Jose Madrigal v. United States, No. 2:2019cv05041 - Document 135 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND LAW signed by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The Court awards Judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $183,272.02, plus costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jose Madrigal v. United States Doc. 135 Case 2:19-cv-05041-RSWL-PLA Document 135 Filed 08/13/21 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:3598 'O' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 15 ORDER AND FINDINGS OF FACT & LAW Plaintiff, 13 14 CV 19-5041-RSWL-PLA JOSE MADRIGAL, v. Complaint Filed: June 10, 2019 Trial Date: May 25-26, 2021 UNITED STATES, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Jose Madrigal (“Plaintiff”) initiated 20 this Action against Defendant United States 21 (“Defendant”) for injuries arising out of a collision 22 (the “Collision”) between Plaintiff’s vehicle and a 23 United States Postal Service mail delivery truck. 24 May 25 and May 26, 2021, the Court conducted a bench 25 trial. 1 On Having considered the evidence, the parties’ 26 27 28 1 On April 27, 2021, the Court ordered [69] the parties to submit declarations in lieu of oral live testimony for purposes of direct examination. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-05041-RSWL-PLA Document 135 Filed 08/13/21 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:3599 1 objections to the evidence, the credibility of the trial 2 witnesses, and both parties’ arguments at trial, the 3 Court issues the following findings of fact and 4 conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 52(a). I. 6 7 FINDINGS OF FACT The intersection of Baltic Avenue and Dominguez 8 Street lies in Carson, California. 9 115-7. Ex. 3, at 4; Ex. Baltic Street is a residential roadway that runs 10 north and south. 11 Street is a business roadway that runs east and west. 12 Ex. 3, at 2. 13 has no traffic lights. 14 at 27:2-6. 15 Ex. 3, at 4; Ex. 115-7. Dominguez The intersection of Baltic and Dominguez Ex. 3, at 4; Ex. 115-7; Ex. 52, On June 16, 2017, United States Postal Service 16 (“USPS”) employee Asia Crowfield was driving a USPS mail 17 truck on an unfamiliar route. 18 Crowfield was traveling northbound on Baltic Avenue, 19 approaching the intersection of Baltic Avenue and 20 Dominguez Street. 21 time, Plaintiff was driving his twelve-wheel semi-truck 22 eastbound on Dominguez Street. 23 attempted to make an unprotected left turn from Baltic 24 Avenue into the westbound lane of Dominguez Street. 25 49 ¶ 5. 26 truck pull out from Baltic Avenue, he was unable to stop 27 his truck. 28 passenger side of Plaintiff’s truck. Ex. 51, at 38:1-10. Ex. 3, at 5; Ex. 115-9. ¶¶ 5-6. Ms. At the same Ms. Crowfield Ex. Although Plaintiff saw Ms. Crowfield’s mail Id. Ms. Crowfield’s vehicle struck the 2 Id. ¶ 6; Ex. 3, at Case 2:19-cv-05041-RSWL-PLA Document 135 Filed 08/13/21 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:3600 1 5-6; Ex. 115-9, 115-11. 2 of the truck, and his head hit the driver’s side door 3 frame. 4 Plaintiff’s feet hit the floor Ex. 49 ¶ 6. In precipitating the Collision, Ms. Crowfield 5 violated California Vehicle Code § 21801(a), which reads 6 as follows: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [t]he driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway . . . shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety. 14 Ms. Crowfield was the sole cause of the Collision. 15 3, at 2, 6; Ex. 52, at 30:5-9; Ex. 115-3, 115-11. 16 Ex. Plaintiff has undergone significant medical 17 treatment in relation to resultant injuries to his 18 lumbar spine, including emergency room services, 19 magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”) scans, physical 20 therapy sessions, epidural steroid injections, physician 21 consultations, and a transforaminal lumbar interbody 22 fusion (“TLIF”). 23 the future, Plaintiff is likely to require additional 24 care in the form of medical consultations, medications, 25 and interventional pain management. 26 158 ¶¶ 36, 38. 27 Ex. 45 ¶¶ 8-15; Ex. 46 ¶¶ 11-15. Ex. 46 ¶ 25; Ex. Plaintiff works as a truck driver five days per 28 3 In Case 2:19-cv-05041-RSWL-PLA Document 135 Filed 08/13/21 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:3601 1 week for approximately ten to twelve hours per day. 2 2 Tr. 17:17-25; Ex. 49 ¶ 12. 3 to earn $29,627.75 annually, or $569.76 per week. 2 4 24. 5 twelve weeks of work, including four weeks after the 6 Collision and eight weeks following his TLIF. 7 18. 8 effect on Plaintiff’s ability to perform his job, and no 9 physician has placed any work-related restriction on 10 11 Day He is reasonably expected Ex. As a result of the Collision, Plaintiff missed Ex. 49 ¶ However, the Collision has not had a material him. Day 2 Tr. 18:19-19:3. Plaintiff’s injuries have hindered his ability to 12 engage in certain hobbies, including hiking with family 13 and traveling. 