Davies Hothem Injury Law secured a $1,200,000 jury verdict in the Superior Court of Hall County for a man seriously injured in a four-vehicle collision on January 1, 2023. The defense had offered only $25,000 to settle the case prior to trial, despite medical bills approaching $200,000. Witness testimony indicated the defendant was speeding and passing in a no-passing zone before striking the rear of another vehicle at an intersection, triggering a chain reaction that resulted in a violent head-on collision with the firm's client.
The immediate aftermath of the crash required ambulance transport to the emergency room, but the client's most significant medical challenges emerged in the days following the incident. He developed numbness, tingling, and radiating pain through his left neck, shoulder, arm, and hand. After months of therapy, medical professionals diagnosed him with neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome, a condition known to result from blunt force trauma or rapid acceleration and deceleration in motor vehicle collisions. His treatment included a rib resection procedure at Northeast Georgia Medical Center to decompress injured nerves, followed by two additional surgeries to repair an avulsion fracture of the thumb.
The trial featured contentious medical testimony, with the defense presenting a neurologist who billed more than $20,000 for his services and testified that the client did not suffer from neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome and that the surgical interventions were unnecessary. During cross-examination, Partner Kristy Davies effectively used the neurologist's own cited literature to undermine his conclusions and secure key admissions that other injuries were directly caused by the crash. Partners Dustin Davies and Kristy Davies tried the case to verdict over the course of a week.
This substantial verdict carries important implications for personal injury litigation in Georgia and beyond. The outcome demonstrates that even when facing well-funded defense experts, thorough case preparation and strategic cross-examination can prevail. The case also highlights the persistent dangers of speeding and aggressive driving, which remain leading contributors to severe collisions in Georgia. For injury victims, the result underscores that initial settlement offers may not reflect the true value of complex injury cases, particularly those involving disputed medical causation and long-term treatment requirements.
The medical journey described in this case illustrates how motor vehicle collision injuries can evolve over time, with conditions like neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome potentially developing days after the initial impact. This verdict may influence how similar cases are evaluated by both plaintiffs and defendants, particularly those involving disputed medical diagnoses and treatment recommendations. The substantial disparity between the initial settlement offer and the final jury award suggests that insurance companies and defense counsel may need to reassess their valuation approaches for cases involving complex medical evidence and significant treatment histories.
