Lisa Sanchez v. John E. Gonzalez Rose Brand Wipers, Inc., and Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.

Daniel J. Mcnamara, DeCicco, Gibbons & McNamara, P.C., New York, NY (John E. Gonzalez, Rose Brand Wipers, Inc.)

On March 27, 2007, plaintiff Lisa Sanchez, 54, an administrative assistant for a music school and at a funded research study at a hospital, walked out of her job at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital in Manhattan, and toward the Columbus Circle subway station. As she attempted to walk east across Columbus Avenue, at its intersection with 60th Street, a rental truck struck Sanchez as it attempted to make a left turn from 60th onto Columbus Avenue. She claimed that she sustained injuries to her left wrist, right foot and neck.

Sanchez sued the driver of the truck, John Gonzalez; his employer and renter of the vehicle, Rose Brand Wipers, Inc.; and the truck’s owner, Ryder Truck Rental Inc. He alleged that Gonzalez was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that the remaining defendants were vicariously liable for his actions.

The action against Ryder Truck Rental was discontinued prior to trial, and the matter proceeded to mediation against the remaining defendants.

Sanchez claimed that she had a pedestrian walk signal in her favor as she attempted to cross the street. She also alleged that she walking within the designated crosswalk at the time of the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel

contended that Gonzalez failed to keep a proper lookout and attempted to make a left turn when it was unsafe to do so.

Gonzalez claimed that he had a green light in his favor as he entered the intersection and began his turn. He alleged that he observed the plaintiff walking outside the confines of the crosswalk just before contact and that Sanchez was attempting to cross the street against a red pedestrian signal. Thus, defense counsel argued that Sanchez actions were the proximate cause of the accident.

Sanchez was transported from the scene to St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital. She claimed that she sustained a non-displaced fracture of the right foot’s metatarsal and a left wrist injury, consisting of a distal radioulnar joint dislocation and a triangular fibrocartilage complex tear.

Plaintiff’s counsel presented medical records documenting that some time later, Sanchez began complaining of neck pain that radiated down into her arms. She was ultimately diagnosed with disc herniations at C4-C5, C5-C6 and C6-C7 with radiculopathy. Thereafter, she began treating with physical therapy, medication and received one trigger point injection to address her neck pain and limitations prior to surgery. Sanchez claimed that when conservative treatment failed to relieve her symptoms, she consulted with a spine surgeon and ultimately underwent an anterior cervical discectomy with fusion at C4-C5, C5-C6 and C6-C7.

Sanchez alleged that the fusion surgery failed to relieve her radiating neck pain and that she eventually began to suffer from new symptoms of discomfort and difficulty swallowing. As a result, she underwent multiple trigger point injections and consulted with a new surgeon, a pain managmenet doctor and an otolaryngologist, who all recommended a second neck surgery. The second procedure utilized a combined anterior/posterior approach, involving the removal of the plate that was inserted during the first surgery approximately one year before and a removal of the spinal processes from C3 through C7. The procedure also consisted of a decompressive laminectomy and a bone graft fusion from C3 through C7.

Sanchez claimed that she was able to continue working two jobs from the time of the accident up until her second neck surgery, which was more than two years later. However, she alleged that she became permanently disabled from employment after the second neck surgery. She claimed that her neck is now significantly limited in terms of mobility, especially give that four vertebral levels of the cervical spine have been surgically fused. Sanchez alleged that the limited mobility of her neck coupled with her pain has limited many aspects of her life, including her ability to work, socialize and interact with her children. The plaintiff also claimed that she would require ongoing medical treatment as a result of her injuries.