Leila Miyamoto-Workman et al. v. Services Group of America.

Case Background

Plaintiffs Leila Miyamoto-Workman and Jack Miyamoto, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Leila Miyamoto-Workman (“Plaintiffs”) filed an auto negligence lawsuit against Services Group of America, Inc., Food Services of America, Inc., Daniel Almazan, and Systems Services of America, Inc. (Doe 1) after a motor vehicle accident with a tractor-trailer at an intersection in California.

The lawsuit was tried in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judges J. Stephen Czuleger, Anne Hwang, Michelle Williams Court, Barbara M. Scheper, Michelle C. Kim, Michael E. Whitaker, Jill Feeney, and Stephen I. Goorvitch presided over this case. [Case number: BC681937]

Cause

On July 18, 2016, Plaintiff Leila Miyamoto-Workman and Jack Miyamoto were in a vehicle at the intersection of E. Wardlow Road and Elm Ave in Long Beach, California. She was allegedly waiting at the intersection to make a left turn when an 18-wheeler truck, driven by Daniel Almazan, rear-ended her vehicle. Plaintiff Leila Miyamoto-Workman was seriously injured in the collision.

Injuries

The collision caused Leila to sustain severe injuries including a traumatic brain injury and spinal injuries.

Damages

Plaintiff suffered several types of damages as a result of the incident. These included wage loss, loss of property use, and hospital and medical expenses. Additionally, the Plaintiff endured general damages and property damage. The incident also caused a loss of earning capacity. Other damages such as loss of consortium were claimed.

Plaintiff also sought prejudgment interest and interest on the damages, in accordance with Civil Code Sections 3287, 3288, and 3291.

Attorney Nick Rowley of Trial Lawyers for Justice requested that a Los Angeles County jury award between $48.5 million and $72.75 million to compensate for the extensive medical treatment following a traumatic brain injury and numerous neck and back surgeries. He argued that these damages were necessary to address the lasting effects of the injuries Miyamoto sustained in the crash.

In contrast, the defense, represented by attorney Edward Ward Jr. of Lewis Brisbois, argued that Miyamoto’s injuries were far less severe than claimed and characterized the accident as a simple, low-speed collision.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Defendant(s): Services Group of America, Inc. | Food Services of America, Inc. | Daniel Almazan | Systems Services of America, Inc. (Doe 1)

Claims

In this case, Plaintiff Leila Miyamoto-Workman alleged that the Defendants’ actions were negligent and were the proximate cause of the injuries and damages she sustained.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that all Defendants worked together in a business relationship that contributed to the accident and her injuries. She claimed they played a role as employers, agents, or partners.

She asserted that the Defendants designed, built, and maintained the vehicles involved. However, she stated they handled these responsibilities carelessly, leading to dangerous conditions. It was alleged that the Defendants failed to warn about the risks, which made the accident more likely.

Additionally, she contended that the Defendants either leased or rented out the vehicle involved. By allowing others to use it without proper precautions, they shared responsibility for the crash and her resulting injuries.

Defense

Defendant, Systems Services of America, Inc., denied all allegations in the complaint, arguing that Plaintiffs did not prove sufficient facts for a cause of action. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs’ own negligence and comparative fault contributed to their damages.

Additionally, Defendant argued that third-party negligence caused any damages and claimed that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their losses. Defendant also cited an intervening cause, such as wrongful conduct by others, and invoked the statute of limitations and relevant California laws regarding motor vehicle accidents and seatbelt use.

Expert Testimony

In the case at hand, both the Plaintiff and Defendants presented expert witnesses to support their respective positions on the injuries and the subsequent medical and financial impact.

For the Plaintiff, Dr. Clifford Segil, D.O., a neurologist, testified about the Plaintiff’s traumatic brain injury (TBI) and its permanent nature. He noted rare damage to the insular cortex and aligned his cognitive testing results with the Plaintiff’s ongoing issues. Dr. Bradley Jabour, M.D., a neuro-radiologist, reviewed the Plaintiff’s MRI, while a radiologist, Dr. Brian King, M.D., disagreed with the defense on the cervical spine injuries.

Dr. David Fish, M.D., a life care planning expert, discussed the projected future costs of the Plaintiff’s medical care, while Dr. Lester Zackler, M.D., a neuropsychiatrist, provided insights from neuropsychological testing. A neuro-optometrist, Dr. Penelope Suter, O.D., linked the Plaintiff’s vision issues, aside from refractive errors, to the crash. Dr. Tony Strickland, M.S., Ph.D., a neuropsychologist, addressed the broader impact on the Plaintiff’s brain and spinal cord.

Biomechanical expert Arthur C. Croft, Ph.D., and forensic engineer Edward Fatzinger Jr., M.S., P.E., contributed insights on accident reconstruction and the forces involved.

The Defendants presented their own experts to challenge the Plaintiff’s claims. Dr. Michael Brant-Zawadzki, M.D., a neuro-radiologist, offered a different interpretation of the Plaintiff’s imaging. A neurologist, Dr. Marisa Chang, M.D., disputed the severity of the Plaintiff’s injuries. Dr. Benjamin Frishberg, M.D., a neuro-ophthalmologist, questioned the causation of the Plaintiff’s vision issues.

Defense experts in pain management, biomechanics, and accident reconstruction, including Dr. Robert E. Scott Jr., M.D., John Gardiner, Ph.D., P.E., and David King, P.E., offered counterarguments on the cause and extent of the Plaintiff’s injuries.

Key Arguments and Remarks by Counsel

In his opening statement, Ward presented a different version of the accident. He argued that Miyamoto suddenly and unexpectedly hit her brakes, leaving driver Daniel Almazon no way to avoid the crash. Ward pointed to Almazon’s testimony that he “unequivocally” saw Miyamoto’s minivan stop suddenly, contrasting this with Miyamoto’s deposition, where she recalled no clear memory of the collision. He dismissed claims that Almazon was fatigued, describing him as “an experienced, longtime truck driver” and rejected the idea that he was distracted. He emphasized that the accident occurred as Almazon completed his routine delivery route.

In contrast, Rowley emphasized that Almazon struck Miyamoto’s vehicle while she had stopped and waited to make a left turn. He pointed out that, immediately after the crash, Almazon “made no mention of a sudden stop to police,” and any reference to Miyamoto unexpectedly braking “only came in company reports filed later.” Rowley described Almazon as a fatigued driver finishing his shift and argued that any driver should expect vehicles to stop when making a left turn.

Rowley then addressed the severity of Miyamoto’s injuries, showing jurors a detailed computer recreation of the crash. He stated, “Her bell was rung and it hasn’t stopped ringing,” emphasizing the traumatic brain injury and its life-altering effects. Rowley highlighted her initial injuries, including headaches, neck pain, and back pain, documented right after the crash.

Rowley walked jurors through Miyamoto’s attempts to manage her worsening conditions with conservative treatments until multiple spinal surgeries became necessary. “She wanted to avoid surgery more than anybody,” Rowley said. He also addressed the lasting impact of the concussion, which led to migraines, vision problems, and emotional challenges, including the failure of her marriage. He urged jurors to consider the $48.5 million to $72.75 million range for damages.

Jury Verdict

Even though liability was heavily disputed, on February 10, 2024, the jury returned the verdict in the Plaintiff’s favor and awarded the following:

  • Past economic damages awarded: $825,000
  • Future economic damages awarded: $6,500,000
  • Past non-economic damages awarded: $4,000,000
  • Future non-economic damages awarded: $10,000,000

The verdict totaled to $21,325,000.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com

Press Release:

CVN