Favorable Verdict Secured in Hillsborough County Traumatic Brain Injury Case Involving Minor Plaintiff

CSK Defense Team
Tampa Administrative Partner Michelle Bartels
Tampa Managing Partner Dan Shapiro

Case Summary
This case arose from a rear-end collision involving a 13-year-old backseat passenger. While the claims of the other occupants were resolved before trial, the minor’s claim proceeded after a Proposal for Settlement expired.

The Plaintiff alleged neck and back injuries and a concussion later characterized as a mild traumatic brain injury, along with ongoing cognitive complaints. On the morning of trial, she withdrew her claim for past medical expenses and instead sought between $1 million and $1.8 million in future medical care, in addition to substantial past and future pain and suffering.

Defense Strategy
The CSK Defense Team focused on the absence of objective medical evidence supporting a permanent injury. Through testimony from a neuroradiologist and neurosurgeon, the defense demonstrated that the Plaintiff’s imaging studies were normal for her age and did not support a traumatic brain injury diagnosis.

The defense also highlighted the conservative course of treatment, the timing of subsequent neurological evaluations, and the lack of findings consistent with the significant damages sought. By concentrating on permanency and the evidentiary basis for future care, the team provided the jury with a clear and structured framework for evaluating the claims.

Outcome
After nearly three hours of deliberation, the jury returned a defense-favorable verdict, awarding $170,000 in future medical expenses while finding no permanent injury and rejecting all claims for pain and suffering. The verdict demonstrates the effectiveness of an evidence-driven defense that required the Plaintiff to meet her burden of proving permanency and the necessity of extensive future care. Although the only pretrial demand was $2.75 million and the Plaintiff sought up to $1.8 million in future medical expenses at trial, the jury awarded a small fraction of those amounts—substantially limiting the client’s exposure.