Louisville Jury Awards $3,725 for Medical Care in Rear-End Collision
One driver was stopped in traffic when the other driver rear-ended them. The impact was moderate and caused minor damage to the bumper. The injured driver sought treatment days later for neck and back pain, and later reported knee pain. An MRI revealed a meniscal tear, which was surgically repaired. The injured driver claimed the knee injury was related to the crash, while the other driver argued it was not, citing a history of arthritis and the delay in reporting knee pain. A jury awarded damages for some medical expenses but rejected claims for lost wages and pain and suffering.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $3,725
- County
- Dallas County, KY
- Resolved
- 2022
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Back Strain / Soft Tissue
- Accident Type
- Rear-end
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Case Overview
A plaintiff, then age 48, was involved in a rear-end collision on I-264 near Shelbyville Road in Louisville, Kentucky, on February 25, 2017. The defendant, operating a vehicle behind the plaintiff, rear-ended the plaintiff's car in stop-and-go traffic. The defendant admitted fault for the moderate impact, which dented the plaintiff's bumper. No injury was reported at the scene. Six days later, the plaintiff began seeking treatment for soft-tissue neck and back pain. Approximately one month after the incident, the plaintiff reported knee pain, which an MRI later revealed as a meniscal tear. Surgery was performed that July.
The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking damages for medical expenses totaling $20,468, lost wages of $1,039, and $88,312 for pain and suffering. The plaintiff contended that both the soft-tissue injuries and the meniscal tear were a direct result of the collision. Treating physicians linked the knee injury to the crash, and a biomechanical engineering expert provided supporting testimony.
The defendant conceded fault for the collision itself but disputed the causation of the knee injury. The defense highlighted the absence of immediate injury reports at the scene and the delay of about 30 days before the plaintiff mentioned knee pain. An expert physiatrist, evaluating the vehicle forces and the plaintiff's position, concluded that the crash had not caused the meniscal tear, suggesting the injury was instead related to the plaintiff's history of mild knee arthritis.
A jury awarded the plaintiff $3,725 for medical expenses, specifically covering the first two weeks of chiropractic care. The jury rejected the plaintiff's claims for lost wages and pain and suffering. A defense judgment was subsequently entered, reflecting a reduction for personal injury protection (PIP).
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome differs from typical similar cases
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Need better results for your case?
Share your situation and we'll connect you with experienced motor vehicle accident attorneys who have handled cases like this in Dallas County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
A motor vehicle accident occurred on February 25, 2017, on Interstate 264 near Shelbyville Road, when the plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant's vehicle in stop-and-go traffic. The defendant admitted fault for the moderate impact, which resulted in a dented bumper, but no injuries were reported at the scene. Six days later, the plaintiff began treatment for soft-tissue neck and back pain. Approximately one month after the collision, the plaintiff reported knee pain, which an MRI later revealed as a meniscal tear. An orthopedic specialist in Louisville performed surgery for the tear. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking damages, alleging that both the soft-tissue symptoms and the meniscal tear were a direct result of the rear-end collision. The plaintiff sought medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, supported by testimony from a biomechanical engineer expert who connected the crash to the injuries. The defendant argued that the knee injury was unrelated to the accident, citing the absence of injury reports at the scene and the 30-day delay in reporting knee pain. The defense presented testimony from a physiatrist who concluded that the crash forces and the plaintiff's position were insufficient to cause the meniscal tear, also noting the plaintiff's history of mild knee arthritis. A jury awarded the plaintiff $3,725 for medical expenses, specifically covering only the first two weeks of chiropractic care. The jury rejected the plaintiff's claims for lost wages and pain and suffering. A defense judgment was subsequently entered, reflecting a reduction for Personal Injury Protection (PIP). The outcome indicated the jury likely found only the initial soft-tissue claims credible, disassociating the later-reported knee injury from the accident based on the defense's arguments.
The case concerned a secondary auto accident that occurred when traffic stopped due to an original collision. The plaintiff's experts included specialists in truck accident investigation and reconstruction, as well as vocational economic analysis related to lost wages and brain injuries. The defendant consulted an emergency medicine expert. An additional expert focused on human factors, ergonomics, and transportation. Few details were available regarding the incident's specifics, the legal claims made by the parties, or the case's final resolution.