Palmer & Barr is pleased to announce that Partner, Kristine Meindl, has been named as the managing attorney for the Philadelphia office. Additionally, is pleased to announce that Partner, Regina Johnson, has joined the firm as an attorney in the Philadelphia office. With over 13 years of experience in civil litigation, Ms. Johnson will focus her practice on all facets of automotive defense. Read more at: www.palmerbarr.com/attorneys
Also, the firm has recently opened its new office in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The fully staffed office located in the heart of West Chester will allow Palmer & Barr to continue providing personalized and local legal services for the firm’s clients.
Palmer & Barr recently opened its new West Chester Office. For many years, Palmer & Barr has maintained a strong presence in West Chester and the surrounding counties forming strong relationships with the bar in those areas. The new office location will allow Palmer & Barr to continue providing personalized and local legal services for the firm's clients.
Jim defended a left-hand turn automobile accident in Delaware County in which liability was not in dispute. Plaintiff alleged a low back injury and provided objective support of his injury by way of an MRI that revealed herniated discs at two levels as well as an EMG confirming nerve damage at the levels of the herniations. Plaintiff had protracted physical therapy as well as injections for his complaints. Plaintiff's expert classified his injuries as permanent and testified regarding future care, including potential fusion surgery. Jim defended the case using photographic evidence of the property damage to the vehicles as well as Plaintiff's pre accident medical records. Jim also retained a board-certified radiologist who testified that the findings on the MRI were degenerative in nature and unrelated to the accident. Plaintiff demanded $65,000 prior to the start of the Trial. After a brief deliberation the jury found that the automobile accident was not the factual cause of any injury to the Plaintiff. A defense verdict was entered.
Kris Meindl successfully defended a rear-end automobile accident in Philadelphia County. The defendant admitted that he rear-ended the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger after a car in front of the plaintiff’s made a sudden stop. However, he asserted that the impact was minimal, and that the plaintiff never reported injury or even exited the vehicle she was a passenger in. The plaintiff, who had the benefit of full tort coverage, alleged that she suffered injuries to the head, neck and right hand and presented to the emergency room and underwent follow up therapy as well as MRI studies and an EMG test. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic cervical, thoracic, and lumbosacral sprains and strains, mild right C5 subacute cervical radiculopathy, cervical disc bulge at C5-6 and herniation at C4-5, right L5 lumbar radiculopathy, and lumbar disc bulges at L4-5 and L5-S1. She was recommended to consider injection therapy and was evaluated by an orthopedic surgeon. She testified that she had continued daily, constant pain still 3 years after the accident. Kris defended the matter on inconsistencies in plaintiff’s medical care and treatment and even with the testimony of her treating physician. Kris presented a board-certified neuroradiologist who testified that there was no objective evidence of injury in plaintiff’s MRI studies. After deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense, finding that plaintiff did not prove factual cause in her case.
Ms. Meindl had two recent trials that were ultimate awards in favor of her client.
One matter was an Underinsured Motorist Action in which the plaintiff, who was a pedestrian, was making a claim for injuries causing her to treat for over one and a half years. Plaintiff claimed that a vehicle struck her while she was crossing the street causing her body to go into the air, across the hood of the car and then landing on the street. Plaintiff had been diagnosed with lumbar strain, sacrum strain, intervertebral disorders, displacement of the lumbar intervertebral disc without myelopathy, degeneration of the lumbar intervertebral disc, neuralgia, and neuritis or radiculopathy, and spinal enthesopathy (problem with connection of ligament/tendon to the bone) and was recommended to undergo injections. Ms. Meindl argued that the plaintiff's credibility regarding her prior history was at issue. She also established that the plaintiff's course of care was questionable. Overall, the jury awarded the plaintiff an amount of money that was within the underlying tortfeasor's settlement. Accordingly, Ms. Meindl's client was not required to make any Underinsured Motorist payments. It should be noted that the trial proceeded solely as a case against the defendant insurance carrier.
The second trial was a motor vehicle accident where two plaintiff's sued the defendant who proceeded from a side street controlled by a stop sign into a roadway in which the plaintiffs were driving that was not controlled by a stop sign. Both plaintiffs claimed serious injuries to their spine that had dramatically altered their lives. Ms. Meindl was able to establish that the plaintiff driver, while not required to stop due to a traffic signal, should have seen the defendant driver as his vehicle was further out into the roadway and was a big, white colored SUV. The jury agreed with Ms. Meindl finding the plaintiff driver 51% liable for the accident. The jury also agreed with Ms. Meindl's arguments that plaintiffs treated solely for litigation and had not established that they were injured as a result of the accident. Both plaintiffs were found by the jury to have not established factual cause. A defense verdict was entered as to both plaintiffs.
John defended a rear end accident in which liability was not in dispute. What makes this case particularly rewarding is that John was asked to take over the defense of the case after another firm did not want to take it to trial and the matter was referred over for his handling. John had the file for only three weeks. During that brief period, John took two expert depositions which greatly aided in the defense of the case. He successfully convinced the jury that the accident did not cause the injuries being alleged, including an upcoming low back surgery with rods and screws. After only an hour’s deliberation, the jury returned with a defense verdict! The demand was always the policy limit of 100k and plaintiffs refused to negotiate.
