eNotes: Liability – May 2023 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

Green v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
No. 21-CV-02061 (APM)

Decided: March 29, 2023

Plaintiffs presenting complex medical injuries due to pre-existing conditions or claims of permanency require expert testimony to prove causation.

Background

On January 8, 2019, while at the Costco checkout line, Plaintiff alleged that an employee, while carrying a case of bottled water on his shoulder, walked by her and struck the back of her head. As a result of being struck, Plaintiff alleged to have suffered a concussion. Plaintiff also alleged that she developed long-term health conditions that forced her to retire, post-concussion syndrome, whiplash, hearing loss with tinnitus, vision impairment, post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment disorder, vertigo and dizziness. On July 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit alleging negligence, negligence per se and res ipsa loquitur, and demanded $350,000 in damages. Defendant filed a Motion to dismiss that was denied and, subsequently, a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendant’s Motion argued that Plaintiff had failed to support her alleged injuries with expert testimony. Plaintiff had failed to designate a standard-of-care expert to establish liability or a medical expert to establish causation. Plaintiff responded by arguing that a standard of care expert was unnecessary because she alleged negligence per se and res ipsa loquitur. Plaintiff further argued a medical expert was unnecessary because she submitted medical records of her injuries.

Holding

The Court granted the Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment. The Court began by stating that personal injury cases do not require expert testimony when the injuries presented are absent of “complicated medical questions.” In those circumstances, Plaintiff’s testimony as to injuries will suffice. However, when a case presents a complicated medical question or questions the permanency of an injury, expert testimony is required. Here, the Court found Plaintiff claimed injuries of both a complex and permanent nature and, thus, expert testimony was required. The Court cited the numerous injuries alleged by Plaintiff as well as her claim that she was forced to retire. The Court further cited a medical record provided by Plaintiff in which the medical provider stated her injuries “likely have a multifactorial etiology.”

Questions about this case can be directed to Marcelo Perez at (202) 945-9503 or mperez@tthlaw.com.