It was a cold day in Groton, Connecticut when our client Art was injured.  He was waiting in his truck at a stop light on Poquonnock, Road in Groton.  He has just come from lunch at Wendy’s on Route 1 in Groton.  At that moment the defendant whose name was Melody was rushing to pick up her husband who worked at Electric Boat.  She crashed hard into the rear of his car.  His car was totalled.  He was knocked out.

The defendant was speeding.  She was driving in 5th grear.  Also, she admitted that she looked down to put on her lipstick just before the crash.  Also, due to the medication she was taking, which causes blurry vision, she was not supposed to be driving.

There was a lot of fresh snow on the ground from a huge snowfall the day before.  The defendant originally attempted to blame the Town of Groton for not plowing the roads enough.

Our client worked at the aircraft base in Groton, Connecticut.  He was out for lunch.  Our client ended up losing his job, and was forced to get into a different career.

The insurance company refused to recognize Art’s losses.  He was willing to settle for several thousand dollars early on in the process.  The Allstate was very unreasonable, and offered him very little money.  He did not know what to do or where to turn.  He was concerned for his future.  Luckily Art call our office.  He is now a very happy client. You can continue reading to see how we were able to convince the insurance company to compensate Art for his harms and losses.  Now, he is moving on with his new carreer, and feels secure in his future.

How we helped our client.

We were able to prove a job loss as a result of the crash by tracking down certain military service / health records, and finding a perfect expert to explain how the military QRB process works.  That was the key to this case.

Where you can find help.

If you or a family member has been in a car accident and need help you can contact the car crash lawyers at The Bartinik Law Firm, P.C. 100 Fort Hill Road, Groton, Connecticut at 860-445-8521 or toll free at 888-717-4211.

See our detailed demand letter below to see how we made it impossible for the defense not to pay the maximum amount available under the applicable insurance policies.

Dear Counsel for the defendant MM:

My client Mr. G  has given me the authority to settle this case at this time for One Hundred Thousand 00/100 ($100,000.00).  We have recently filed an offer of compromise, and you should have just received it.  I write to you now to explain our position, and why the value of the case far exceeds $100,000.00.  Hopefully, after you correctly consider the facts, you will pay the full policy, and the parties can bring this unfortunate litigation to conclusion.

We understand that $100,000.00 is total amount of available coverage available to the defendant.  While we believe that the total value of this case greatly exceeds $100,000.00, my client is nevertheless willing to take $100,000.00 to fully settle this case at this time if that sum is offered by the defendant. To be clear, my client is prepared to give the defendant a general release of all claims in exchange for $100,000.00 at this time.

I am sure you are aware that a settlement of $100,000.00 will protect the personal assets of the defendant, which will be exposed to a significant verdict if this case goes to trial.

Should this case not settle we are fully prepared take this case to trial.  We anticipate that our verdict will greatly exceed the policy limits of $100,000.00.   Our expert witnesses are local.  The plaintiff is local.  The witnesses are local.  We are ready for trial.  My client does not have underinsured motorist benefits available to him over $100,000.00.  Therefore, when we get a verdict in excess of $100,000.00 we will look to the personal assets of the defendant to satisfy that judgment.

Based on the facts pertaining to liability and damages, there is no doubt that any fair, objective, reasonable assessment of this case is well in excess of $100,000.00.

The Facts of the Car Crash.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the defendant is 100% at fault for this accident.  There are several reasons that indicate that the defendant was extremely careless on the day of the crash.  She probably should have been cited for driving while under the influence of a substance that impairs her ability to drive based on her admitted use of Dexatrine.  In her deposition she said she has been in multiple car accidents (p. 17-18), and there is no doubt why as she was very carless on the date of this crash.

First, the defendant smashed in to the rear of the plaintiff’s car at a high rate of speed.

Second, on the date of the crash she was taking her ADHD medication Dexatrine.  She has been taking it for 20 years (p. 26 l. 1).   She is asked about whether it affects her ability to drive, and she says “no”, but she admits that “it may say that in the prescription stuff” (p. 26 lines 5-7, p. 27 l. 2).  The point here is that when she said “no” in her deposition (under oath) she was lying.  Next, if you check dexatrine.com you will see that is clearly says that Dexatrine does the following:

DEXATRINE.

Other serious side effects include:

• Slowing of growth (height and weight) in children
• Seizures, mainly in patients with a history of seizures
• Eyesight changes or blurred vision

Common side effects include:

• Fast heart beat
• Decreased appetite
• Tremors
• Headache
• Trouble sleeping
• Dizziness
• Stomach upset
• Weight loss
• Dry mouth

DEXEDRINE may affect your or your child’s ability to drive or do other dangerous activities. 