Jim recently received a defense verdict in Philadelphia County following a three day Trial arising out of a motor vehicle collision. The Defense stipulated to liability leaving only issues of causation and damages to the Jury. Plaintiff claimed as a result of the accident he sustained herniated discs in his cervical and lumbar spine, strain and sprain injuries as well as both cervical and lumbar nerve injuries. Plaintiff’s medical expert related all of the aforementioned injuries to the accident and opined they were permanent in nature and would require ongoing care including potential surgery. Plaintiff claimed the injuries affected his activities of daily living. The defense attacked the minor nature of the accident as well as Plaintiff’s expert credibility. The defense presented expert testimony attacking the diagnostic studies opining that the findings were degenerative in nature and therefore preexisting.. After deliberation the Jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant finding that the Plaintiff did not prove any injury was causally related to the accident.
Jim recently received a defense verdict in Bucks County following a three day Trial arising out of a motor vehicle collision. The Defense stipulated to liability leaving issue of causation as well serious injury to the Jury. Plaintiff claimed as a result of the accident he sustained multiple herniated discs in his cervical and lumbar spine, strain and sprain injuries to his shoulders and spine as well torn meniscus in both knees. Plaintiff’s medical expert related all of the aforementioned injuries to the accident and opined they were permanent in nature and would require ongoing care and potential surgery. Plaintiff claimed the injuries affected all of his activities of daily living as well as his car washing business. The defense was centered around the Plaintiff’s medical history as well as expert testimony that opined the findings were degenerative and therefore pre existing in nature. After a brief deliberation the Jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant finding that the Plaintiff did not prove any injury related to the accident.
Kristine recently won a Philadelphia County case in which negligence was stipulated to. The issue before the jury was whether the plaintiff was injured in the accident. The plaintiff was claiming neck and back problems, including herniated discs and nerve damage that were confirmed via objective testing. Ultimately, the plaintiff developed and was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. Plaintiff’s expert, a respected hand surgeon, opined that plaintiff had sustained a double crush injury, cervical radiculopathy and carpal tunnel that required surgical intervention. Plaintiff was the mother of several small children and claimed that the injuries from the accident caused a significant amount of limitations in her daily activities as well as her job as a hairstylist. Ms. Meindl argued that the nerve and carpal tunnel diagnoses were unrelated to the motor vehicle accident. She presented a defense expert that concluded that plaintiff did have a nerve problem stemming from her elbow, but the expert did not agree with the plaintiff’s expert that the condition was a double crush injury or carpal tunnel. The defense expert further found that the present nerve problem was unrelated to the accident at issue and was instead a result of her job and history of pregnancy. . After three days of trial, the jury deliberated and rendered a verdict in favor of the defense concluding that the plaintiff had not established causation of the injury to the accident.
This matter involved a highly contested trip and fall which also had contested medical causation. The Plaintiff alledged that they fell on a missing cover to a pipe that was obscured by grass on the Defendant's property. A further complicating factor was that the water utility company was alleging a tariff that said the responsibility for the cap was that of the homeowner and asserted immunity. The Plaintiff alleged that the fall resulted in neck and back injuries, together with a torn rotator cuff with resultant surgery and ongoing physical limitations with day-to-day activities. Of note is the Plaintiff’s pre-trial demand was $175,000. After a three day trial, the jury unanimously decided the Plaintiff was completely at fault for the accident, finding both Defendants to be free of negligence.
In February, 2019, Kristine achieved a defense verdict in Philadelphia County case involving a rear-end accident where the plaintiff claimed that the significant impact, which totalled his car, caused him to strike his face resulting in an orbital fracture necessitating surgical repair. Ms. Meindl contested liability taking the position that the plaintiff caused the accident by suddenly stopping. Additionally, she argued that the plaintiff's injuries were not related to the accident as the facial fracture was old and was only an incidental finding after the accident happened. After 4 days of trial, jury reached a verdict finding the plaintiff was more at fault than the defendant for causing the rear-end crash after suddenly stopping.
In January 2019 James A. Godin successfully defended an automobile negligence action in Philadelphia County where the Plaintiff claimed herniated discs and nerve injuries in his low back. Treatment included physical therapy as well as multiple surgically guided injections. The Defense stipulated to Negligence; however, the Jury found the Defendant’s negligence was not the cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.
In February 2019 James Godin's second win was in an automobile negligence action in Montgomery County where the Plaintiff claimed a fractured vertebrae, herniated discs and nerve injuries in his low back. Treatment included physical therapy, injections, nerve ablation procedures as well as two surgeries, including a three level fusion in the lumbar spine. In addition, the Plaintiff was claiming $150,000 in past medical expense as well as future medical expenses. Negligence was stipulated; however, the Jury found the Defendant’s negligence was not the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries awarding no damages.
For his third win, in March 2019, James Godin successfully defended another automobile negligence action in Philadelphia County where the Plaintiff claimed nerve injuries in his low back. Treatment included physical therapy as well as multiple surgically guided injections. Negligence was stipulated; however, the Jury found the Defendant’s negligence was not the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.
Finally, again in March 2019 James Godin successfully defended a homeowners association. In that case, Plaintiff, who was a member of the Association, claimed the Association failed to properly maintain a common area resulting in damage to his property. Mr. Godin was able to have the Plaintiff's entire claim dismissed after the Court granted his Motion for Summary Judgment.
Palmer & Barr is extremely pleased to welcome Partner, Kristine Meindl along with her team to the firm. Kristine is a seasoned litigator with over 15 years of experience and has focused her career on automobile and premise liability defense.
She comes to Palmer & Barr as a well respected member of the legal community offering extensive trial experience throughout the Philadelphia area as well as New Jersey. We are pleased to welcome Kristine to Palmer & Barr.
