Skip to main content

PUBLIC PRE-LAUNCH STARTED. THE SITE TEMPORARILY CONTAINS SAMPLE PROFILES. JOIN FOR FREE NOW BEFORE WE START MARKETING TO THE PUBLIC ON 7/1/2026! PUBLIC PRE-LAUNCH STARTED. THE SITE TEMPORARILY CONTAINS SAMPLE PROFILES. JOIN FOR FREE NOW BEFORE WE START MARKETING TO THE PUBLIC ON 7/1/2026! PUBLIC PRE-LAUNCH STARTED. THE SITE TEMPORARILY CONTAINS SAMPLE PROFILES. JOIN FOR FREE NOW BEFORE WE START MARKETING TO THE PUBLIC ON 7/1/2026! PUBLIC PRE-LAUNCH STARTED. THE SITE TEMPORARILY CONTAINS SAMPLE PROFILES. JOIN FOR FREE NOW BEFORE WE START MARKETING TO THE PUBLIC ON 7/1/2026!

Major Verdict, LLC Logo
Home Page
About Major Verdict
Personal Injury Resources
Our Members
Latest PI Verdict News
Member Log In
Why Join Our Community
Join Major Verdict now
Membership FAQ's
Attorneys - Join Now for Free!

Personal Injury Verdict and Settlement News

Real verdicts. Real outcomes. Follow the trial results that plaintiff attorneys are talking about.

Every personal injury verdict tells a story about a fight for accountability. We track jury verdicts, notable settlements, and trial outcomes from courts across the country so you can easily follow the interesting cases that matter. Whether it is a record-setting personal injury verdict in a trucking case or a medical malpractice jury award that sets new precedent, our coverage breaks down the facts, the injuries, and the result. Browse the latest personal injury verdict and settlement news below.

Browse Verdict News by State Verdict News by Case Type
Nursing Home Negligence
Nursing home bed

$12.5 Million Ohio Nursing Home Verdict in Wrongful Death of Blind 83-Year-Old Resident

A Butler County, Ohio jury has awarded $12.5 million in the wrongful death of Janice Darlene Combs, an 83-year-old blind resident who suffered a catastrophic brain bleed after she was allegedly dropped during a transfer at Chesterwood Village nursing home in West Chester. The verdict, returned May 14, 2026 in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, included $11 million in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages. The jury found unanimously that the facility and its corporate operators breached the standard of care and violated Ohio's Nursing Home Residents' Bill of Rights. Plaintiff attorney William B. Eadie of Eadie Law: Nursing Home Injury Lawyers represented the Estate of Janice Combs.Case at a Glance Verdict: $12.5 million ($11 million compensatory, $1.5 million punitive) Case Type: Wrongful death / nursing home negligence Court: Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio (Judge Daniel E. Haughey) Verdict Date: May 14, 2026 Plaintiff: Estate of Janice Darlene Combs (Rita Combs-Jordan, daughter and estate representative) Defendant: Chesterwood Village (Chesterwood Nursing Care, Ltd.) and corporate operators Plaintiff Attorney: William B. Eadie, Eadie Law: Nursing Home Injury Lawyers Docket: CV 2024 06 1161What Happened to Janice Combs? Janice Combs was admitted to Chesterwood Village in June 2023 for short-term rehabilitation after a fall down the stairs at her home, where she had been living independently despite being blind. According to court records, within about two hours of returning to the facility from a hospital evaluation, Combs sustained a fall while in the nursing home's care. When West Chester Township Fire Department paramedics arrived, they reported finding Combs with an injury to the back of her head and blood in her room. The lawsuit alleged she had been dropped by nursing staff while being transferred from her wheelchair to her bed, an incident the plaintiff said the facility failed to document. Combs was taken to a hospital and diagnosed with a catastrophic brain bleed. She became dependent on a ventilator and remained bedbound until her death in March 2024, nearly ten months after the fall.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? The jury answered every interrogatory in favor of the Estate of Janice Combs. It found that the defendants breached the standard of care, that the breach proximately caused her injuries and death, and that the facility violated Ohio's Nursing Home Residents' Bill of Rights. A central issue at trial was the discrepancy between the nursing home's records and the EMS run report describing how and where Combs was injured. The plaintiff argued that the facility failed to document the drop and the resulting head injury, leaving paramedics to piece together what happened from the scene. "Families place their loved ones in nursing homes trusting they will be kept safe, and trusting that the truth will be told if something goes wrong," said William B. Eadie, lead attorney for the estate.How the $12.5 Million Award Breaks Down The nine-day trial produced a compensatory award of $11 million, which the jury divided into $1 million for survivorship, $8 million for wrongful death, and $2 million for the violations of the Nursing Home Residents' Bill of Rights. The jury added $1.5 million in punitive damages, exceeding the $1 million in punitive damages the plaintiff had requested. Punitive damages are reserved for conduct a jury finds especially blameworthy, beyond ordinary negligence. The award signals that jurors viewed the facility's handling of the incident, including the documentation failures, as warranting punishment and not just compensation. For the family, the verdict carried meaning beyond the dollar figure. "My mom was part of our life, part of the thread, and she was the glue that held it together," said Rita Combs-Jordan, Combs' daughter and the estate's representative.What the Verdict Signals for Ohio Nursing Home Cases The defendants are expected to pursue post-trial motions and a possible appeal, so the award is not yet final. Even so, the result stands among the more substantial nursing home negligence verdicts in Ohio, combining a full compensatory award with punitive damages and a finding under the state's Residents' Bill of Rights. For plaintiff attorneys, the case illustrates how documentation gaps, when contrasted against independent records like an EMS run report, can anchor a nursing home negligence claim. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What were the punitive damages in the Chesterwood Village verdict? The jury awarded $1.5 million in punitive damages on top of $11 million in compensatory damages, for a total of $12.5 million. Punitive damages are meant to punish conduct a jury finds especially blameworthy, and here the amount exceeded the $1 million the plaintiff had requested. Q: What is Ohio's Nursing Home Residents' Bill of Rights? It is a set of legal protections under Ohio law guaranteeing nursing home residents rights such as safe care, dignity, and adequate supervision. In this case, the jury awarded $2 million specifically for the facility's violations of those rights, separate from the wrongful death and survivorship damages. Q: Is the $12.5 million verdict final? Not yet. The defendants are expected to pursue post-trial motions and a possible appeal, which can alter or delay payment of a jury award. A verdict becomes final only after those challenges are resolved.

Wrongful Death
Man working on furnace install

$10 Million Georgia Settlement in Carbon Monoxide Death from Defective Furnace Installation

The family of Catherine Harris, a LaGrange, Georgia woman who died of carbon monoxide poisoning, has reached a $10 million wrongful death settlement with the heating company that allegedly installed and serviced her furnace improperly. The settlement, reached June 5, 2026, resolves Harris, et al. v. Extreme Heating & Air, LLC, filed in the State Court of Troup County, Georgia. Harris's adult children, LaTonya Harris and Robert Harris Jr., brought claims for wrongful death, negligence, and gross negligence against the company, its owner Christopher Lentz, and technician Michael Smith. The family was represented by Matt Kahn of Butler Kahn, along with Caroline W. Herrington and Virgil L. Adams of Adams, Jordan & Herrington, P.C.Case at a Glance Settlement: $10 million Case Type: Wrongful death (carbon monoxide poisoning) Court: State Court of Troup County, Georgia (Civil Action No. 25-CS-567) Settlement Date: June 5, 2026 Plaintiffs: LaTonya Harris and Robert Harris Jr. (adult children of Catherine Harris) Defendants: Extreme Heating & Air, LLC; Christopher Lentz (owner); Michael Smith (technician) Plaintiff Attorneys: Matt Kahn (Butler Kahn); Caroline W. Herrington and Virgil L. Adams (Adams, Jordan & Herrington, P.C.)What Happened to Catherine Harris? According to the complaint, Extreme Heating & Air installed a new furnace at Catherine Harris's LaGrange home in June 2024. When the system malfunctioned in November 2024, a technician allegedly turned the gas supply back on without completing necessary safety steps, including venting system checks and gas leak inspections. The plaintiffs alleged that the failure caused exhaust to discharge into the basement and throughout the home. Harris died two days later. Her death was attributed to acute carbon monoxide toxicity. The lawsuit also alleged the company failed to complete the furnace's venting system conversion to liquid propane, leaving the home exposed to dangerous levels of the gas.What Did the Plaintiffs Allege? The complaint asserted that the defendants were responsible for the death through negligence and gross negligence, faulting both the original installation and the later service call. Central to the case was the claim that the technician restored the gas supply without checking for leaks or confirming the venting system was safe. "Homeowners trust heating contractors with their safety," said Matt Kahn of Butler Kahn. Caroline Herrington of Adams, Jordan & Herrington emphasized the hidden nature of the hazard. "Carbon monoxide is colorless and odorless, and families often have no warning until it is too late," she said.Why This Settlement Matters Carbon monoxide deaths tied to heating equipment are often preventable, which is part of what makes cases like this one resonate. The legal team advocated for proper installation procedures, qualified professionals, exterior venting, and functioning carbon monoxide detectors as basic safeguards for any home with gas appliances. For the plaintiff bar, the result shows how a contractor's documented departure from safety procedures, especially during a service call, can establish liability in a wrongful death claim. The $10 million figure reflects both the preventability of the death and the strength of the negligence theory in Georgia. Major Verdict tracks significant plaintiff verdicts and settlements across all 50 states. Browse the latest results or find a plaintiff attorney with a proven trial record in your state.Frequently Asked Questions Q: Can you sue an HVAC contractor for a carbon monoxide death? Yes. When a heating contractor's improper installation, inspection, or repair allows carbon monoxide to enter a home, the family of a person who dies can bring a wrongful death claim for negligence. In this case, the family settled for $10 million against the company, its owner, and a technician. Q: What is the difference between a settlement and a verdict? A settlement is an agreement to resolve a case before or during trial, while a verdict is a decision reached by a jury. This $10 million resolution was a settlement, meaning the parties agreed to it rather than having a jury decide the outcome. Q: Why is carbon monoxide so dangerous in the home? Carbon monoxide is colorless and odorless, so people often have no warning before they are affected. That is why exterior venting, proper installation by qualified professionals, and working carbon monoxide detectors are critical safeguards in any home with gas appliances.