Next, according to the police report she told the police officer that she “looked down for a second” (p. 30, l. 13).  At first she says that “is not true” (p.30, l.18) which is her second lie.  Then she admits to it –looking down (p. 30, l.22).  She says she “was cresting over the hill” and was bearing right to pick up her husband (p.30, l. 23-24), which explains why she was driving so fast.  She was, no doubt, late to pick up her husband who was “expecting me to pick him up (p.31, l. 15).

Then she attempts to blame the Town of Groton for not plowing the street, and finally she admits and confirms that she told the police officer that she “looked down for a moment” (p.31, p. 22) to get her lipstick (p.61, l.15), (p.62).  Next, she complains about her speeding citation (p. 32), while in the same breath she admits that she does not even know the speed limit in that area (p. 32, l. 25).

She admits she “never saw the light” which was right in front of her (p. 44, l. 21), and says she “thought I saw . . . two vehicles sitting there” (p.46, l. 3) which is not true since there was only one.  She said that “until I hit it, I never saw it clearly” (p.46, l.12).  This was probably the effect of the Dexatrinev (blurred vision), her medication that she knew she was not supposed to take while driving.

She also said she went over the hill in “fifth gear” (p.55, l.12) which means she was going very fast.  She did not slow her vehicle before the crash (p.55, l.6) because she was sliding.

In our view, your defense of – there was too much snow on the road, is utterly frivolous, and will be seen that way by the jury.  One, the photos don’t bear that out. The photos indicate that there was enough room for a car to pass safely without crashing into a car in front of it.  Second, while the defendant mentioned that in her deposition she also admitted to looking down, taking drugs, and not even seeing the light that the plaintiff was stopped in front of in plain daylight.

Lastly, the obvious fact is that if you can’t pass safely, you should stop.

Overall, the evidence indicates that the defendant is 100% responsible for this crash.

The Impact of the Crash.

The impact was severe.  The photos of the defendant’s car are impressive.

The plaintiff testified in his deposition that the back bumper and trailer hitch were ripped off of this truck, the tailgate was completely destroyed, the bed was collapsed, the fiberglass cap on the back of the truck flew off on impact, the back of the cab was pushed in by about two feet.  P. 90-91.

Impact to the plaintiff’s head.

The plaintiff’s head struck the driver’s side beam of his driver’s side door, which is the metal between the windshield and the driver’s side window.  Plaintiff’s deposition, p.34.

The plaintiff was knocked unconscious.  He awoke in the hospital.

The plaintiff had a bruise over the front left side of his face for three to four weeks after the crash.  Plaintiff’s deposition p. 33, l.20.

Loss of job.

The plaintiff will testify that he lost his job after this accident because he was unable to perform his physical readiness tests.  He was put on non-deployable status.

The Qualitative Retention Program is the QRB.

The letter of April 8, 2011 from Col. R. C. states that the plaintiff was not selection under the QRB.  The plaintiff lost his military status.  He was then terminated for his job with the Army National Guard since you must be in the military to be in the National Guard.

At the time of the QRB, the plaintiff was “non-deployable” due to his injury.  That means if the Army needed to move him to Afganistan, they could not.  He was useless to the Army (or less valuable) because he was non-deployable.

After he lost his job with the Army National Guard he tried to find work in aviation.  He applied with his previous employer for a civilian type-job.  He submitted his resume with USA jobs for a government job involving his prior field, aviation.  He interviewed in Corpus Christi Texas.  In that interview the interviewer told him that there are no government job in this field.  He then decided to go back to school full time.  He chose nursing because of its good job prospected.

The plaintiff’s expert First Sergeant B. F. will testify that Army regulation 135-205 2.1 says that the QRB will consider three factors in evaluating a service member under a QRB including (1) the service members past service record, (2) the service member’s medical condition and weather the medical condition poses any limitations of the members ability to serve, and (3) any other factors that they consider.  First Sergeant B. F. will testify that the QRB considers three factors, and in his opinion the reason the plaintiff was not retained by the military under the QRB was because of the plaintiff’s injury that made him non-deployable which is a key issue in factor (2) above.

Also, if you compare the plaintiff’s Physical profile form December 13, 2010 (before the accident) to June 18, 2011 (after the accident) there are significant differences.  The crash occurred on January 13, 2011.

On his notification of personnel action it says reason for termination is “Loss of Military membership.”  The means he job his job at the Army National Guard facility because he was kicked out of the Army per the QRB.  The process ended in August 2011.  For your convenience, I have attached the two Physical Profile forms, the QRB letter, the Notice of Personnel Action, and the QRB regulation 135-205.

Economis loss from loss of job including past lost wages and future loss of military retirement.