14 life as the family breadwinner, Plaintiff feels more 15 like a burden after the Collision. Ex. 14; Ex. 49 ¶¶ 22, 36. II. 16 Accustomed to Ex. 49 ¶ 35. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 17 Plaintiff asserts a single claim for negligence 18 against Defendant by way of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 19 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). 20 negligence are duty, breach of duty, causation, and 21 damages. 22 App. 4th 366, 377 (2009) (citations omitted). In California, 3 the elements of Carrera v. Maurice J. Sopp & Son, 177 Cal. 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 The $29,627.75 figure is an average of Plaintiff’s annual income as a truck driver from the years 2011 to 2019, excluding 2014, for which no tax returns were provided. 3 Because the Collision occurred in California, California law applies to Plaintiff’s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (creating governmental liability “in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred”). 4 Case 2:19-cv-05041-RSWL-PLA Document 135 Filed 08/13/21 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:3602 1 2 A. Liability Negligence per se is an evidentiary doctrine, under 3 which the “violation of a statute gives rise to a 4 presumption of negligence in the absence of 5 justification or excuse.” 6 4th 908, 918 (2008). 7 plaintiff must establish: “(1) the defendant violated a 8 statute, ordinance, or regulation; (2) the violation 9 proximately caused the injury; (3) the injury resulted 10 from an occurrence that the enactment was designed to 11 prevent; and (4) the plaintiff fits within the class of 12 persons for whose protection the enactment was adopted.” 13 Coppola v. Smith, 935 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 14 2013) (citing Cal. Evid. Code § 669). 15 Ramirez v. Nelson, 44 Cal. To establish negligence per se, a Because Ms. Crowfield violated California Vehicle 16 Code § 21801(a) and thereby caused Plaintiff’s injuries, 17 she was presumptively negligent. 18 Crowfield was acting within the scope of her employment 19 during that time, the Court imputes Ms. Crowfield’s 20 presumptive negligence to Defendant. 21 Moreover, because Ms. Finally, a defendant may rebut the presumption of 22 negligence by showing that the person violating the 23 statute “did what might reasonably be expected of a 24 person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar 25 circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.” 26 Cal. Evid. Code § 669(b)(1). 27 evidence. 28 proximately caused by Ms. Crowfield’s negligence. Defendant adduced no such Defendant is thus liable for damages 5 Case 2:19-cv-05041-RSWL-PLA Document 135 Filed 08/13/21 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:3603 1 B. Damages 2 1. Medical Care 3 Plaintiff is entitled to recover for reasonably 4 necessary medical care attributable to the Collision. 5 Hanif v. Housing Authority, 200 Cal. App. 3d 635, 640 6 (1988). 7 medical experts Dr. Devin Binder and Dr. Fardad Mobin, 8 the ultimate severity of Plaintiff’s condition would not 9 have emerged without the Collision. Here, based on the testimony of Plaintiff’s Ex. 45 ¶ 25; Ex. 46 10 ¶¶ 16-19. 11 Collision, but the Collision exacerbated his spinal 12 condition and rendered those degenerative problems 13 symptomatic. 14 Plaintiff’s credible testimony that he did not have any 15 back pain prior to the Collision but experienced an 16 onset of back pain soon after its occurrence. 17 24. 18 attributable 4 to the Collision: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff had some degeneration prior to the Ex. 46 ¶¶ 18-19. This aligns with Ex. 49 ¶ As a result, the following medical care was 4 Defendant argued, and Defendant’s medical experts posited, that Plaintiff’s condition was unrelated to the Collision. Def. United States of Am.’s Closing Arg. 7:19-22, ECF No. 133; see generally Exs. 145-146. Specifically, Dr. Raymond Hah and Dr. Isaac Yang testified that the August 12, 2017 MRI revealed an absence of trauma to the surrounding bone which, in turn, signified an unlikelihood of trauma to the spinal discs. Ex. 157 ¶ 28; Ex. 158 ¶¶ 20-21. The doctors suggested that Plaintiff merely exhibited mild degenerative symptoms typical for a person of his age and occupation. Ex. 157 ¶ 28; Ex. 158 ¶ 10. While Defendant’s medical experts opined that injury to the bone typifies disc herniation resulting from trauma, they did not rule out the possibility that disc herniation resulting from trauma could materialize absent trauma to the bone. See Day 1 Tr. 110:18; Day 2 Tr. 76:18-22. In fact, when confronted with the question of causation on cross-examination, Dr. Hah and Dr. 6 Case 2:19-cv-05041-RSWL-PLA Document 135 Filed 08/13/21 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:3604 1 - Emergency room services 2 - MRI scans 3 - Physical therapy sessions 4 - Epidural steroid injections 5 - Consultations with Dr. Binder 6 - TLIF surgery 7 Furthermore, Plaintiff’s medical care was 8 reasonably necessary. 