaintiff. At any the plaintiff has the rate to receive compensation for her physical damages and treatment, which she has already required and may require in the future. At this point, the court should determine clearly whether Wiliam should compensate current health care costs or compensate all costs including those that Julie may need in the future. To do this, the court should obtain the opinion of experts whether Julie will need further treatment and whether the further treatment will be relevant to the car accident she has suffered because of William.
Car damages are also important because Julie’s car has suffered damages because of William has hit her car. Car damages were caused by William’s car in the result of his careless or negligent driving. Therefore, William is responsible for damages caused to Julie’s car. In this respect, William should also compensate damages to the plaintiff, upon the court’s decision. However, the court should also take into consideration policies conducted by the car insurance company because the company may take responsibility to cover a part or all damages caused to the client car and William may not need to compensate those damages, therefore. On the other hand, if the court takes the decision that it was William, who is fully responsible for the accident and caused damages to the car that are beyond the car insurance agreement, then he should compensate those damages to Julie or the health insurance company which has already covered all the costs of the car repairmen for Julie.
Julie used of health insurance and car insurance to cover her expenses that raises the issue whether the defendant should cover all expenses covered by health and car insurance or a part of payments should be still covered by health and car insurance companies. In fact, this means that the car insurance company has agreed to compensate damages caused by the accident caused by William. At the same time, in case of health insurance, the compensations of physical health damages is essential because the health insurance coverage of Julie may change under the impact of the injury, which she has suffered in the result of the car accident. At this point, she may need further treatment and the price of health insurance may increase for her as well as she may need further costly health services. Therefore, William, as a person responsible for the car accident, should compensate damages to Julie and cover her health care services expenses.
Arguments of the defendant that Julie has suffered two more accidents are inconsistent because the other two accidents were minor. In fact, Julie insists that other two accidents are minor and do not matter much. Instead, damages the plaintiff has suffered after the accident caused by William were serious because the accident caused serious damages to the car and health of Julie, whereas other two cases were not worth much attention since they took place on the parking lot and caused just a couple of bumper scratches that means that they could not cause serious physical damages that need long and expensive treatment of the plaintiff as was the case of the plaintiff after the injury caused by the accident involving William’s car.
Moreover, the insurance company has agreed to cover health care expenses of Julie that proves that she does suffer serious health problems. In this regard, the witness also proves that Julie needed the assistance and could not care for herself that required extra expenses to hire the witness to cook for her. Therefore, evidence, the opinion of health care professionals and experts and the witness prove that Julie has suffered considerable health problems since the car accident has occurred. At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that the plaintiff needs the compensation of damages from the defendant and Julie ahs good chances of winning the case, although the compensation she counts for may be lower than she expects because a part of health care costs and car repairmen costs was covered by insurance companies. Nevertheless, this does not mean at all that William should not compensate damages caused to Julie. Instead, he should compensate damages and it is the court that should determine what damages should be compensated and the size of the compensation. This decision will be taken on the ground of actual damages, effects of the car accidents and costs of the treatment and repairmen for Julie.
At the same time, the problem Julie faces is the compensation of the lost profit. In fact, the court rejected her demand to compensate damages for the lost profit because she is self-employed and cannot prove the level of her income to determine exactly what profit she has lost in the result of the accident. In this regard, the problem is not the refusal of the court to pay off damages to the plaintiff but the problem is that the plaintiff cannot provide plausible evidence to show the loss of profit in the result of her profit. In fact, Julie cannot count on the compensation of the loss of profit because of the lack of the accurate, approved information on her actual profit before and after the accident. Being self-employed, she cannot use either witness or employer to prove that the car accidents and health problems that followed have triggered the loss of profit for the plaintiff. Therefore, the court is likely to dismiss this demand of the plaintiff to compensate damages for the loss of profit.
Thus, the case of Julie vs William is the case, where Julie has good chances of obtaining compensation of damages caused by William in the result of the car accident. The plaintiff has suffered physical injuries and got her car damaged. The treatment and car repairmen required substantial costs covered by insurance companies but William still has to compensate damages because he was responsible for the car accident and its negative effects on the health of the client and damages for her property.
Behand, Nadine. How To Run Your Own Court Case. Sydney: Redfern Legal Centre, 2009.
Burney Goalkeeper Alex Cisak Sues over Wrist Operation. BBC News. 2014. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-24746240
Mercury, L. Ex-Leicester City Goalkeeper Drops ‘Hopeless’ Damages Case against Surgeon. Leicester Mercury. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Ex-Leicester-City-goalkeeper-drops-hopeless/story-20016395-detail/story.html
MD News 2011, Cleveland/Akron/Canton. Retrieved from http://www.mdnews.com/news/2011_11/05737_novdec2011_damages-in-negligence-claims
Spetz, Steven E. “Civil Court Procedure And Remedies For Tort”. Can I Sue? An Introduction to Canadian Tort Law. Toronto: Pitman, 2012.