The plaintiff wanted to continue with the National Guard until he earned his retirement.  He had already worked there for 16 years.  At the time of this accident the plaintiff was 41 years old.  Upon retirement age he would have gained his military retirement pension.  That would be (20% plus 2% for every year worked over 20 years) of pay based on the highest 3 years.  The plaintiff intended to continue working until age 52 or another 11 years.  Having worked for there for 16 years already, and then adding another 11 years means that the plaintiff would have accumulated 27 years upon retirement at age 52.  This means his retirement pay would be 34% (20+(2×7=14)=34) of the average his three highest years.

Taking 34% of $60,000.00 (his past wages from 2011)=$20,400 per year.

At age 52 Art G’s life expectancy will be 27.8 years.

Taking a loss of $20,400.00 for 27.8 years equals a future loss retirement of $567,120.00.

Therefore, the total past lost wages are $231,000.00 and the total future lost retirement benefits are $567,120.00 equals $798,120.00.

Eyesight injury.

Mr. Guertin will testify that his eyesight has been affected.  While it has improved from its condition immediately after the car accident, it remains worse than it was before the car accident.  Plaintiff’s deposition p. 29.

Paul C. Ivancic, PhD. who is with the Yale University, Department of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation links Mr. Guertin’s eyesight injury to this car accident.

Headaches.

The plaintiff will testify that he experiences headaches and migraines.  They occur about once every three months.  Plaintiff’s deposition, p. 34-37, 77.  Paul C. Ivancic, PhD, opines that the chronic headaches were caused by this car accident.

Budge disc on MRI.

The plaintiff had an MRI on June 29, 2015.  It showed a disc bulge at L4/5 in the right side and an associated annulus tear.  Also, at L5/S1 there was also a disc extrusion.

According to Paul C. Ivancic, PhD, the car crash caused the annulus tear, and over time that tear has developed into the plaintiff’s findings on the MRI.

Mr. Guertin’s pre-existing back pain was minimal.  Virtually non-existent.

• It started in 1991 and the reference was back pain due to running 13 miles.
• There are references to back pain in 9/18/09 and 10/21/09.
• Note that there was an Xray on 9/18/09 which referenced minimal degenerative changes.  This indicates a healthy back as of late 2009.
• Then on 12/15/09 and also 11/22/10 there were medical visits with no reference to back pain at all.  Again, his back was doing fine.
• Then in early 2011, on 1/11/11 there is a reference to back pain and it is referred to as a minor strain while hunting.
• Before this accident there was no physical therapy or chiropractic care.  There was no specific injury also.  There was simply back soreness from activity like running or hunting.

Loss of life’s pleasures.

He was been forced out of his own home due to this accident.  He has not lived in his own home before this car accident.

Mr. Guertin has been forced out of his house due to this accident.  He lives in his uncle’s house (he rents) and he rents out his own house to someone else.  At the time of this accident he was living in his uncle’s house as he was in the process of renovating his own house.  Then when the renovation was complete, he had lost his job, and he could not afford to pay the mortgage.  He chose to stay in his uncle’s house, and rent out his own house.  He pays significantly less rent to his uncle than he received from his tenant.

Loss of the job he loved.

No scuba diving, a sport he loved.

Before this car accident Mr. Guertin was a scuba diver.  He dove 100 diver per year.

No motocross.

Mr. Guertin sold his motocross bike.

No skiing.

No running.

No shoveling.

No use of wood stove.

He can’t cut, split, and life the wood.  He does not use the wood stove anymore.

No long distance motorcycle touring.

He used to go on two-week long motorcycle trips one or twice per year.  His back can’t handle the long distance riding.

Reduced hunting.

Reduced street motorcycle riding.

Reduced (none) piloting.

He sold his plane.  He can’t stay in the pilot seat for long, and can’t risk a problem while in flight.  He does not pilot.  He sold his plane.

In sum, this is a clear liability car accident case.  The defendant was taking drugs that she knew were contraindicated for driving.  The defendant was traveling too fast (she was in fifth gear when she started her downshift). The defendant was not paying attention.  The defendant was putting on her makeup.  The plaintiff lost his good job, and had to change careers.  The plaintiff’s past lost wages are $231,000.00.  The plaintiff future lost retirement is $567,000.00.  The total economic loss to the plaintiff is almost $800,000.00.

During the next 30 days, while your side considers the plaintiff’s offer of compromise the plaintiff will have no choice but to investigate the defendant’s personal assets.  The fair value of this case greatly exceeds $100,000.00.  To be clear the plaintiff will accept $100,000.00 if offered by the defendant.  The plaintiff will give the defendant a general release of all claims in exchange for a payment of $100,000.00.

Please consider our offer to settle at $100,000.00 and let us know your response.

Very truly yours,

Peter J. Bartinik, Jr.

PJB/pjb

Enclosure

Contact the car crash lawyers at The Bartinik Law Firm LLC, 100 Fort Hill Road, Groton, Connecticut at 860-445-8521 or toll free at 888-717-4211.