Wrongful Death
Boy crossing street in crosswalk

$176 Million California Wrongful Death Verdict After Two Brothers Killed in Crosswalk

A Los Angeles County jury awarded the Iskander family $176 million on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, after finding that Rebecca Grossman and former Major League Baseball pitcher Scott Erickson were responsible for the deaths of two young brothers struck in a marked crosswalk. The civil jury in Van Nuys found that Grossman and Erickson were negligent in the wrongful death case, that they acted in concert in the events leading to the fatal collision, and that all three defendants acted with malice. Lead plaintiff counsel Brian Panish of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP tried the case for parents Nancy and Karim Iskander. The malice finding opens a punitive damages phase, which began the following day.Case at a Glance Verdict: $176,000,000 (compensatory; punitive phase pending) Case Type: Wrongful death / pedestrian collision Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court, Van Nuys (Judge Huey Cotton presiding) Verdict Date: June 3, 2026 Plaintiffs: Nancy Iskander, Karim Iskander, and Zachary Iskander Defendants: Rebecca Grossman, Scott Erickson, and Dr. Peter Grossman Plaintiff Attorney: Brian Panish, Panish Shea Ravipudi LLPWhat Did the Jury Award? The jury returned $176 million in compensatory damages, allocated across the family's losses. The award included $59 million for the death of 11-year-old Mark Iskander and $48 million for the death of 8-year-old Jacob Iskander. The panel added $35 million for the serious emotional distress suffered by their mother, Nancy Iskander, and $34 million for the emotional distress of her surviving son, Zachary. The two brothers were killed on September 29, 2020, while crossing Triunfo Canyon Road in Westlake Village with their family. Court evidence indicated the vehicle was traveling at roughly 80 mph in a 45 mph zone when it struck the boys in a marked crosswalk.Why Were Both Drivers Found Liable? The plaintiff's case centered on the theory that Grossman and Erickson were racing each other in separate vehicles before the crash. The family's attorneys argued the two had been drinking that night and were engaged in a speeding contest as they headed toward Grossman's home. The jury found that the defendants acted in concert in the conduct that led to the collision, a finding that allowed liability to attach to both drivers rather than to Grossman alone. Erickson, a former Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher, did not face criminal charges arising from the crash. Jurors also found Dr. Peter Grossman liable as the owner of the Mercedes-Benz SUV that struck the children. Under California's permissive-use rules, an owner who allows another person to drive a vehicle can be held responsible for resulting harm, and the jury found that Dr. Grossman had given Rebecca Grossman permission to drive.What Happens in the Punitive Damages Phase? Beyond the $176 million in compensatory damages, the jury found that all three defendants acted with malice. In California verdict news terms, that finding is the gateway to punitive damages, which are intended to punish conduct a jury views as especially reckless or wrongful and to deter similar behavior. With malice established, the case moved into a second phase in which the same jury weighs whether to add punitive damages on top of the compensatory award. That phase began the day after the compensatory verdict was read. In closing, Panish framed the conduct for the jury. "It's not an accident when you speed and you drink and you drive impaired," he argued. "Who would act like that except someone who thinks they can do whatever they want and there's no consequences?"A Civil Verdict After a Criminal Conviction The civil trial followed Grossman's criminal case. In February 2024, she was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, and one count of hit-and-run, and was sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison. A criminal conviction and a civil verdict are separate proceedings with different burdens of proof, and the civil case was the family's path to holding all of the responsible parties financially accountable. Major Verdict tracks similar wrongful death verdicts and settlements across the country. For the Iskander family, the verdict represents a measure of accountability nearly six years after the deaths of Mark and Jacob. The punitive damages phase will determine the final figure. If you or someone you love has lost a family member in a preventable crash, verdicts like this one show what a prepared trial team can achieve when the evidence is strong. Find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What does it mean that the jury found the defendants "acted with malice"? In California civil law, a finding of malice means the jury concluded the defendant's conduct was so reckless or wrongful that it went beyond ordinary negligence. That finding is what allows a case to proceed to a punitive damages phase, where the jury can award additional money meant to punish the conduct and deter others, separate from the compensatory damages that cover the family's losses. Q: How can a vehicle's owner be held liable when they were not driving? California's permissive-use law allows an injured party to hold a vehicle owner responsible when the owner gave another person permission to drive and that person caused harm. In this case, the jury found Dr. Peter Grossman liable as the owner of the SUV because he had permitted Rebecca Grossman to drive it. Q: Why was there a civil verdict if Rebecca Grossman was already convicted in criminal court? A criminal conviction and a civil verdict are distinct. A criminal case is brought by the state and can result in imprisonment, while a civil wrongful death case is brought by the family to recover financial damages. The civil trial also allowed the family to pursue additional defendants, including Scott Erickson and Dr. Peter Grossman, who were not part of the criminal proceeding.

Medical Malpractice
Amputee walking down sidewalk

Florida Medical Malpractice Verdict: $6.4 Million for Man Who Lost His Leg After a Foot Infection

A Charlotte County jury awarded $6.4 million to Robert Jarvis in a Florida medical malpractice verdict after he underwent a below-knee amputation following treatment for a chronic foot infection. The jury reached its decision on May 29, 2026, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, finding that two podiatrists failed to timely recognize and treat a progressing infection that included MRSA. Jarvis was represented by Jonathan Gdanski, Brittany Barron, and Bryan Hofeld of Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A.Case at a Glance Verdict: $6.4 million Case Type: Medical Malpractice (Podiatric) Court: Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Charlotte County, Florida Verdict Date: May 29, 2026 Plaintiff: Robert Jarvis Defendant: Two podiatrists Plaintiff Attorneys: Jonathan Gdanski, Brittany Barron, Bryan Hofeld (Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A.)What Did the Jury Award? The Charlotte County jury returned a total award of approximately $6.4 million, broken down across past and future losses. The verdict included $82,006.01 for past medical expenses and $345,000 for future medical expenses. The largest portions covered the human cost of the injury. The jury awarded $3.5 million for past pain and suffering and $2.5 million for future pain and suffering, reflecting the permanent nature of losing a leg below the knee.How a Foot Infection Led to an Amputation Robert Jarvis sought treatment for a chronic foot wound and a possible bone infection. According to evidence presented at trial, the condition required timely diagnosis and aggressive management to keep it from spreading. The lawsuit alleged that a progressing infection, including MRSA, was not recognized and addressed in time. MRSA is a drug-resistant staph bacterium that can move quickly through tissue and bone when left unchecked. As the infection advanced, Jarvis's condition deteriorated to the point that surgeons performed a below-knee amputation. The jury found that the two podiatrists who treated Jarvis were negligent and that their care was a legal cause of his injuries. In Florida medical malpractice cases, plaintiffs must prove that a provider deviated from the accepted standard of care and that the deviation directly caused harm.Why This Verdict Matters for Patients Delayed treatment of infection is one of the more preventable paths to a serious outcome. Chronic foot wounds, common in patients with diabetes and circulation problems, can be managed when providers monitor them closely and escalate care at the first sign of spreading infection. This Florida medical malpractice verdict underscores what juries are willing to award when an avoidable infection ends in the loss of a limb. The bulk of the $6.4 million reflected pain and suffering rather than medical bills, a signal that jurors weighed the lifelong impact of the amputation heavily. The result joins a growing record of Florida personal injury verdicts tied to preventable medical harm.Who Represented the Plaintiff? Jarvis was represented by Jonathan Gdanski, Brittany Barron, and Bryan Hofeld of Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A., a Florida plaintiff firm that handles medical malpractice and catastrophic injury cases. "The jury carefully reviewed the evidence and returned a verdict that reflects the devastating and permanent impact this injury has had on his life," said Jonathan Gdanski following the verdict. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured by a missed or delayed diagnosis, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is strong and the attorney is prepared. Find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is podiatric medical malpractice? Podiatric medical malpractice occurs when a foot-and-ankle specialist provides care that falls below the accepted medical standard and injures the patient. Common examples include misdiagnosed infections, surgical errors, and failure to escalate treatment for a worsening wound. As in any malpractice case, the patient must prove both a deviation from the standard of care and that the deviation caused the harm. Q: Why does a delayed MRSA diagnosis matter so much? MRSA is a staph infection resistant to many common antibiotics, so it can spread through tissue and bone faster than providers expect. When a MRSA infection is caught early, it can often be controlled with the right antibiotics and wound care. When it is missed or undertreated, it can progress to the point that amputation becomes the only option to stop it. Q: How are pain and suffering damages calculated in Florida? Florida juries assign a dollar value to non-economic damages such as physical pain, disability, and loss of enjoyment of life, separate from measurable costs like medical bills. There is no fixed formula, so jurors weigh the severity and permanence of the injury. In this case, the jury awarded $6 million in combined past and future pain and suffering, far more than the medical expenses.

