Brett A. Panter was asked by a longtime friend to represent him and his wife for an incident that occurred at an art fair in Ft. Lauderdale. In January of 2023 Plaintiff was at an art show displaying her art with her husband, and unexpectedly at the end of the art show at around 11:00 p.m. a tent from another artist got caught up in the wind, flew in the air, and hit the Plaintiff in the forehead, causing a laceration to her forehead.
The primary impression was a traumatic injury. However, she was noted to be alert and oriented and had no loss of consciousness. She was taken to the hospital where she was treated for a laceration on the forehead. She reported to the hospital that a tent umbrella hit her in the forehead. She also reported to the hospital there was no dizziness and as a result of the lack of symptoms, no CT scan of the brain was performed and it was also noted she was not nauseous. She had no loss of consciousness, was given a tetanus shot, 12 sutures, and discharged. The hospital records also reflected that the injury does not appear to be serious at this time, and if more symptoms of any type of serious nature appear she should return.
Plaintiff had de minimis medical care following the accident which did include a consult by a plastic surgeon, and removal of 12 stitches a couple months after the accident. A period of time transpired of over a year before she first finally returned to the hospital and reported to the emergency department with difficulty speaking. The hospital did an MRI of the brain and the results were no evidence of acute infarct, no evidence of acute pathology.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff continued to experience and display problems with mobility and speech. The issue was whether or not these problems were related to the incident occurring a year earlier.
The defense defended vigorously requiring the Plaintiff to undergo neurology exams and neuropsychiatric exams. Their compulsory medical exams determined that any injuries were psychological in nature and/or not related to being hit by the tent umbrella a year before she exhibited any symptoms. The causation as often is the case was hotly contested.
The Plaintiff was seen by a treating neurologist who could not definitively explain the symptoms, but he did give the opinion that the injury was more likely than not related to the injury in January 2023.
The treating neurologist did have to concede there was very little objective evidence to provide his opinion that the injury was the cause of the patient’s symptoms. Therefore, we were in a position with facing the lack of medical care and symptoms that began to occur at least more than a year out. We were able to do discovery with friends, family, and coworkers who helped establish that the injuries were progressive in nature and did begin shortly after the incident.
It was clear that this was a very contested case of liability and causation because the owner of the tent was another vendor who unfortunately had no insurance and was completely uncollectible. The case had to be brought against the organizer of the event that always claimed there was no causation and more importantly, claimed they were not responsible for supervising the various artists and it was the artist’s fault, if it was anybody’s fault. Nevertheless, after much discovery and contested litigation, we were able to settle this case for $350,000. It is our hope that the funds will help the Plaintiff get the necessary medical and/or psychological counseling she needs after this incident. Our motto at our firm is “never ever give up” and that was how we handled this case.
