skip to main content

Menu

Search

Paul Caleo and Aimee Hamoy-Perera successfully defended a traumatic brain injury case with claimed damages in excess of $3 million in a four week jury trial in Sonoma County

Email Page Print Page

June 8, 2010

Paul Caleo and Aimee Hamoy-Perera successfully defended a traumatic brain injury case with claimed damages in excess of $3 million in a four week jury trial in Sonoma County. The jury rejected the claims of brain injury and future lost earnings of almost $1.8 million and returned a verdict just above the CCP 998 pre-trial offer for $510,000.

Burnham Brown partner Paul Caleo with senior associate Aimee Hamoy-Perera defended a client in a motor vehicle accident case where liability was not disputed, but the nature and extent of plaintiff's claimed injuries and damages was.

Plaintiff claimed injuries that included a comminuted fracture of his left humerus; multiple rib fractures (bilaterally); post-traumatic stress disorder; traumatic brain injury with permanent cognitive impairment that severely impacted his vocational and social functioning; concussion; and chronic pain in his left arm and ribs.

Plaintiff was treated at the scene by experienced EMTs' who were at the scene within two minutes of getting the call. Plaintiff was then transported to Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital by the ambulance and was treated in the ED at the hospital for over six hours. Plaintiff suffered a comminuted greater tuberosity humerus fracture to his left arm/shoulder, as well as bilateral rib fractures. Plaintiff's shoulder fracture could not be treated with open reduction surgery for fear of infection, and he subsequently underwent an arthroscopic capsular release surgery on Oct. 24, 2007. In the interim, Plaintiff underwent significant PT while his shoulder lacerations healed. Plaintiff was also referred to a psychologist, and was diagnosed and treated for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Plaintiff was evaluated by a neuropsychologist in April 2008, who concluded that he suffered a traumatic brain injury. Plaintiff claimed he suffers chronic pain in his left arm and ribs, and his treating orthopedic surgeon opined that he would require an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in the future. He missed one year of work, after the accident, and claimed that the injury prevented him from taking a more lucrative job, teaching art at a private high school. Plaintiff claimed he can only teach part-time at college. Plaintiff's retained neuropsychologist and treating psychologist concluded that he suffered from permanent cognitive impairments as a result of the TBI suffered in the accident, and that he could no longer to return to work as a teacher as he had done prior to the accident. Through his retained voc rehab expert and economist, Plaintiff made a claim for future lost earnings of almost $1.8 million. Plaintiff's counsel told the jury in his opening statement that he would ask them to award $3 million in total damages, he then black boarded a total of approx. $4 million in total damages in closing argument, but asked them to award $3 million based on the request made in opening statements.

On behalf of their clients, Mr. Caleo and Ms. Hamoy-Perera contended that Plaintiff did not suffer a concussion/traumatic brain injury in the accident, and could return to work as a teacher and artist within 12 months of the accident, so he had zero future lost earnings. The Defendants' expert neuropsychologist and neurologist/psychiatrist contended that Plaintiff did not sustain a concussion/traumatic brain injury in the accident based on both the results of all of the neuropsychological testing, as well as the detailed examinations of Plaintiff performed by the EMT and the two very experienced ED doctors who all testified that Plaintiff did not suffer a loss of consciousness, and/or an alteration of consciousness as a result of the accident, and did not show any signs of amnesia or confusion during the almost six and half hours they treated and observed him. Defendants' experts diagnosed Plaintiff with a somatoform disorder where he exaggerated and embellished his subjective complaints of cognitive impairments and physical limitations. This diagnosis was supported by the clinical interviews as well as Plaintiff's continued claims of being a "professor" at the California College of the Arts prior to the accident notwithstanding that he was only an instructor in their night/summer classes and had taught only one class in its degree program as a lecturer. There were several other significant examples of Plaintiff exaggerating his complaints and/or failing to tell his retained experts about his level of functioning and work as an artist after the accident, but before they examined him. Defendants argued that the jury should not believe Plaintiff's complaints of cognitive impairments and physical limitations because Plaintiff was an unreliable witness as to these issues, and that they should not accept the opinions of Plaintiff's retained expert witnesses because Plaintiff failed to tell them about his post-accident work as an artist and his level of functioning that the defendants only discovered by internet searches prior to trial. The defendants agreed that the accident caused Plaintiff's orthopedic injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder which had largely resolved within twelve months of the accident, and that he was unable to work during those twelve months. They recommended a verdict in the range of $250,000 to $300,000.

The jury did not deliberate on liability and awarded Plaintiff a total of $535,109.40 in damages, just in excess of the CCP 998 pre-trial offer of $510,000.

After the verdict, several of the jurors spoke to Mr. Caleo and Ms. Hamoy-Perera and confirmed that they agreed with them that Plaintiff did not have a traumatic brain injury and that he could return to teaching and making art has he had done before the accident. They also stated that it was significant in their deliberations on these issues that Plaintiff's retained neuropsychologist who testified that his functioning was impaired was never told about his post-accident work at an Artist's residency program. Although this same group of jurors wanted to award Plaintiff total damages in the range of $300,000, only one of them voted against the total verdict when polled in open court.

Paul Caleo is a partner and one of Burnham Brown's premier trial lawyers. He has extensive experience in complex tort and catastrophic injury cases involving premises liability, product liability, retail theft and battery cases, commercial trucking and construction site accidents. Mr. Caleo has extensive trial experience that includes trying 13 jury trials and two binding arbitrations in the past eight years. Mr. Caleo can be reached at 510.835.6809 or pcaleo@burnhambrown.com. Aimee Hamoy-Perera is an associate at Burnham Brown with a focus on general litigation, with emphasis on toxic tort, personal injury, and product liability. Ms. Hamoy-Perera can be reached at (510) 835-6815 or ahamoy-perera@burnhambrown.com.