Product Liability
Operating room with equipment and booms

Illinois Jury Delivers $38.4 Million Product Liability Verdict Over Defective Hospital Boom

A Sangamon County jury has returned a $38.4 million product liability verdict against Hill-Rom Company, Inc., a division of Baxter Healthcare, after finding that a defective operating room boom collapsed and permanently injured a surgical technologist. The May 12, 2026 verdict in Springfield, Illinois awarded plaintiffs Stacey Brown and her husband Roger Brown $4.6 million in compensatory damages and added $33.8 million in punitive damages for what jurors concluded was a corporate decision to ignore a known safety defect. The Browns were represented by Amy Collignon Gunn and Erica B. Slater of Gunn | Slater in Clayton, Missouri.Case at a Glance Verdict: $38,400,000 ($4.6M compensatory, $33.8M punitive) Case Type: Product Liability Court: Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois Verdict Date: May 12, 2026 Plaintiffs: Stacey Brown and Roger Brown Defendant: Hill-Rom Company, Inc. (a division of Baxter Healthcare) Plaintiff Attorneys: Amy Collignon Gunn and Erica B. Slater, Gunn | SlaterWhat Happened in Operating Room 16? Stacey Brown had worked overnight shifts as a surgical technologist at HSHS St. John's Hospital for roughly 15 years. On January 31, 2022, she was alone in Operating Room 16, preparing for an upcoming procedure, when an overhead TruPort medical boom collapsed without warning. The boom pinned her to the floor and caused injuries across the right side of her body. According to court filings, the equipment failed because Hillrom had installed bolts that were shorter than the design specifications required at load-bearing connections, a concealed defect that could not be caught through routine inspection or preventive maintenance. The boom was manufactured and installed by Hillrom, which markets the TruPort system to hospitals as overhead support for surgical equipment and lighting.Why Did the Jury Award $33.8 Million in Punitive Damages? The punitive award, nearly nine times the compensatory figure, reflected the jury's view of how long Hillrom had known about the risk. Evidence presented at trial indicated the company was aware of a bolt mix-up affecting the load-bearing capacity of its booms since at least 2018, and that a similar assembly defect had surfaced at its German manufacturing plant as early as 2014. The plaintiffs argued that Hillrom's response was driven by complaints rather than safety. "They had knowledge that these bolts were getting mixed up at these load bearing connections," counsel told the jury, and the company chose "to not take further action because no one had gotten hurt." Trial evidence also showed Hillrom's own risk analysis had rated the potential harm from a complete boom collapse as "catastrophic." The company eventually performed a worldwide field retrofit in 2022 at a cost of roughly $800,000, an action the plaintiffs said could have been taken years earlier.What Injuries Did Stacey Brown Suffer? The collapse caused permanent injuries to Brown's dominant right arm, requiring two major shoulder surgeries. She also sustained ongoing injuries to her neck, right leg, right foot, and right wrist, along with head and brain injuries. Of the $4.6 million in compensatory damages, the jury awarded $3.85 million to Stacey Brown and $750,000 to Roger Brown for loss of consortium. The $33.8 million punitive award went to Stacey Brown.Why This Illinois Product Liability Verdict Matters The verdict is a reminder that product liability law reaches beyond consumer goods and into the specialized equipment that hospitals rely on every day. When a manufacturer learns that a load-bearing component can fail and chooses to wait for an injury before acting, juries can impose punitive damages well above the actual harm. For Gunn | Slater, the result marked the firm's third jury verdict and second punitive damages award within 15 months of opening. Hillrom has stated that it intends to "vigorously appeal," so the award is not yet final. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What are punitive damages in a product liability case? Punitive damages are awarded on top of compensatory damages to punish a defendant for especially reckless or willful conduct and to deter similar behavior. In this case, the jury added $33.8 million in punitive damages after concluding that Hillrom knew about the bolt defect for years and failed to act, far exceeding the $4.6 million awarded for the plaintiffs' actual losses. Q: What made the operating room boom legally defective? The plaintiffs alleged that Hillrom installed bolts shorter than the design specifications required at load-bearing connections, a hidden defect that routine inspection could not detect. A product can be considered defective when it fails to perform as safely as intended because of a manufacturing or installation error, especially when the manufacturer knew of the problem and did not warn users. Q: Is the $38.4 million verdict final? No. Hillrom has stated that it intends to appeal the verdict. A jury award can be reduced, upheld, or sent back for a new trial during the appeals process, so the final amount the plaintiffs recover may differ from the figure the jury announced.

Medical Malpractice
Pediatric emergency room

Tulsa Jury Returns $15 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict for Child Left Disabled by Missed Bacterial Meningitis

A Tulsa County jury awarded $15 million on May 27, 2026, to the family of August Montgomery, a 7-year-old girl left permanently disabled after a pediatric emergency room physician discharged her at five months old without ordering a blood culture or administering antibiotics. The verdict came down in Tulsa County District Court before Judge Kevin Gray in Montgomery v. Katie Jackson, M.D., et al., a medical malpractice case alleging failure to diagnose and treat bacterial meningitis. The plaintiff family is represented by Jeffrey Rasansky of Rasansky | McKenzie Law in Dallas, along with Sharon Morgan and Natalie D'Antonio of Wais, Vogelstein, Forman, Koch & Norman LLC. The jury deliberated for roughly four hours before returning its decision.Case at a Glance Verdict: $15 million Case Type: Medical Malpractice (Failure to Diagnose) Court: Tulsa County District Court, Oklahoma Verdict Date: May 27, 2026 Plaintiff: August Montgomery (minor, through her family) Defendant: Katie Jackson, M.D., et al. Plaintiff Attorneys: Jeffrey Rasansky (Rasansky | McKenzie Law); Sharon Morgan and Natalie D'Antonio (Wais, Vogelstein, Forman, Koch & Norman LLC) Judge: Kevin GrayWhat Happened in the Emergency Room? In December 2018, August Montgomery was brought to a Tulsa-area emergency room as an infant for her third hospital visit in five days. According to evidence presented at trial, she arrived with fever, vomiting, lethargy, respiratory symptoms, and decreased urine output. Laboratory testing at that third visit showed elevated white blood cell counts, which the plaintiff's standard-of-care expert testified were textbook indicators of a serious bacterial infection. Court testimony indicated that the treating pediatric ER physician diagnosed August with a possible viral illness and discharged her without ordering a blood culture or starting antibiotics. Less than 48 hours later, she returned to the emergency room with seizures and partial paralysis. Doctors then identified bacterial meningitis, but the infection had already done permanent damage.The Liability Theory The plaintiff's case turned on a single decision point. As lead trial counsel framed it, "The labs were in the chart. And the path that would have prevented all of this, a blood culture and a single dose of antibiotics, was on the table, but was not chosen." Medical experts called by the plaintiffs testified that a single dose of ceftriaxone administered at the earlier ER visit would have sterilized the bloodstream within roughly two hours and prevented the meningitis from progressing. The defense argued that the presentation was consistent with a viral illness, but the jury sided with the plaintiffs after four hours of deliberation.What the $15 Million Verdict Covers The Tulsa County jury awarded the $15 million figure to compensate for future medical expenses and lost future earnings. August's injuries are catastrophic and lifelong: 44 days of initial hospitalization, including brain surgery and treatment for multiple strokes Permanent brain damage with partial paralysis and seizure disorder Cerebral palsy with severe cognitive delays Cochlear implants required for hearing At age 7, functioning at the developmental level of a 15- to 18-month-old In catastrophic pediatric injury cases like this one, the future-care component routinely drives the verdict figure. Life-care plans for children with this profile typically account for decades of nursing care, therapy, assistive technology, and medical equipment, in addition to lost earnings projected across what would otherwise have been a full working life.Why This Tulsa Medical Malpractice Verdict Matters for Plaintiff Practice For the plaintiff bar, the case is a clean illustration of how lab values in the chart can carry an ER misdiagnosis claim across the finish line even when the presentation looks ambiguous. The discharge decision was not made in the absence of data. It was made against the data. That distinction is what allowed the plaintiffs to frame the case around a single, concrete choice rather than a fuzzy disagreement about clinical judgment. It is also a reminder that pediatric ER cases involving missed sepsis or meningitis remain among the highest-value failure-to-diagnose categories, both because the damages are catastrophic and because juries respond strongly to evidence that warning signs were documented and overlooked. Oklahoma plaintiff attorneys tracking pediatric ER claims will recognize the pattern. Verdicts like this one belong on the public record where the plaintiff bar can find them. Major Verdict tracks significant plaintiff verdicts and settlements across all 50 states and gives plaintiff attorneys a free public profile to display their trial record. Create your profile and let your courtroom results speak for themselves.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is the standard of care for suspected pediatric bacterial infection in the ER? When a young child presents with fever and elevated white blood cell counts, particularly on a repeat ER visit within days, the standard generally calls for further workup before discharge, which can include blood cultures, lumbar puncture, and empiric antibiotic coverage. The decision to discharge without these steps is fact-specific and is typically the central issue in a failure-to-diagnose meningitis case. Q: What is the statute of limitations for medical malpractice involving a minor in Oklahoma? Oklahoma's general medical malpractice statute of limitations is two years from discovery of the injury, but the limitations period for minors is tolled in certain circumstances. Parents pursuing a claim on behalf of an injured child should consult an Oklahoma-licensed attorney early, because procedural deadlines and notice requirements can vary depending on the defendant and the nature of the claim. Q: How are future damages calculated in catastrophic pediatric injury cases? Plaintiffs typically retain a life-care planner, an economist, and treating-physician experts to project the cost of decades of nursing care, therapy, medical equipment, assistive technology, and lost earning capacity. Those projections are reduced to present value and presented to the jury, which is why future medical and lost earnings categories often drive the bulk of the verdict in cases involving lifelong impairment.