5 9 namely, the medical consultations, physical therapy, and The conservative treatment— 10 epidural injections—was a reasonable measure in an 11 attempt to alleviate Plaintiff’s pain. 12 104:12-22, 131:11-18. 13 position, a TLIF was a reasonably necessary surgery for 14 Dr. Binder to perform given the MRI scans, the 15 ineffectiveness of conservative treatment, and 16 Plaintiff’s symptomatology. 17 15. Day 1 Tr. Moreover, contrary to Defendant’s Ex. 45 ¶¶ 8-13; Ex. 46 ¶ 18 2. Plaintiff’s Compensation for Medical Care 19 With respect to Plaintiff’s monetary recovery for 20 medical services, the amount recoverable is “the lesser 21 of (1) the amount paid or incurred for past medical 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Yang displayed notable incertitude about the causal connection between the Collision and Plaintiff’s degenerative pathology. Day 1 Tr. 110:18-111:1, 111:6-18, 120:12-13, 130:13-2. 5 Although the parties stipulated to the admission of certain medical records—specifically, those pertaining to Plaintiff’s visits with Dr. Shi and Dr. Chen—none of Plaintiff’s witnesses testified about these visits. The Court cannot ascertain whether the services rendered were reasonably necessary or attributable to the Collision. 7 Case 2:19-cv-05041-RSWL-PLA Document 135 Filed 08/13/21 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:3605 1 expenses and (2) the reasonable value of the services.” 2 Corenbaum v. Lampkin, 215 Cal. App. 4th 1308, 1325-26 3 (2013). 4 or the amount that the provider “normally receives from 5 the relevant community for the services it provides.” 6 Bermudez v. Ciolek, 237 Cal. App. 4th 1311, 1334 (2015). 7 While billed amounts are relevant in the reasonableness 8 inquiry, they are alone insufficient. 7 9 (stating that “the amount incurred by an uninsured The reasonable value is the fair market value, 6 See id. at 1338 10 medical patient is not sufficient evidence on its own to 11 prove the reasonable amount of medical damages”). 12 13 The reasonable value of Plaintiff’s medical treatment attributable to the Collision is as follows: 14 - Emergency room services - $425.00 15 - MRI scans – $2,750.00 16 - Physical therapy sessions – $8,704.40 17 - Epidural steroid injections – $4,000.00 18 - Consultations with Dr. Binder – $11,000.00 19 - TLIF and associated costs – $39,500.00 20 6 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As the California Supreme Court noted in Howell, “pricing of medical services is highly complex and depends, to a significant extent, on the identity of the payer. In effect, there appears to be not one market for medical services but several . . . .” Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal. 4th 541, 562 (2011). 7 The determination of fair market value “will usually turn on a wide-ranging inquiry” involving additional evidence and expert testimony. Bermudez, 237 Cal. App. 4th at 1330-31; see also Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics, LLC, 22 Cal. App. 5th 1266, 1275 (2018) (remarking that “the uninsured plaintiff also must present additional evidence, generally in the form of expert opinion testimony, to establish that the amount billed is a reasonable value for the service rendered”). 8 Case 2:19-cv-05041-RSWL-PLA Document 135 Filed 08/13/21 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:3606 1 These values derive from a dissection of the 2 respective analyses for each parties’ experts. 3 Plaintiff, on the one hand, adduced evidence of the full 4 amount of his outstanding medical bills. 5 are minimally probative in determining the reasonable 6 value of medical services, as they represent the 7 unilateral assignment of value by Plaintiff’s respective 8 providers. 9 services rendered by Dr. Binder, who was retained on a 10 11 These amounts This concern is especially glaring for lien. On the other hand, Defendant proffered the expert 12 testimony of Lindsay Knutson, who opined on the fair 13 market value of Plaintiff’s medical care. 14 her conclusions, Ms. Knutson applied a multiplier to 15 data extracted from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule 16 Database, a comprehensive source of information on fees 17 for medical services. 18 the multiplier to the cost of the service, which was 19 identified by the pertinent Current Procedural 20 Terminology code, yielded the “reasonable value” of the 21 respective service. 