Tom Paradise and Megan Pariti (Hollywood, FL) (Appeal) In May 2025, we obtained a Defense Verdict in a personal injury case even though the Defendant had testified that he felt at fault for a rear-end automobile accident. The jury found in favor of the defense, rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for $2.6 million in damages.
The Plaintiff appealed. She argued that the Defendant had admitted fault and that the evidence established she was injured in the accident. The defense responded that the Defendant’s testimony was not an admission of legal fault but rather an expression of feeling responsible for striking the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The defense also argued that whether the accident caused the Plaintiff’s claimed injuries was a question of fact, which the jury properly resolved based on conflicting evidence. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the verdict in a per curiam affirmance (PCA) in October 2026.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that she sustained a traumatic brain injury and cervical disc herniations requiring extensive treatment, including injections and a rhizotomy. A neurosurgeon also recommended further surgery, including a multi-level discectomy and disc replacement. The case arose from a January 2022 accident in which the plaintiff claimed she was stopped at a red light when our client rear-ended her.
Defense Strategy
We challenged the Plaintiff’s account of the accident and argued that her stop was sudden and unexpected. Using Google Earth aerial photography, we matched background features in the accident scene photographs to establish the precise point of impact. This analysis showed that the collision occurred 210 feet from the intersection, not the 30 feet the Plaintiff had testified to under oath.
The defense also focused on the Plaintiff’s pattern of medical treatment. All of her treating physicians had been referred by her attorney and had treated her under letters of protection for $126,000 in past medical bills. Rather than retaining a medical billing expert, we used these arrangements to show the physicians’ financial interest in the outcome of the litigation and to question whether that interest influenced their treatment recommendations and causation opinions.
Verdict
The jury returned a complete Defense Verdict. Our presentation separated the issues of negligence and causation and persuaded the jury that the Defendant was not negligent, and that, even if he had been, his negligence was not the legal cause of the Plaintiff’s claimed injuries.
Fees and Costs
We are pursuing a substantial claim for attorney’s fees and costs based on the Plaintiff’s rejection of our Proposal for Settlement.