Opinion
Civil Action 23-295
06-29-2024
LESTER PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE CO., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge
I. MEMORANDUM
Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) will be denied.
The Court finds Progressive failed to carry its burden of demonstrating there is no genuine issue as to whether Plaintiff Lester Patterson did not suffer a “serious impairment of body function,” 75 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 1702, 1705(d), caused by the June 16, 2021 automobile accident. Progressive asserts that there is no genuine dispute as to whether Plaintiff's injury was serious or causally related to the auto accident, pointing to, inter alia, that Plaintiff is not only better off than prior to the accident but also attributes any current back injury with his long history of back issues specifically related to the same L4-5 herniation. See Pl.'s Memo. Law (Doc. 31) at 1-6. Progressive also points to post-accident records allegedly showing only degenerative changes and evidence of Plaintiff not receiving active treatment for his back injury over the past one and half years. See id. However, both sides have presented expert reports and opinions attacking the other's adequacy to prove whether the accident caused further harm to Plaintiff. It is clear to the Court that this fact-intensive issue must be submitted to the jury.
Progressive asserts Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Derek Thomas, allegedly was never provided Plaintiff's past medical records prior to rendering his opinion. See Pl.'s Memo. Law 13; Pl.'s. Reply (Doc. 34) at 3. This attack, however, goes to the weight of the evidence not its admissibility.
Moreover, and although scant as to the impact the alleged injury has on Plaintiff today, the Court finds that Plaintiff put forth sufficient evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that he suffered a “serious impairment of body function” caused by the June 16, 2021 automobile accident. See Pl.'s Resp. (Doc. 33) at 2-3 (citing Def.'s App. A; Pl.'s Apps. 1, 5).
Plaintiff put forth evidence to satisfy the two-step inquiry as to whether he suffered a serious injury. Specifically, for the first step, Plaintiff offered evidence of lower back injuries and testimony that he is unable to do basic household chores, ride in a vehicle for more than two and a half hours and needs to take additional medication. See Pl.'s Resp. 1-3, 23 (citing Def.'s App. A). Plaintiff also offers evidence that his expert, Dr. Thomas, opined that he would need additional care and future surgery caused by the automobile accident. See id. at 3, 33-35. As to the second step, Plaintiff also presented evidence that the impairment of his body function was serious. He put forth evidence that he underwent surgery in December 2021, submitted his treating physician's note allegedly tying the car accident to his back injury, testified to ongoing headaches, cervical, thoracic, and lumbar pain, and that he may be subject to future surgeries. See id. at ¶¶ 52-65 (citing Pl.'s Apps. 1, 5); see also Pl.'s Concise Statement Facts (Doc. 32) at ¶ 65 (citing Pl.'s App. 5, p. 9) (“He was involved in a motor vehicle accident in June which seemed to exacerbate the symptoms.”). Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find Plaintiff's injury was serious and caused by the June 2021 automobile accident.
II. ORDER
For these reasons, Progressive's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) on the issue of non-economic damages is DENIED. Accordingly, the case shall proceed to trial, and the Court shall issue a Final Pretrial Order in due course.
IT IS SO ORDERED.