22 Ex. 159 ¶¶ 35-38. In reaching Application of Id. The Court finds Ms. Knutson’s methodology to be 23 more probative of the reasonable value of medical 24 services but nevertheless problematic. 25 methodology more nearly pinpoints the reasonable value, 26 it concerns a singular “fair market value.” 27 is not convinced that the relevant market for 28 Plaintiff’s treatment is precisely aligned with the 9 While her The Court Case 2:19-cv-05041-RSWL-PLA Document 135 Filed 08/13/21 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:3607 1 market identified in Ms. Knutson’s methodology. 2 is, Ms. Knutson’s methodology encompasses those rates 3 negotiated by payers who may have more bargaining power 4 than Plaintiff. 5 Ms. Knutson’s conclusions but accords reasonable values 6 for Plaintiff’s medical services more closely tied to 7 figures proffered by Ms. Knutson. Accordingly, the Court does not adopt With respect to future medical care, Plaintiff is 8 9 That entitled to recover the reasonable value of reasonably 10 necessary medical care that he is reasonably certain to 11 need in the future as a result of the Collision. 12 v. Contra Costa County, 11 Cal. App. 5th 163, 183 13 (2017); see also CACI 3903A. 14 findings, Plaintiff is likely to require future care, 15 including medical consultations, medications, and 16 interventional pain management. 17 principles used to calculate the reasonable value of 18 Plaintiff’s past medical services yields recovery for 19 future medical expenses of $10,800.00. 20 47. Cuevas As stated in the factual Application of the same See Ex. 159 ¶ 21 3. Lost Wages 22 A plaintiff may recover for lost wages, but such 23 damages must not be speculative. 24 States, No. CV 14-00219 MMM (JCGx), 2015 WL 4720580, at 25 *32 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2015) (citing Engle v. Oroville, 26 238 Cal. App. 2d 266, 273 (1965)). 27 28 Cantu v. United Here, Plaintiff missed twelve weeks of work due to the Collision. Because Plaintiff earns $569.76 per week 10 Case 2:19-cv-05041-RSWL-PLA Document 135 Filed 08/13/21 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:3608 1 as a truck driver, Plaintiff is entitled to recover 2 $6,837.12 in lost wages. 8 3 reflects a minor diminution in Plaintiff’s work-life 4 expectancy. 5 persistent back problems, and need for future treatment, 6 it is more likely than not that Plaintiff’s work-life 7 expectancy is reduced by two years. 8 annual earnings of $29,627.75, Plaintiff is entitled to 9 recover $59,255.50 in future wages. 10 In addition, the record Given his significant medical treatment, With expected The Court does not adopt the figure of 4.2 years 11 suggested by Plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Vega, because of 12 Plaintiff’s current medical status and ongoing 13 vocational incentives. 14 a work-related restriction on Plaintiff, and he 15 maintains potent incentives to work. 16 80:4; Day 2 Tr. 18:19-19:3; Ex. 160 ¶ 42. That is, no physician has placed Day 1 Tr. 78:15- 17 4. Noneconomic Damages 18 In California, “[f]or harm to body, feelings or 19 reputation, compensatory damages reasonably proportioned 20 to the intensity and duration of the harm can be awarded 21 without proof of amount other than evidence of the 22 nature of the harm.” Duarte v. Zachariah, 22 Cal. App. 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 Plaintiff’s vocational economic analyst, Enrique Vega, testified that Plaintiff should recover an additional 26.9% of his earnings to account for fringe benefits. Ex. 47 ¶ 16. While 26.9% of earnings may represent the national average in fringe benefits, there is no evidence that this figure applies in Plaintiff’s case. Moreover, fringe benefits are reflected in Plaintiff’s tax returns as an offset to his earnings. Day 1 Tr. 82:14-18; see generally Ex. 24. 11 Case 2:19-cv-05041-RSWL-PLA Document 135 Filed 08/13/21 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:3609 1 4th 1652, 1664-65 (1994) (quoting Restatement (Second) 2 of Torts § 912 (1979)). 3 meager but nevertheless existent. 4 minimal evidence of pain and suffering, and the 5 testimony of Maria Garcia, Plaintiff’s partner, was 6 minimally probative on that point. 7 been rendered somewhat burdensome to his family and has 8 lost the ability to hike or travel as he did before the 9 Collision. 10 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff’s noneconomic harm is Plaintiff adduced He has, however, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic harm in the amount of $40,000.00. III. CONCLUSION The Court awards Judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $183,272.02, plus costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 DATED: August 13, 2021 /s/ Ronald S.W. Lew _____________________________ HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW Senior U.S. District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
