.png?width=770&height=269&name=Untitled%20design%20(62).png)
Daniel Shapiro delivers his closing argument at trial over crash that a woman claims left her daughter with a mild traumatic brain injury. Watch the trial.
Jacksonville, FL— A Florida state court jury delivered a defense verdict late last month at trial over a 2019 car crash that a mother contends left her daughter with lifelong issues from a traumatic brain injury. DeGuzman, et al v. Dixon, 2020-CA-002661.
On September 25, the jury, in Florida’s Fourth Circuit Court, concluded an eight-day trial by finding that the child did not suffer a permanent injury when a car driven by Tyrinda Dixon struck the vehicle in which the child was traveling. The child’s mother, Rachel DeGuzman, claims that the wreck left her daughter, who was 6 at the time, with a mild traumatic brain injury.
Jurors also declined to award any non-economic damages in the case.
Dixon admits fault for the crash but challenges the extent of the injuries and damages, and the trial focused largely on conflicting evidence surrounding whether the child suffered a brain injury.
During his closing argument, Keith Mitnik, of Morgan & Morgan, representing the plaintiff, highlighted medical and other evidence that he said showed the crash left the child with persistent migraines and balance problems, among a range of other neurological and cognitive issues. And he told jurors a defense expert had given inconsistent statements in walking back an earlier conclusion that the child had suffered a "concussion."
“She’s struggling, and her struggles are getting worse,” Mitnik said, before requesting more than $2.2 million in economic damages plus a “significant multiplier” to that number for pain and suffering. “And they’re going to get worse, because she's, as you heard, growing into the injury of disabilities.”
But in his closing, Daniel Shapiro, of Cole Scott & Kissane, representing the defendant driver, told jurors medical evidence was non-specific and bolstered only by a subjective medical history that was not enough to connect any symptoms to a traumatic brain injury. And he reminded jurors that no medical professional concluded the girl had a TBI in the early aftermath of the crash.
“There are multiple people… that had an opportunity to examine that little girl. None of them come up with this (TBI conclusion),” Shapiro said. “And yet the snowball starts with [plaintiff’s expert], the referred physician from the lawyer.”
CVN has reached out to Mitnik and Shapiro and will update this article with their comments.
Email Arlin Crisco at acrisco@cvn.com.
Related Information
Watch the trial and learn how the Battle of Experts played a key role in this TBI case.