Commercial Trucking Crash
18-Wheeler Wrongful Death Trial

Texas Jury Returns $49 Million Verdict in OPG Logistics 18-Wheeler Wrongful Death Trial

An Ector County jury has returned a $49 million verdict against OPG Logistics, LLC and one of its drivers, finding both grossly negligent in the 2025 18-wheeler crash that killed 29-year-old Steffan Robert Mick on his drive home from work outside Midland. The verdict, returned May 21, 2026, in the 244th Judicial District Court of Texas, includes $40.5 million in compensatory damages and $8.5 million in punitive damages, after jurors found the defendants acted with "conscious indifference" to public safety. The Mick family was represented by Rob Ammons of The Ammons Law Firm in Houston. Defense was handled by Kurt Paxson and Stephanie Poore of Mounce, Green, Myers, Safi, Paxson & Galatzan.Case at a Glance Verdict: $49 million ($40.5M compensatory + $8.5M punitive) Case Type: 18-Wheeler Wrongful Death, Gross Negligence Court: 244th Judicial District Court, Ector County, Texas (Judge Lori Ruiz-Crutcher) Case Number: C25020166CV Verdict Date: May 21, 2026 Plaintiffs: Kayla Callahan (widow, individually and as estate representative); Kevin Mick (father); Jennifer Mick (mother) Decedent: Steffan Robert Mick, 29 Defendants: OPG Logistics, LLC; Biorkys Sanchez Fernandez Fault Apportionment: OPG Logistics 65%, Sanchez 35% Trial Length: 3 days Plaintiff Attorney: Rob Ammons (The Ammons Law Firm, Houston)What Happened on FM 307? On January 27, 2025, Steffan Mick was driving home from work along FM 307 near Midland, Texas, when an 18-wheeler operated by OPG Logistics turned left across his path. The driver, Biorkys Sanchez Fernandez, failed to yield the right of way. Mick, the husband of Kayla Callahan and father to a young daughter and son, was killed in the collision. "Steffan Mick was 29 years old, driving home from work, within the speed limit, with his seatbelt on and his headlights on," Ammons said following the verdict.Why Did the Jury Award Punitive Damages? To award punitive damages under Texas law, a jury must find that a defendant acted with malice or gross negligence, a higher bar than ordinary negligence. The Ector County jury cleared that bar against both OPG and its driver, returning $8.5 million in exemplary damages on top of the $40.5 million compensatory award. Jurors specifically found that the defendants acted with "conscious indifference" to public safety. The compensatory award was apportioned 65 percent against OPG Logistics and 35 percent against Sanchez, reflecting the jury's view that the company's failures created the conditions for the driver's negligence.The Safety Program OPG Did Not Have Plaintiff's counsel argued the case was less about a single bad turn than about a trucking company that put drivers on public roads without any real safety infrastructure. According to evidence presented at trial, OPG Logistics operated under its USDOT number without: A driver training manual A safety manual Written safe-driving policies and procedures Instructional videos Third-party safety training Group safety meetings Periodic driver performance reviews Trial evidence also showed Sanchez had exceeded federal hours-of-service limits, driving more than 12 hours and remaining on duty more than 15 hours in the period leading up to the crash, and had falsified his Records of Duty Status. "OPG Logistics had no real safety program, no driver training infrastructure and no meaningful system for making sure its drivers followed mandatory hours-of-service rules," Ammons told the press after the verdict.What the Plaintiff's Counsel Said Ammons framed the verdict as a message to motor carriers cutting corners on basic safety compliance. "When a trucking company chooses to operate that way, the danger to the public is obvious and the consequences can be devastating," he said. Mick's widow, Kayla Callahan, addressed the human stakes directly. "Steffan was a husband, a father and a son. Our family will live with this loss every day," she said. Defense counsel Kurt Paxson, who had asked the jury to limit any award to roughly $5 million, did not respond to press requests for comment after the verdict, according to The Texas Lawbook.Why This Verdict Matters for Trucking Litigation The $49 million result is the latest in a string of nuclear verdicts against trucking defendants in Texas. For the plaintiff bar, the case is a clean illustration of the corporate-conduct theory that has driven those verdicts: prove that the carrier failed to build a basic safety program, then let punitive damages do the work the compensatory number alone cannot. OPG Logistics's collectibility status is uncertain. FreightWaves has reported the company may no longer be operating, which puts the focus on insurance limits and any umbrella coverage rather than the company's balance sheet. Even so, the verdict itself reframes the negotiating posture for plaintiff attorneys facing under-resourced motor carriers in the state. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is a "nuclear verdict" in a trucking case? A nuclear verdict is a jury award of $10 million or more, most often used to describe outsized awards against corporate defendants in catastrophic-injury and wrongful-death cases. In trucking cases, nuclear verdicts have become more common as plaintiff attorneys focus on systemic safety failures by the carrier, not just driver error. The $49 million award against OPG Logistics sits comfortably in that category. Q: How are punitive damages different from compensatory damages? Compensatory damages reimburse the family for measurable losses, including the value of the decedent's life to his survivors, lost financial support, and pain and suffering. Punitive damages are designed to punish the defendant and deter similar conduct, and Texas law requires a higher showing of malice or gross negligence to award them. Here, jurors awarded $40.5 million compensatory plus $8.5 million punitive after finding "conscious indifference" to public safety. Q: What does the 65/35 fault apportionment mean for the defendants? A Texas jury apportions responsibility among defendants when more than one party is found at fault. The Ector County jury assigned 65 percent of responsibility to OPG Logistics and 35 percent to driver Biorkys Sanchez Fernandez. That split governs how the compensatory portion of the judgment is allocated between the two defendants. The split also signals the jury's view that the company's systemic safety failures, not just the driver's left turn, drove the loss.

Construction Accident
Retaining wall construction site

$101 Million Wall Collapse Verdict Marks Largest Personal Injury Award in North Carolina History

A Henderson County jury has returned a $101 million verdict against Hajoca Corp., a national plumbing supply distributor, finding the company responsible for a 2021 retaining wall collapse that killed one worker and crushed two others at a Hendersonville showroom. The verdict, returned May 19, 2026, is reportedly the largest personal injury jury award in North Carolina history. Plaintiff masons Adan Rendon Hernandez and Magno Alberto "Beto" Valdez Sanchez were each awarded $45 million, and Valdez's wife Maria Guadalupe "Lupita" Aguillón Guerrero received $11 million for loss of consortium. The plaintiffs were represented by a trial team led by Brian F. Davis of Davis Law Group in Asheville, John M. McCabe of The Law Offices of John M. McCabe in Cary, and Meredith S. Hinton of Ricci Law Firm in Greenville.Case at a Glance Verdict: $101 million compensatory ($45M + $45M + $11M) Case Type: Construction/Workplace Accident, Third-Party Tort Court: Henderson County Superior Court, North Carolina Verdict Date: May 19, 2026 Plaintiffs: Adan Rendon Hernandez (34); Magno Alberto "Beto" Valdez Sanchez (39); Maria Guadalupe Aguillón Guerrero Defendants: Hajoca Corp.; Andrew Weymouth, store manager Plaintiff Attorneys: Brian F. Davis (Davis Law Group, Asheville); John M. McCabe (Law Offices of John M. McCabe, Cary); Meredith S. Hinton (Ricci Law Firm, Greenville)What Happened at the Hajoca Showroom? On January 13, 2021, a masonry crew was working at the Hajoca plumbing supply property at 1027 Spartanburg Highway in Hendersonville. A retaining wall roughly 9 feet 8 inches tall and 150 feet long gave way, burying workers under tons of cinderblock, concrete, and dirt. One worker, 37-year-old Marcelino Godofredo Rendon Hernandez, was killed in the collapse. Two of his coworkers, Adan Rendon Hernandez and Magno Alberto Valdez Sanchez, were crushed and severely injured. According to evidence presented at trial, the wall had been repaired without an engineering analysis, without a building permit, and without adequate cure time for the concrete before approximately 210 tons of dirt backfill was loaded against it. The plaintiffs alleged Hajoca and store manager Andrew Weymouth bypassed standard safety procedures that would have prevented the failure.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiffs? Plaintiff counsel presented evidence that Hajoca failed to hire a licensed engineer, never pulled a permit, and did not allow the concrete to fully cure before backfilling the wall with heavy dirt rather than the lighter gravel typically used in retaining structures. Regulators had reinforced that view well before trial. The North Carolina Department of Labor cited both Hajoca Corp. and Robert Crawford Masonry for "willful serious" violations of the state Occupational Safety and Health Act, fining each $30,800. After a trial that ran from April 13 to May 20, 2026, the jury concluded that Hajoca and Weymouth bore responsibility for the conditions that led to the collapse. The verdict consisted of compensatory damages only.The Injuries the Jury Weighed Adan Rendon Hernandez, age 34, suffered multiple femur fractures, a crushing injury to his right leg, and post-traumatic stress disorder, in addition to other documented injuries. Magno Alberto Valdez Sanchez, age 39, sustained severe internal injuries, what trial counsel described as "massive" acute blood loss, and multiple severe fractures to his face, jaw, foot, and pelvis. The damage is permanent and neurological. "(Valdez) is physically and mentally damaged for the rest of his life ... he will never be the same ever again," McCabe told the Hendersonville Lightning.What the Attorneys Said About the Verdict Plaintiff counsel emphasized the message the verdict sent to corporate defendants operating in the state. "This is a huge validation by the people of Henderson County," Davis said in remarks reported by the Hendersonville Lightning. "The community saying, 'follow the safety rules in the county, and even if you're a giant corporation, you still have to do that.'" McCabe credited the jury's process. "The jury got it right. They applied the law and the facts, and they came up with a just and fair verdict," he said. Hinton praised the panel directly. "I commend Hendersonville. It took a lot of courage for the jurors to do what they did," she said. Defense counsel Jonathan Berkelhammer of Greensboro represented Hajoca and Weymouth at trial. After the verdict, Hajoca issued a written statement: "Hajoca disagrees with, but respects the jury's verdict in this case. Rather than endure a lengthy appellate process, we were able to settle the case after verdict, and the terms of that settlement are confidential."Why This Verdict Matters for the Plaintiff Bar If the $101 million award holds as the largest personal injury jury verdict in North Carolina history, it reframes what plaintiff lawyers in the state can credibly seek in workplace and premises cases involving catastrophic injury. The result also illustrates the third-party tort path around the workers' compensation bar. The masons could not sue their own employer, but they could and did pursue the property owner whose alleged negligence created the hazard. The trial also closes a long litigation arc. Several related claims, including the wrongful death claim brought by Marcelino Rendon Hernandez's estate and a separate claim by injured worker Colby Bradley, were resolved before trial on confidential terms. The verdict against Hajoca and Weymouth covered the remaining plaintiffs. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is loss of consortium, and why was Valdez's wife awarded $11 million? Loss of consortium is a legal claim brought by the spouse of an injured person for the loss of companionship, support, affection, and household services caused by their partner's injuries. North Carolina recognizes the claim as separate from the injured spouse's damages. In this case, the jury found that Valdez's catastrophic injuries permanently changed his ability to share a normal married life with Maria Guadalupe Aguillón Guerrero, and the $11 million reflects that lifelong loss. Q: Why could the injured workers sue Hajoca instead of being limited to workers' compensation? Workers' compensation generally bars employees from suing their own employer for on-the-job injuries. But an injured worker can still pursue a separate "third-party" tort action against another company or individual whose negligence caused the harm. The masons here worked for a contractor, not for Hajoca, so they were able to sue Hajoca as the property owner whose alleged negligence in the wall's construction and backfill caused the collapse. Q: Is the $101 million verdict the final amount Hajoca will pay? No. Shortly after the jury returned the verdict, Hajoca and the plaintiffs reached a post-verdict settlement on confidential terms, according to the company's public statement. Post-verdict settlements are common when defendants want to avoid a multi-year appeal and plaintiffs want certainty of payment. The $101 million figure stands as the jury's finding even though the actual payout was negotiated privately.

