Case details

Plaintiff’s inattention caused fall on walkway, defense argued

SUMMARY

$0

Amount

Verdict-Defendant

Result type

Not present

Ruling
KEYWORDS
ankle, fusion, neurological, reflex sympathetic
FACTS
On June 21, 2014, plaintiff Patricia Nemitz, 70, a retiree, visited a house owned by John Rogers, in Hughson. As Nemitz was returning to the house after having ventured outside, she tripped and fell on the concrete walkway. She sustained to her ankle and knee. Nemitz sued Rogers and Toastmasters International. Toastmasters was ultimately dismissed from the case. Nemitz claimed she tripped and fell over a two inch height differential between two pieces of concrete slabs that were in the walkway. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Rogers failed to repair and/or maintain the walkway, creating a dangerous condition, and that Rogers failed to warn of that condition. Defense counsel contended that Nemitz crossed the subject area once entering the house, once leaving the house and once walking back to the house. Counsel contended that Nemitz tripped and fell during his third time using the walkway. Defense counsel further argued that there was no way that Nemitz could have missed the differential and that Nemitz fell because she was inattentive., Nemitz sustained fractures of the talus in an ankle and the posterior facet surface of the calcaneus in her heel. After her fall, Nemitz went to a hospital, where she was X-rayed and diagnosed with the heel and ankle fractures. However, a week later, an orthopedic physician proffered that Nemitz only sustained a sprain and that she should wear a boot. Nemitz did as she was instructed for a few months, but she claimed the area still bothered her, so she went to another physician, who ordered an MRI and diagnosed the fractures. The second physician later performed an ankle fusion to repair the . Nemitz claimed that despite the surgery, she continues to suffer from complex regional pain syndrome, also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy or causalgia, a chronic pain condition. She also claimed that she is left with pain and numbness in her ankle with numbness up to the knee. The plaintiff’s pain management/CRPS expert opined that Nemitz had a very mild form of CRPS. The expert also testified that he developed a future treatment plan for Nemitz that included a rigorous course of physical therapy, pain management and a neurostimulator, which is a form of spinal cord stimulation that is surgically implanted. The plaintiff’s life care planning expert testified as to the cost of the suggested treatment plan. Nemitz waived her past economic damages and sought recovery of approximately $500,000 for her future medical costs based off the suggested treatment plan. She also sought recovery of non-economic damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Her husband, James Nemitz, a contractor, presented a derivative claim seeking recovery for his alleged loss of consortium. The defense’s orthopedic surgery expert agreed that Nemitz sustained fractures of her heel and ankle and that all of Nemitz’s treatment was reasonable and necessary. However, the expert disputed that Nemitz has CRPS. The defense’s expert testified that he did not see any signs or symptoms of CRPS that he could attribute to Nemitz’s and opined that Nemitz’s ongoing issues could be related to the fracture not fully healing or some other condition, such as arthritis of the calcaneocuboid joint.
COURT
Superior Court of Stanislaus County, Modesto, CA

Recommended Experts

NEED HELP? TALK WITH AN EXPERT

Get a FREE consultation for your case