Case details

Pedestrian claimed turning vehicle struck her





Result type

Not present

back, bulging disc, fusion, lumbar, lumbar knee
On May 29, 2019, plaintiff Maria Meza, a 39-year-old unemployed woman, was walking in the Larchmont section of Los Angeles. When she reached the intersection of Lemon Grove Avenue and North Wilton Place, she entered a crosswalk and began to cross North Wilton Place. She claimed that she was struck by a vehicle that was being driven by Seeta Nanoo, who was executing a left turn onto the southbound side of North Wilton Place, from the westbound side of Lemon Grove Avenue. Meza claimed that she suffered of her back and a knee. Meza sued Nanoo and the owner of Nanoo’s vehicle, Ram Bajaj. The lawsuit alleged that Nanoo was negligent in the operation of her vehicle. The lawsuit further alleged that Bajaj was vicariously liable for Nanoo’s actions. Meza’s counsel negotiated a settlement of the claim against Bajaj. Terms were not disclosed. The matter proceeded against Nanoo. Meza’s counsel contended that Nanoo failed to yield the right of way. Nanoo claimed that her vehicle did not strike Meza. Nanoo claimed that Meza was startled and resultantly fell. However, according to Meza’s counsel, Nanoo’s account of the incident, as described in Nanoo’s deposition, was inconsistent with a responding police officer’s account of the incident., Meza was transported to a hospital, where she underwent minor treatment. Meza ultimately claimed that she suffered trauma that produced bulges of her L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1 intervertebral discs. She also claimed that she suffered a knee injury that caused stiffness of the knee. Meza underwent chiropractic manipulation and the administration of epidural injections of steroid-based painkillers, but she claimed that her back remained painful. She ultimately required fusion of her spine’s L5-S1 level. After the surgery, she underwent implantation of a neurostimulator: a device that provides pain-relieving stimulation of spinal nerves. She also underwent arthroscopic surgery that addressed her injured knee. Meza claimed that she suffers ongoing pain and limitations, and she also claimed that her neurostimulator will require regular replacement of its battery. She sought recovery of past and future medical expenses, and she sought recovery of damages for past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Meza’s predated the incident, that Meza exaggerated the extent of the , and that the resolved.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA

Recommended Experts


Get a FREE consultation for your case