Product Liability
Skid steer on worksite

Kansas Court of Appeals Upholds $22 Million Skid Steer Verdict for Paralyzed Worker

The Kansas Court of Appeals has affirmed a $22 million product liability verdict against Kubota Tractor Corporation in a case brought by a young farm worker who was paralyzed when a skid steer crushed him. In an opinion filed May 15, 2026, the court rejected Kubota's appeal and upheld the Reno County jury's finding that the company failed to adequately warn of a hidden crush hazard. The plaintiff, Kolton Kincaid, was represented by Michael J. Wyatt and Jesse Tanksley of Mann Wyatt Tanksley in Hutchinson, Kansas.Case at a Glance Verdict: Over $22 million (reduced to $11,138,422.40 after the jury assigned Kubota 50% of the fault) Appellate Result: Affirmed by the Kansas Court of Appeals on May 15, 2026 Case Type: Product Liability (Failure to Warn) Court: Kansas Court of Appeals (trial held in Reno County District Court) Original Verdict Date: November 14, 2023 Plaintiff: Kolton Kincaid Defendant: Kubota Tractor Corporation Plaintiff Attorneys: Michael J. Wyatt and Jesse Tanksley, Mann Wyatt TanksleyWhat Did the Kansas Court of Appeals Decide? In a memorandum opinion, a three-judge panel affirmed the district court on both issues Kubota raised on appeal. Kubota had argued that the trial court should have granted it judgment as a matter of law, contending that it owed no duty to warn Kincaid and that Kincaid was required to present expert testimony on the standard of care. The court disagreed on both points. It held that the extent of Kubota's duty to warn was a question for the jury, not something the court could decide as a matter of law. It also held that Kansas law does not require expert testimony to prevail on a failure-to-warn claim, because the adequacy of a warning is itself an issue for the jury. The result leaves the jury's verdict in place. The panel wrote that it declined "to find that this trial was tainted by error." The full Kansas Court of Appeals opinion is available through CourtListener.How Did the Skid Steer Injury Happen? In November 2013, Kincaid and two other young workers were installing a fence on a farm. Because the ground was cold, wet, and muddy, the crew rode a Kubota SVL90 compact track loader out to the worksite, and Kincaid sat on the front step used to climb into the cab. As the machine approached a ravine, Kincaid signaled the operator to raise the loader arms. When the operator did, the mechanism caught Kincaid between the grapple attachment and the cab overhang, compressing his spine. The injury left him a paraplegic. According to the court's opinion, Kubota's records showed it had sold more than 136,000 skid steers in the United States between 2010 and 2023, and Kincaid's injury was the only reported instance of someone being hurt while riding on one.Why Was the $22 Million Award Reduced? The jury awarded damages of over $22 million but found Kubota 50% at fault. Under Kansas comparative fault rules, that finding cut the recovery in half, producing a judgment of $11,138,422.40. The verdict covered Kincaid's past and future medical expenses along with his pain, suffering, and mental anguish. That breakdown is why the case is often described both as a $22 million verdict and an $11.1 million judgment. The larger figure reflects the jury's total damages finding, and the smaller figure reflects what Kubota was ordered to pay after the comparative fault reduction.Why Did the Failure-to-Warn Claim Succeed? Kubota's machine carried warnings that told users to "never carry riders" and not to allow passengers on any part of the machine. Kincaid's case did not dispute that those warnings existed. Instead, his human factors expert testified that the warnings did not tell users about the specific danger that injured him: the pinch point between the cab overhang and the loader arms, which the expert described as a latent hazard. The jury concluded that a reasonable user might not have understood from the existing warnings that raising the front attachment could crush a person seated on the center step. The Court of Appeals found that conclusion was supported by the evidence and refused to overturn it.Who Represented Kolton Kincaid? Michael J. Wyatt and Jesse Tanksley of Mann Wyatt Tanksley tried the case and defended the verdict through appeal. After the original verdict, Wyatt said he was "thankful the jury saw through the defense team's arguments" and added that the firm was "so grateful for our client's courage and perseverance." Tanksley said the goal throughout the case was making sure Kincaid "received justice, full compensation, and most importantly that his voice was heard." Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What does it mean that the verdict was upheld on appeal? When a jury returns a verdict, the losing side can ask a higher court to review the trial for legal errors. Here, Kubota appealed and asked the Kansas Court of Appeals to throw out the verdict. The court reviewed the record, found no reversible error, and affirmed the verdict, which means the jury's decision stands. Q: Why was the $22 million award reduced to $11.1 million? The jury found Kubota 50% at fault for the injury. Kansas applies comparative fault, so the total damages of over $22 million were reduced in proportion to that finding, leaving a judgment of $11,138,422.40 against Kubota. Q: What is a failure-to-warn product liability claim? A failure-to-warn claim alleges that a product was made unreasonably dangerous because the manufacturer did not adequately warn users about a hazard. In this case, the plaintiff argued that Kubota's warnings did not specifically alert users to the crush hazard at the pinch point that caused his paralysis, and the jury agreed.