June 8, 2010

Paul Caleo and Aimee Hamoy-Perera successfully defended a traumatic brain injury case with claimed damages in excess of $3 million in a four week jury trial in Sonoma County. The jury rejected the claims of brain injury and future lost earnings of almost $1.8 million and returned a verdict just above the CCP 998 pre-trial offer for $510,000.

Burnham Brown partner Paul Caleo with senior associate Aimee Hamoy-Perera defended a client in a motor vehicle accident case where liability was not disputed, but the nature and extent of plaintiff's claimed injuries and damages was.

Plaintiff claimed injuries that included a comminuted fracture of his left humerus; multiple rib fractures (bilaterally); post-traumatic stress disorder; traumatic brain injury with permanent cognitive impairment that severely impacted his vocational and social functioning; concussion; and chronic pain in his left arm and ribs.

Plaintiff was treated at the scene by experienced EMTs' who were at the scene within two minutes of getting the call. Plaintiff was then transported to Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital by the ambulance and was treated in the ED at the hospital for over six hours. Plaintiff suffered a comminuted greater tuberosity humerus fracture to his left arm/shoulder, as well as bilateral rib fractures. Plaintiff's shoulder fracture could not be treated with open reduction surgery for fear of infection, and he subsequently underwent an arthroscopic capsular release surgery on Oct. 24, 2007. In the interim, Plaintiff underwent significant PT while his shoulder lacerations healed. Plaintiff was also referred to a psychologist, and was diagnosed and treated for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Plaintiff was evaluated by a neuropsychologist in April 2008, who concluded that he suffered a traumatic brain injury. Plaintiff claimed he suffers chronic pain in his left arm and ribs, and his treating orthopedic surgeon opined that he would require an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in the future. He missed one year of work, after the accident, and claimed that the injury prevented him from taking a more lucrative job, teaching art at a private high school. Plaintiff claimed he can only teach part-time at college. Plaintiff's retained neuropsychologist and treating psychologist concluded that he suffered from permanent cognitive impairments as a result of the TBI suffered in the accident, and that he could no longer to return to work as a teacher as he had done prior to the accident. Through his retained voc rehab expert and economist, Plaintiff made a claim for future lost earnings of almost $1.8 million. Plaintiff's counsel told the jury in his opening statement that he would ask them to award $3 million in total damages, he then black boarded a total of approx. $4 million in total damages in closing argument, but asked them to award $3 million based on the request made in opening statements.

On behalf of their clients, Mr. Caleo and Ms. Hamoy-Perera contended that Plaintiff did not suffer a concussion/traumatic brain injury in the accident, and could return to work as a teacher and artist within 12 months of the accident, so he had zero future lost earnings. The Defendants' expert neuropsychologist and neurologist/psychiatrist contended that Plaintiff did not sustain a concussion/traumatic brain injury in the accident based on both the results of all of the neuropsychological testing, as well as the detailed examinations of Plaintiff performed by the EMT and the two very experienced ED doctors who all testified that Plaintiff did not suffer a loss of consciousness, and/or an alteration of consciousness as a result of the accident, and did not show any signs of amnesia or confusion during the almost six and half hours they treated and observed him. Defendants' experts diagnosed Plaintiff with a somatoform disorder where he exaggerated and embellished his subjective complaints of cognitive impairments and physical limitations. This diagnosis was supported by the clinical interviews as well as Plaintiff's continued claims of being a "professor" at the California College of the Arts prior to the accident notwithstanding that he was only an instructor in their night/summer classes and had taught only one class in its degree program as a lecturer. There were several other significant examples of Plaintiff exaggerating his complaints and/or failing to tell his retained experts about his level of functioning and work as an artist after the accident, but before they examined him. Defendants argued that the jury should not believe Plaintiff's complaints of cognitive impairments and physical limitations because Plaintiff was an unreliable witness as to these issues, and that they should not accept the opinions of Plaintiff's retained expert witnesses because Plaintiff failed to tell them about his post-accident work as an artist and his level of functioning that the defendants only discovered by internet searches prior to trial. The defendants agreed that the accident caused Plaintiff's orthopedic injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder which had largely resolved within twelve months of the accident, and that he was unable to work during those twelve months. They recommended a verdict in the range of $250,000 to $300,000.

The jury did not deliberate on liability and awarded Plaintiff a total of $535,109.40 in damages, just in excess of the CCP 998 pre-trial offer of $510,000.

After the verdict, several of the jurors spoke to Mr. Caleo and Ms. Hamoy-Perera and confirmed that they agreed with them that Plaintiff did not have a traumatic brain injury and that he could return to teaching and making art has he had done before the accident. They also stated that it was significant in their deliberations on these issues that Plaintiff's retained neuropsychologist who testified that his functioning was impaired was never told about his post-accident work at an Artist's residency program. Although this same group of jurors wanted to award Plaintiff total damages in the range of $300,000, only one of them voted against the total verdict when polled in open court.

Paul Caleo is a partner and one of Burnham Brown's premier trial lawyers. He has extensive experience in complex tort and catastrophic injury cases involving premises liability, product liability, retail theft and battery cases, commercial trucking and construction site accidents. Mr. Caleo has extensive trial experience that includes trying 13 jury trials and two binding arbitrations in the past eight years. Mr. Caleo can be reached at 510.835.6809 or pcaleo@burnhambrown.com. Aimee Hamoy-Perera is an associate at Burnham Brown with a focus on general litigation, with emphasis on toxic tort, personal injury, and product liability. Ms. Hamoy-Perera can be reached at (510) 835-6815 or ahamoy-perera@burnhambrown.com.