National Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

Keith Sumlar (Male, 50 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

John LaMantia;
Dinizulu Law Group, Ltd.;
Chicago,
IL,
for
Keith Sumlar

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Sudhakar Yeturu; M.D.; Internal Medicine; Chicago,
IL called by:
John LaMantia

Defendant(s):

Ivory M. Riley

Defense Attorney(s):

Kenneth E. Klimczak;
Bruce Farrel Dorn & Associates;
Chicago,
IL,
for
Ivory M. Riley

Defendant Expert(s):

Thomas Hudgins;
Physical Medicine;
Glenview,
IL called by:
Kenneth E. Klimczak

Insurer(s):

State Farm Insurance Cos.

On May 10, 2014, plaintiff Keith Sumlar, 50, a postal carrier, fell down exterior stairs of a private residence in South Side Chicago. He claimed back injuries. Sumlar sued property owner Ivory Riley, alleging that Riley was negligent in allowing a dangerous condition to exist on the property. Sumlar alleged he was on his carrier route when he was descending the property’s concrete stairs. He alleged the stairs were cracked and broken and that the defective condition caused him to trip and fall. He said he fell down a couple of stairs before landing on the ground. Sumlar‘s counsel presented photographs of the stairs, which allegedly showed the stairs in disrepair. Sumlar‘s counsel contended that Riley’s failure to properly maintain and repair the stairs violated city ordinance Section 13-196-570. Additionally, counsel argued that Sumlar‘s view of the stairs had been obstructed due to his postal messenger bag. The defense contended that the stairs’ condition was de minimis in nature. The defense asserted that Sumlar was contributorily negligent for the accident. For over a year, Sumlar had delivered mail to Riley’s residence on a daily basis and, therefore, was aware of the condition of the stairs, the defense argued.

Three days after the fall, Sumlar, complaining of pain to his lower back and right hip, presented to his internist. The doctor put him on a course of physical therapy. For three months, Sumlar treated with massage and exercise. He underwent an MRI and EMG, both of which were negative. Sumlar was diagnosed with a lumbar strain and sprain, radiculopathy stemming from his lumbar spine, facet arthropathy and piriformis pain. Sumlar alleged he experienced pain radiating through his right leg and into his foot. For the remainder of 2014, Sumlar consulted with an orthopedic surgeon and a pain management specialist. By the end of 2014 and into early 2015, Sumlar treated with an epidural injection to his lumbar spine, which was meant to alleviate numbness in the right foot. He was discharged from treatment in May 2015. Sumlar‘s internist causally related Sumlar‘s injuries and treatment to the accident. Sumlar testified that he has ongoing back pain and radiating left leg and foot pain. He alleged he has difficulty performing his activities of daily living, including his job as a postal carrier. Sumlar stated that he can no longer participate in his hobbies of martial arts, basketball, bowling, bike riding and cooking. Sumlar sought $10,350 in medical costs. He also sought $60,000 for past and future pain and suffering and $60,000 for past and future loss of a normal life/disability. The defense’s expert in physical medicine, who performed a records review, determined that Sumlar suffered no injury in the fall. The expert cited Sumlar‘s medical records that detailed longstanding prior back complaints, dating back 18 years. The expert noted that Sumlar‘s post-accident diagnostic studies were normal, which the expert said further demonstrated that Sumlar had suffered no injury.

The jury attributed 45-percent liability to Sumlar and 55-percent liability to Riley. The jury determined that Sumlar‘s damages totaled $50,000, which the jury improperly reduced to $22,500, instead of $27,500. The error is subject to potential post-trial motions by plaintiff’s counsel.

Keith Sumlar: $10,300 Personal Injury: Past Medical Cost; $19,850 Personal Injury: pain and suffering; $19,850 Personal Injury: loss of normal life/disability

Actual Award:

$22,500

Judge:

Arnette R. Hubbard

Trial Length:

3
 days

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.