Birth Injury
Pregnant woman getting sonogram

Memphis Jury Awards $38.8 Million in Birth Injury Verdict Over Delayed C-Section

A Memphis jury has returned a $38,816,500 birth injury verdict on behalf of a young boy and his family after finding that physicians waited roughly 14 hours to perform a C-section despite repeated warning signs during a prolonged labor. The May 13, 2026 verdict held Dr. Roberto Levi D'Ancona and Dr. Claudette Shephard of UT Regional One Physicians, Inc. responsible for the child's permanent injuries. The family was represented by Thomas Greer, Jodi Black, and Eric Espey of Greer Injury Lawyers in Memphis, Tennessee.Case at a Glance Verdict: $38,816,500 ($3.8M loss of earning capacity, $8,016,500 lifetime care plan, $27M non-economic) Case Type: Birth Injury / Medical Malpractice Jurisdiction: Memphis, Tennessee Verdict Date: May 13, 2026 Plaintiffs: A young boy and his family Defendants: Dr. Roberto Levi D'Ancona and Dr. Claudette Shephard, UT Regional One Physicians, Inc. Plaintiff Attorneys: Thomas Greer, Jodi Black, and Eric Espey, Greer Injury LawyersWhat Happened During the Delivery? The case centered on the labor and delivery care provided to a first-time mother who presented in early labor with an elevated white blood cell count, a possible sign of infection. According to the firm, she went on to develop a severe intra-amniotic infection during a prolonged labor. Over the course of that labor, fetal monitor strips showed intermittent warning signs. They included an eight-minute deceleration following rupture of the membranes, with meconium present, while the mother was only four centimeters dilated. The plaintiffs alleged that, despite these red flags, a cesarean section was not performed for roughly another 14 hours. The plaintiffs' theory was that a timely delivery would have spared the child from the cascade of complications that followed.What Injuries Did the Child Suffer? The boy, now 9 years old, was born with sepsis and persistent pulmonary hypertension that required ECMO support, a form of life support for the heart and lungs. He later experienced intracranial bleeding, a tied-off carotid artery, and a stroke at ten months old. The lasting result, according to the family's attorneys, is intellectual disability that will require lifetime care. The jury's award reflected both that future care and the human toll of the injuries.Why Did the Jury Award $27 Million in Non-Economic Damages? Of the total verdict, the jury assigned $27 million to non-economic damages, the portion meant to compensate for pain, suffering, and loss of a normal life rather than measurable financial loss. The remaining figures were economic: $3.8 million for loss of earning capacity and $8,016,500 for a lifetime care plan. That breakdown shows how heavily the jury weighed the non-financial harm in a case involving a child facing a lifetime of disability. Economic damages can be calculated from care plans and earnings tables, but the non-economic award signals how the jury viewed the severity of what the family experienced.Who Represented the Family? Thomas Greer led the trial team from voir dire through verdict. Attorneys Jodi Black and Eric Espey spent years building the case, taking depositions, securing expert witnesses, and preparing the evidence for trial. "Behind this verdict is a family that showed incredible strength and had the courage to see this through," said Thomas Greer, founding attorney of Greer Injury Lawyers. "A jury of twelve people heard what this mother, this boy, and this family endured, and they delivered justice. We are honored to have been part of their journey."Why This Memphis Birth Injury Verdict Matters Birth injury cases are among the most difficult medical malpractice claims to try. They turn on minute-by-minute readings of fetal monitor strips, expert testimony on the standard of care, and a clear timeline showing when intervention should have happened. This verdict shows what a jury can award when the evidence connects a delayed decision to a lifetime of harm. For families navigating the aftermath of a birth injury, the result is also a reminder that the strength of the trial preparation often shapes the outcome. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is strong and the attorney is prepared. Find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is a birth injury medical malpractice claim? A birth injury malpractice claim alleges that a doctor, nurse, or hospital provided care during pregnancy, labor, or delivery that fell below the accepted standard and harmed the mother or child. In this case, the family alleged that physicians failed to perform a timely C-section despite warning signs of infection and fetal distress, leading to permanent injuries. Q: What are non-economic damages in a verdict like this? Non-economic damages compensate for losses that do not have a fixed dollar value, such as pain, suffering, disability, and loss of a normal life. Here the jury awarded $27 million in non-economic damages, separate from the economic awards for future medical care and lost earning capacity. Q: Why does the timing of a C-section matter in a birth injury case? When warning signs such as fetal heart rate decelerations, meconium, or maternal infection appear, the standard of care can call for prompt delivery to prevent oxygen deprivation and related complications. The plaintiffs argued that a roughly 14-hour delay in performing the C-section allowed a series of severe complications to develop.

Medical Malpractice
Woman in labor having a baby

Memphis Jury Awards $38.8 Million Birth Injury Verdict Against UT Regional One Physicians

A Memphis, Tennessee jury returned a $38,816,500 verdict on behalf of a young boy and his family after finding that physicians failed to timely diagnose an intra-amniotic infection and delayed a necessary C-section during a prolonged labor. The verdict targets Dr. Roberto Levi D'Ancona, Dr. Claudette Shephard, and their employer, UT Regional One Physicians, Inc. The plaintiffs were represented at trial by Thomas Greer, with case preparation led by Jodi Black and Eric Espey of Greer Injury Lawyers PLLC.Case at a Glance Verdict: $38,816,500 Case Type: Medical Malpractice (Birth Injury) Court: State court in Memphis, Tennessee Verdict Date: May 13, 2026 Plaintiff: Minor child and family (name not disclosed) Defendants: Dr. Roberto Levi D'Ancona, Dr. Claudette Shephard, UT Regional One Physicians, Inc. Plaintiff Attorneys: Thomas Greer, Jodi Black, Eric Espey (Greer Injury Lawyers PLLC)What Did the Jury Award? The jury broke its $38,816,500 award into three components: $3,800,000 for the child's loss of earning capacity, $8,016,500 to fund a lifetime care plan, and $27,000,000 in non-economic damages. Each figure was tied to evidence presented at trial about the child's lifelong medical needs and the family's experience over the nine years since his birth.What Happened During Labor and Delivery? According to the plaintiffs, a first-time mother arrived at the hospital in early labor with an elevated white blood cell count, an indicator that often signals infection. Over the course of a prolonged labor, fetal monitor strips reportedly showed intermittent warning signs, including an eight-minute deceleration after her membranes ruptured and the presence of meconium while she was only four centimeters dilated. Despite those signs, the plaintiffs alleged that a C-section was not performed for another fourteen hours. By the time the baby was delivered, he had sustained injuries the jury found were tied to the delay. The child was born with sepsis and persistent pulmonary hypertension severe enough to require ECMO life support. He also suffered an intracranial bleed, had a carotid artery tied off as part of his early care, and experienced a stroke at ten months old. Now nine years old, he lives with intellectual disability and requires lifelong care.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? The case turned on whether the obstetric team should have recognized the warning signs of an intra-amniotic infection and moved to a C-section sooner. The plaintiff's team presented expert testimony, fetal monitor strips, and the mother's clinical records to argue that the standard of care required earlier intervention. The jury's verdict reflected a finding that the delay caused the child's injuries. "A jury of twelve people heard what this mother, this boy, and this family endured, and they delivered justice," said Thomas Greer, who served as trial counsel for the family.Why This Tennessee Birth Injury Verdict Matters Birth injury cases are among the most resource-intensive trials a plaintiff firm can take on, requiring multiple medical experts, life-care planners, economists, and years of preparation. A $38.8 million Tennessee verdict signals that Memphis juries are willing to award full economic and non-economic damages when the evidence supports a clear breach of the obstetric standard of care. It also reflects the lifetime cost of caring for a child who will need support for the rest of his life. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What are non-economic damages in a Tennessee birth injury case? Non-economic damages compensate a plaintiff for harm that is not financial, such as pain, suffering, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life. In a birth injury case, non-economic damages often reflect a child's lifetime of impaired quality of life and the family's experience caring for a severely injured child. The jury in this case awarded $27,000,000 in non-economic damages. Q: What is intra-amniotic infection and why does it matter in labor? Intra-amniotic infection, sometimes called chorioamnionitis, is an infection of the membranes and fluid surrounding a baby during pregnancy or labor. Warning signs can include an elevated maternal white blood cell count, fetal heart rate abnormalities, and the presence of meconium. When the standard of care calls for prompt delivery and that delivery is delayed, the baby is at increased risk for sepsis, brain injury, and other serious complications. Q: Who can file a birth injury lawsuit in Tennessee? A birth injury lawsuit in Tennessee is typically brought by the child's parents or legal guardians on the child's behalf. Tennessee imposes specific procedural requirements for medical malpractice claims, including pre-suit notice and a certificate of good faith. The filing deadline is generally one year from when the injury was discovered, subject to additional rules that can extend the deadline for minors. An attorney experienced in Tennessee birth injury litigation can evaluate the specific deadlines that apply.

Sexual Assault
People drinking at a bar

Texas Jury Returns $131 Million Sexual Assault Verdict Against College Station Bar

