Karpinski, Angela vs Stauffer, John

Case Background

On June 14, 2019, Angela Karpinski filed a personal injury lawsuit seeking damages after a rear-end collision caused her to require emergency spine surgery. The case was filed in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Florida, Division F. Judge Jennifer Gabbard presided over the case. [Case number: 19-CA-006218]

Cause

On March 8, 2019, Angela Karpinski, the Plaintiff, was heading to get dessert after a workout. That same day, Defendant John Stauffer drove a car with the owner, Marc Stauffer’s consent. He was near the intersection of W. Bay to Bay Blvd and S. Ferdinand Avenue in Tampa, Florida. Stauffer failed to uphold his duty of care to other vehicles on the road. As a result, he rear-ended Karpinski’s vehicle. The airbags in her car deployed, but Karpinski, who was 54 years old, did not sustain any immediate injuries.

Injury

Despite not initially showing severe injuries typically associated with car crashes, Karpinski began experiencing pain between her shoulders 32 days later. She decided to consult an orthopedic surgeon, not anticipating the results, according to court records. The surgeon ordered an MRI of her neck, which Karpinski had never undergone before. The MRI revealed several herniated discs, one of which was pressing on her spinal cord.

The doctor informed Karpinski that she required emergency surgery. He explained that any minor misstep could have left her paralyzed for life.

Damages

The Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, resulting in pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and mental anguish. She also experienced a loss of capacity to enjoy life, incurred expenses for hospitalization, medical and nursing care, and lost earnings. Additionally, the injury aggravated a pre-existing condition, further complicating the Plaintiff’s recovery.

These losses were either permanent or ongoing, and the Plaintiff would continue to experience them in the future. As a result, the Plaintiff sought a judgment against the Defendants for more than $15,000, along with a jury trial for all relevant issues.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Key Arguments and Remarks by Counsel

Plaintiff Angela Karpinski was represented by Ryan Sainz, Eric S. Block, and Patrick Chucri of Morgan & Morgan. Block explained that surgeries are typically not performed until years after an injury and after conservative treatments. However, in this case, the plaintiff underwent a two-level fusion just 52 days after the crash. “The defense argued that her condition had nothing to do with the crash, despite there being no prior indication in her life that she needed neck surgery,” Block stated. “The defense argued that shortly after the crash, she told some people she was okay and asked the jury to award her nothing,” he added.

Block further explained that under Florida law, if the jury cannot distinguish between damages present before a crash and those aggravated by it, they must award damages for the entire condition. “That’s what we asked them to do,” Block recalled.

As the lead attorney throughout the litigation, Block said his team encouraged the jurors to apply their better judgment. “Our strategy was simple: use your common sense,” Block said. “Before the crash, she was fine. Now, she’s going to suffer for the rest of her life.”

Claims

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant John Stauffer violated his duty of care to all motorists, drivers, passengers, and occupants on the roadway. He did so by negligently operating and maintaining his motor vehicle. The Plaintiff further argued that Defendant Marc Stauffer, as the owner of the vehicle driven by John, was also liable. Since Marc had given his consent and permission for John to drive the vehicle, he was vicariously liable for the driver’s negligent actions.

Defense

The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to or directly caused her damages. Specifically, the Plaintiff’s operation of her vehicle played a primary role in the incident. As a result, Defendant asserted that any recovery should be reduced based on Plaintiff’s degree of fault.

The Defendant also claimed entitlement to a set-off for any collateral indemnity sources under Florida Statutes and relevant case law. Furthermore, Defendant contended that the Plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the legal threshold necessary to pursue the action under Florida Statute 627.737.

Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s claim should be barred because the damages were caused by her own negligence or the negligence of third parties, over whom Defendant had no control. The Defendant reserved the right to amend this defense as the investigation and discovery progressed.

In addition, Defendant maintained that should a judgment be entered, Plaintiff’s recovery should be limited to the percentage of fault attributed to Defendant. The Defendant further argued that the verdict should include the negligence of all potential tortfeasors, whether or not they were part of the lawsuit.

The Defendant also raised the issue of the Plaintiff failing to mitigate her damages. It was argued that the conduct or negligence of other parties, including medical providers not sued by the Plaintiff, might have been the direct or independent cause of the incident.

Finally, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff’s claim was barred, in whole or in part, by her comparative negligence. If applicable, Defendant sought judgment based on Plaintiff’s share of fault, rather than joint and several liability.

Expert Testimony

The Plaintiff’s case relied heavily on the testimony of several expert witnesses. Dr. Steven Santo BiFulco, a board-certified Life Care Planner, was expected to testify on the causation and aggravation of the Plaintiff’s injuries. He reviewed the Plaintiff’s imaging studies and medical records, offering opinions on the medical necessity and reasonableness of her treatments. Dr. BiFulco also assessed the Plaintiff’s future medical needs and the associated costs, basing his opinions on his clinical experience, medical records, and billing records.

The Plaintiff also engaged Dr. Sean Mahan, a board-certified radiologist, to interpret the diagnostic studies, including those of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, head, and extremities. Dr. Mahan was expected to differentiate between acute and degenerative findings, providing opinions on causation and permanence with reasonable medical certainty.

Economist Brenda Mulder was another key expert for the Plaintiff. She was tasked with assessing the present value of the Plaintiff’s future medical expenses, although her report had not yet been completed at the time of trial.

On the defense side, expert witnesses Dr. David Rosenbach, M.D., Dr. Michael Piazza, M.D., Dr. Mike R. Schoenberg, Ph.D., and Dr. Michael Shahnasarian, Ph.D. were called upon. The defense experts aimed to establish that the Plaintiff’s condition was unrelated to the accident or exaggerated, and they sought to limit the liability of the Defendant.

Jury Verdict

On November 8, 2024, the Tampa jury returned a $5.2 million verdict in favor of Plaintiff Angela Karpinski. The jury determined that John Stauffer’s negligence was a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage to Karpinski. It was also determined that Plaintiff Angela Karpinski, sustained, in whole or in part, a significant and permanent loss of an important bodily function, or a significant
and permanent scarring or disfigurement as a result of the car collision in 2019. They awarded her the following in damages:

  • Past medical expenses: $358,981.90
  • Future medical expenses: $400,000
  • Past non-economic damages:  $850,000
  • Future non-economic damages: $3,600,000

The total award came to $5,208,981.90

Court Documents:

Available upon request

Press Release:

ALM Law