A Brazos County, Texas jury has awarded $131 million to a former Texas A&M student who was drugged and sexually assaulted in 2017 by the general manager of a College Station bar. The verdict, returned on April 23, 2026 after roughly two hours of deliberation, includes $31 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in exemplary (punitive) damages, split evenly between the individual assailant and the bar itself. The plaintiff, who chose to be identified publicly by her first name, Bethany, was represented at trial by Brian Butcher of Noteboom, The Law Firm. The jury found David Hammond, who was general manager of the Foundation Lounge in College Station's Northgate entertainment district, liable for assault and sexual assault, and found the bar liable for its negligent supervision, retention, and training of Hammond.Case at a Glance Verdict: $131,000,000 Compensatory Damages: $31,000,000 Exemplary Damages: $100,000,000 ($50M against Hammond, $50M against the Foundation Lounge) Case Type: Sexual Assault / Premises Liability / Negligent Supervision Court: Brazos County, Texas (civil trial court) Verdict Date: April 23, 2026 Plaintiff: Bethany (first name only, by her consent) Defendants: David Hammond; Foundation Lounge Plaintiff Attorney: Brian Butcher, Noteboom, The Law Firm (Fort Worth) Jury Deliberation: Just over two hoursWhat Did the Jury Find? Bethany was 21 years old and a Texas A&M senior in August 2017 when she accompanied a friend who was applying for a bartending job at the Foundation Lounge. According to the lawsuit, Hammond kept the two women at the bar after closing, offered the friend a job, and poured each of them a shot from an unmarked bottle. Bethany told the jury she has no memory of anything after taking the shot, and that she woke up naked in a hotel room next to Hammond. The jury credited that account, finding that Hammond drugged Bethany and "raped her when she lacked capacity to consent." The compensatory portion of the verdict, $31 million, was awarded for past and future mental anguish, past and future physical impairment, and past physical pain. The exemplary award was split into two equal $50 million components, one against Hammond personally and one against the bar.Why the Bar Was on the Hook The legal centerpiece of the case was not the assault itself but the bar's conduct. Plaintiff's counsel framed the case as a negligent supervision and retention matter, arguing that Foundation Lounge management ignored warning signs about Hammond's behavior toward women on its premises. A key piece of evidence, according to Butcher, was that approximately six months before the attack on Bethany, Hammond had been accused of sexual assault against an employee of the same bar. "A key piece of evidence that the jury heard in our case was that six months prior to the drugging and rape in our case, David Hammond was accused of sexual assault against an employee of the bar," Butcher said. The jury also found that Hammond functioned as a "vice-principal" of the Foundation Lounge. That is a Texas legal designation, allowing a corporation to be held responsible for the conduct of an employee who acts with managerial authority. The finding exposes the corporate defendant to punitive damages tied to that employee's conduct.An 8-Year Path to Civil Justice The civil verdict arrived more than eight years after Bethany first reported the assault to College Station police. According to her trial counsel, the local district attorney concluded at the time that there was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges, and the case was placed on inactive status. Bethany testified that she followed up for years to obtain her sexual assault kit results, and that the silence from the criminal system was one of the hardest parts of the experience. In the wake of the civil verdict, Butcher said he has now spoken with the Brazos County district attorney's office about the possibility of reopening the criminal investigation. "When the verdict was read aloud in court, it was an intensely emotional experience, not just for Bethany, but also for everybody in the courtroom," Butcher said. "Many of the jurors left the jury box and came and gave her hugs and told her that they were with her, and that meant an awful lot."What the Verdict Signals for Texas Bars Butcher has acknowledged publicly that collection on a verdict of this size is unlikely, because the Foundation Lounge is no longer in business and the available non-exempt assets are limited. He has said the trial team intends to pursue every collectible asset, but that the larger value of the verdict is in the finding itself, not the dollar figure. The size of the punitive award also sends a market signal to bars, nightclubs, and other licensed premises across the state. A jury was willing to assign $50 million in exemplary damages to a venue that retained a manager after a prior internal sexual assault accusation, and it did so in roughly two hours. The result will sit alongside other notable Texas plaintiff verdicts as a reference point for future negligent supervision claims against licensed premises. Major Verdict tracks significant plaintiff verdicts and settlements across all 50 states. Find a plaintiff attorney with a proven trial record in Texas, or join now if you handle plaintiff personal injury cases in the state.Frequently Asked Questions Q: How can a bar be held liable for a criminal act committed by one of its managers? Under Texas premises liability and negligent supervision law, a business that knew or should have known about a foreseeable danger on its premises can be held civilly liable for injuries that result. The danger can include the propensity of an employee to harm patrons. In this case, the jury was presented with evidence that Hammond had been accused of sexual assault by another bar employee approximately six months before the attack on Bethany, which supported a finding that the bar was negligent in continuing to employ him in a managerial role and in failing to supervise his conduct on the premises. Q: What is the difference between this civil verdict and a criminal conviction? A criminal case is brought by the state and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to result in incarceration or other criminal penalties. A civil case is brought by the injured party and requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not, with the remedy being a monetary award. In this matter, the criminal case was placed on inactive status years ago, but the civil jury was free to find liability and award damages based on the lower civil standard. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated he is now in contact with the district attorney about whether the criminal case may be reopened in light of the civil findings. Q: Will the plaintiff actually collect $131 million? According to trial counsel, full collection is not realistic because the Foundation Lounge is no longer in business and the individual defendant's collectible assets are limited. The plaintiff's team has stated the goal is to pursue every non-exempt asset available. The practical importance of the verdict is the public finding of liability against both the assailant and the bar that employed him, and the precedent it establishes for future negligent supervision claims against Texas licensed premises.

Medical Malpractice
Nursing home hallway

$10 Million Cincinnati Medical Malpractice Verdict in Good Samaritan Hospital Sepsis Death

A Hamilton County jury returned a unanimous $10 million medical malpractice verdict against TriHealth, Inc. on May 1, 2026. The verdict came in the death of 69-year-old grandmother Terri Price, who died of septic shock after sepsis treatment orders went unfilled in Good Samaritan Hospital's geriatric psychiatric unit. The Cincinnati case was tried by plaintiff attorneys Charlie Rittgers and Matt Nakajima of Rittgers Rittgers & Nakajima after nearly six years of litigation.Case at a Glance Verdict: $10,000,000 Case Type: Medical Malpractice / Wrongful Death Court: Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, Ohio Verdict Date: May 1, 2026 Plaintiff: Estate of Terri Price (represented by daughter Jennifer Wiesner) Defendant: TriHealth, Inc. / Good Samaritan Hospital Plaintiff Attorneys: Charlie Rittgers and Matt Nakajima, Rittgers Rittgers & NakajimaWhat Happened to Terri Price? Terri Price was a 69-year-old grandmother who, by her family's account, had been healthy and active until late March 2020. According to her daughter Jennifer Wiesner, Price began acting out of character that month, becoming confused and paranoid. The family initially suspected anxiety. On March 22, 2020, Price was admitted to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. Because UC Medical Center reportedly did not have an open bed, she was transferred to TriHealth's Good Samaritan Hospital. UC personnel sent Price with documentation noting an active infection and a diagnosis of "neurocognitive disorder due to a medical condition." At Good Samaritan, Price was placed in the geriatric psychiatric unit. Her family was not permitted to visit. Within six days, she was dead.Why the Jury Held Good Samaritan Liable for Medical Malpractice Court records and trial testimony indicate that Good Samaritan physicians ordered IV fluids, sepsis antibiotics, and potassium for Price as her condition declined. According to the plaintiffs, those orders sat unfulfilled hour after hour, with no nursing notes documenting why they were never administered. “These orders were placed, and Terri sat on the psychiatric unit for hour after hour without receiving the treatment these doctors ordered,” Rittgers told reporters after the verdict. "This care is some of the worst care I've seen in my career." Price suffered a perforated bowel, went into septic shock, and died on March 29, 2020. The plaintiffs argued that once a rapid-response event occurred, Price should have been moved out of the psychiatric unit and into a medical unit equipped to treat acute infection. She was not. The jury, which included three members with ties to the medical field, returned its verdict unanimously.What the Plaintiff Attorneys Argued Rittgers and Nakajima built the case around documentation gaps and a transfer-protocol breakdown. Physician orders existed, the medical condition was identified at intake, and the patient remained in a unit not staffed to manage acute sepsis. “It took six years for somebody to recognize that her mother should still be here today,” Rittgers said after the verdict, adding that the family hopes the result "brings positive changes to our health care system." For Charlie Rittgers, a trial lawyer with a record in both criminal defense and serious-injury cases, the verdict reinforced the weight of jury composition. "The fact that they understood the egregiousness of this care and signified what was taken, the verdict does mean more," he said.What the $10 Million Verdict Means for Ohio Hospitals TriHealth, the hospital system that operates Good Samaritan, issued a statement saying it was "deeply disappointed" with the verdict and is considering an appeal. Spokesman Thomas Lange said the organization believes "the jury's verdict is not consistent with the high quality of care provided at Good Samaritan Hospital." For the Price family, the result is about more than the dollar figure. Wiesner has called for hospital policy changes, specifically a requirement that psychiatric-unit patients be transferred to medical care the moment a medical emergency is identified. The verdict adds to a growing body of Ohio wrongful death and medical malpractice verdicts involving documentation failures and inter-unit transfer protocols. It also lands in a year when Cincinnati-area medical malpractice verdicts have drawn renewed attention from the plaintiff bar across Hamilton County. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured by a hospital error, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is well-documented and the trial team is prepared. Find a plaintiff lawyer in Ohio on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What types of damages can an Ohio family recover in a wrongful death medical malpractice case? Ohio wrongful death claims allow recovery for the survivors' loss of support, services, society, and companionship, as well as the deceased's mental anguish. Compensatory damages for non-economic losses in medical malpractice cases are subject to statutory caps in Ohio, though those caps do not apply to claims involving catastrophic injury or wrongful death in every circumstance. The Price verdict was reported as a single $10 million figure without a public breakdown between economic and non-economic damages. Q: Can TriHealth appeal the $10 million verdict? Yes. TriHealth has publicly stated it is considering an appeal of the May 1, 2026 verdict. In Ohio, a defendant typically has 30 days from the entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal. Hamilton County appeals go to the Ohio First District Court of Appeals. An appeal does not automatically reverse a jury verdict, and most appeals are decided on procedural or evidentiary grounds rather than re-weighing the facts. Q: How long do families have to file a medical malpractice lawsuit in Ohio? Ohio's medical malpractice statute of limitations is generally one year from the date the cause of action accrues. A four-year statute of repose bars most claims filed more than four years after the alleged negligent act. Wrongful death claims have their own two-year statute of limitations that runs from the date of death. Families who believe a hospital error caused a loved one's death should consult an Ohio plaintiff attorney as soon as possible because these deadlines are short and strictly enforced.

Toxic Tort
Stone countertop being manufactured

$17.45M Colorado Verdict in First Artificial Stone Silicosis Case

A Denver jury returned a $17,450,000 verdict on April 30, 2026, in Colorado's first artificial stone countertop silicosis case. The jury found that engineered stone manufacturer Cambria Co., LLC and Hyundai USA LLC misrepresented the safety of quartz slabs that left a 31-year-old fabricator with progressive lung disease and chronic kidney disease. The Denver County District Court jury allocated 32% of fault to Cambria and 3% to Hyundai USA, awarding plaintiffs Tyler Jordan and Caitlin Jordan compensation across economic, non-economic, impairment, and consortium damages. Plaintiffs were represented by Evan Hoffman, Leah McMorris, Grecia Perez, and partner James Nevin of Brayton Purcell LLP. The case is only the third artificial stone silicosis matter to reach a verdict anywhere in the United States.Case at a Glance Verdict: $17,450,000 Case Type: Toxic Tort / Product Liability (Artificial Stone Silicosis) Court: Denver County District Court, Colorado (Case No. 2024CV31180) Verdict Date: April 30, 2026 Plaintiffs: Tyler Jordan and Caitlin Jordan Defendants: Cambria Co., LLC (32% liable); Hyundai USA LLC (3% liable) Plaintiff Attorneys: Evan Hoffman, Leah McMorris, Grecia Perez, and James Nevin (Brayton Purcell LLP)What Did the Jury Award? The Denver jury divided the $17,450,000 verdict into four damage categories. Economic damages totaled $7,600,000. Non-economic damages came to $1,650,000. Physical impairment damages reached another $7,600,000. The jury also awarded $600,000 to Caitlin Jordan for loss of consortium. The total reflects the comparative-fault allocation of 32% against Cambria Co., LLC and 3% against Hyundai USA LLC under Colorado's modified comparative fault scheme. No punitive damages were awarded.How Engineered Stone Causes Silicosis Artificial stone, also called engineered stone or quartz countertop slab, is manufactured by binding crushed quartz with polymers and pigments. Quartz is composed almost entirely of crystalline silica. When fabricators cut, grind, and polish slabs to install in kitchens and bathrooms, they generate fine respirable silica dust. Inhaled over time, that dust scars lung tissue and causes silicosis, an irreversible and often progressive disease that can also damage the kidneys. Tyler Jordan was 31 years old at the time of the verdict. According to court filings, his exposure to silica during stone fabrication caused both artificial stone silicosis and silica-related chronic kidney disease, along with respiratory impairment.Why the Jury Held Cambria and Hyundai USA Liable The plaintiffs' theory of liability against both defendants rested on misrepresentation. Brayton Purcell argued that Cambria and Hyundai USA marketed their products as "pure natural quartz" without warning fabricators or end users of the extreme respiratory and kidney hazards generated when the engineered slabs are cut and polished. The case against Hyundai USA also included a negligence count. The jury agreed, allocating 32% of fault to Cambria Co., LLC and 3% to Hyundai USA LLC. "This verdict is about accountability," said plaintiff attorney Evan Hoffman of Brayton Purcell LLP. The defendants were represented by Claire Weglarz and Khaled Taqi-Eddin of Womble Bond Dickinson, and by Rey Yang and Johanna Boktor of Yang Professional Law Corporation.Why This Stone Silicosis Verdict Matters Nationally Artificial stone silicosis is an emerging occupational health crisis. Public health agencies have documented a sharp rise in cases among young countertop fabricators, with some progressing to lung transplant or death within a few years of diagnosis. California became the first state to require enhanced workplace protections for stone fabrication shops after a wave of cases there, and other state regulators are following. The Tyler Jordan verdict is the first to reach a Colorado courtroom and only the third nationally. The result is expected to draw additional plaintiff filings in states where stone fabrication shops operate without strict respiratory controls. Brayton Purcell, historically known for asbestos litigation, has built a dedicated stone silicosis team and is actively investigating new cases. The verdict also signals to the engineered stone industry that misrepresentation theories, alleging slabs were sold as "natural quartz" without hazard warnings, can survive trial and produce eight-figure jury awards. Look for similar personal injury verdict news in Colorado as toxic-tort filings continue to climb. If you or someone you love has developed silicosis, lung disease, or kidney disease after working with engineered stone countertops, verdicts like this show what juries are willing to award when manufacturers fail to warn of known hazards. Find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict with the trial record to take on artificial stone silicosis cases.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is artificial stone silicosis? Artificial stone silicosis is a lung disease caused by inhaling fine crystalline silica dust during the cutting, grinding, and polishing of engineered or "artificial" stone slabs. Engineered stone contains far more silica than natural granite, and exposure can produce severe and progressive lung scarring, sometimes within a few years. Silica exposure can also cause chronic kidney disease, as alleged in the Tyler Jordan case. Q: What were the damages in the Tyler Jordan verdict? The Denver jury awarded $7,600,000 in economic damages, $1,650,000 in non-economic damages, $7,600,000 in physical impairment damages, and $600,000 to Caitlin Jordan for loss of consortium. The $17,450,000 total was allocated under Colorado's comparative fault rules, with Cambria Co., LLC found 32% liable and Hyundai USA LLC found 3% liable. Q: Why is this verdict significant for stone silicosis litigation? It is the first artificial stone silicosis case to reach a verdict in Colorado and only the third nationally. The result confirms that misrepresentation theories, alleging manufacturers marketed engineered stone as "pure natural quartz" without warning of the silica hazard, can produce eight-figure jury awards in this emerging mass tort area.

Auto vs Pedestrian
Elderly woman crossing busy street with walker device

$1.225M Settlement Reached in Fairfax County Parking Lot Crash That Caused Permanent Loss of Taste and Smell

A 70-year-old plaintiff settled a motor vehicle negligence claim for $1.225 million in Fairfax County Circuit Court on April 14, 2026, after a passing vehicle struck the plaintiff's parked car at full speed in a Burke, Virginia parking lot, launching the parked car onto a raised median where it slammed into the plaintiff who was standing nearby. The settlement was reached shortly after the filing of suit and was secured by Brian Glass of Ben Glass Law in Fairfax, Virginia. The plaintiff suffered traumatic brain injuries, multiple rib fractures, a collapsed lung, and the permanent loss of taste and smell.Case at a Glance Settlement: $1,225,000 Case Type: Motor Vehicle Negligence Court: Fairfax County Circuit Court, Virginia Settlement Date: April 14, 2026 Plaintiff: 70-year-old (name not disclosed) Defendant: Not disclosed Plaintiff Attorney: Brian Glass, Ben Glass Law (Fairfax, VA) Special Damages: $117,980.71How Did the Burke Parking Lot Crash Happen? The collision occurred in a parking lot in Burke, Virginia. A moving vehicle struck the plaintiff's parked car at speed, sending the parked car up onto a raised median in the lot. The plaintiff was standing near the median when the launched vehicle struck the plaintiff and caused a loss of consciousness. The mechanism of injury was unusual. A moving car striking a parked car, with the parked car then striking the standing plaintiff, produced a pedestrian-style impact at significant force. Emergency responders transported the plaintiff to the Inova Fairfax Hospital Trauma Center.What Injuries Did the Plaintiff Suffer? The injuries documented in the case were severe and, in several respects, permanent. The plaintiff sustained: Traumatic brain injuries: a skull fracture, intracranial hemorrhage, and multiple hemorrhagic brain contusions Chest and lung injuries: multiple rib fractures, a collapsed lung, and hemothorax (blood in the chest cavity) Asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss Permanent loss of smell (anosmia) and loss of taste (ageusia) The permanent loss of smell and taste is a defining feature of this case. Anosmia and ageusia are recognized complications of significant head trauma and are generally considered permanent once established. Beyond the obvious quality-of-life impact, the inability to smell smoke, gas, or spoiled food carries real safety consequences for an older plaintiff living independently.What Did Treatment and Recovery Require? The plaintiff was hospitalized for nine days at Inova Fairfax Hospital Trauma Center. After discharge, the plaintiff required two months of professional nursing care at home, along with physical therapy and vestibular rehabilitation to address balance issues stemming from the head and inner-ear injuries. Special damages, the documented medical and out-of-pocket economic losses, totaled $117,980.71.Why Did the Case Settle Before Trial? The case was resolved shortly after the filing of suit. Several factors likely contributed to the early settlement: a clear liability story in which a moving vehicle struck a stationary one, a sympathetic 70-year-old plaintiff with documented trauma-center treatment, and a permanent sensory injury component that is difficult to minimize at trial. For Virginia plaintiff attorneys, the case offers a useful reference point for valuing motor vehicle claims that involve traumatic brain injury alongside permanent sensory loss, particularly in an older plaintiff. The settlement figure of $1.225 million against roughly $118,000 in special damages reflects a multiplier driven heavily by the permanent and quality-of-life injury components rather than by economic loss alone. Additional Virginia personal injury verdicts and settlements are tracked in the Virginia verdict news archive. Settlements like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.Frequently Asked Questions Q: Who represented the plaintiff in this Fairfax County settlement? Brian Glass of Ben Glass Law in Fairfax, Virginia represented the plaintiff. The case settled for $1.225 million in Fairfax County Circuit Court shortly after suit was filed. Q: How are permanent loss of taste and smell valued in personal injury cases? Anosmia (loss of smell) and ageusia (loss of taste) are typically classified as permanent quality-of-life injuries with significant non-economic damage value. They affect daily safety and enjoyment of life and often weigh heavily in jury awards or settlement valuations, especially when accompanied by traumatic brain injury, as in this case. Q: Where can I find more Virginia verdicts and settlements? Major Verdict tracks plaintiff verdicts and settlements across Virginia, including results from Fairfax County, Richmond, and Norfolk. The Virginia verdict news archive lists recent cases by jurisdiction and case type.

Member Search

Latest Featured Members

View All Major Verdict Members
Search Members by State
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Sample 7 Sample 8 Sample 9 Sample 10 Sample 11 Sample 12
Sample 13 Sample 14 Sample 15 Sample 16 Sample 17 Sample 18 Sample 19 Sample 20 Sample 21 Sample 22 Sample 23 Sample 24
Sample 32 Sample 25 Sample 26 Sample 27 Sample 28 Sample 29 Sample 30 Sample 31 Sample 33 Sample 34 Sample 35 Sample 36
Sample 37 Sample 38 Sample 39 Sample 40 Sample 41 Sample 42 Sample 43 Sample 44 Sample 45 Sample 46 Sample 47 Sample 48

Plaintiff trial attorneys. Join now for free!

ShowcaseYour Experience

Major Verdict gives you a free public profile to showcase your hard-earned trial verdicts and notable settlements. Let your results speak for themselves to potential clients and peers nationwide. You control what you share, when you edit, and how your public record is presented.

Why join
Join now