Beverly Hills Personal Injury Verdicts & Settlements

What happened

Our client was rear-ended at low speed. The change in speed our client experienced during the impact was less than 10 mph, and our client’s vehicle had only minor damage.

Injuries

Even so, our client was seriously injured in the crash and eventually needed, and had, neck surgery.

What the defense argued

Liability was not reasonably disputed. The defense still refused to make a reasonable settlement offer. Its position was that a low-speed impact could never have caused our client’s injuries.

How Etehad Law handled it

Etehad Law hired an accident reconstruction expert and an orthopedic surgeon expert to show how a low-speed collision can still cause significant injuries.

The firm litigated the case and gathered the facts and evidence it needed to take it to trial. It then served a special settlement demand under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998. A section 998 demand carries significant penalties for the defense if it unreasonably rejects the demand.

Outcome

In response, the defense paid $1,000,000 to resolve the case rather than face those penalties.

What happened

Our client was a passenger in a collision involving several vehicles.

Injuries

Our client injured her neck in the crash and underwent surgery.

What the defense argued

The defense denied liability, claimed the surgery was unnecessary and refused to make a reasonable settlement offer.

How Etehad Law handled it

Through the depositions of the defendant, the police officer who investigated the crash and our client’s neurosurgeon, Etehad Law showed that the defendant caused the crash and that the surgery was needed.

Outcome

The case settled shortly afterward at mediation for $1,000,000.

What happened

Our client was driving when a distracted driver rear-ended our client’s vehicle.

Injuries

The crash caused mid and low back injuries. Our client went through progressive treatment and was recommended for low back surgery.

How Etehad Law handled it

The defendant’s first settlement offer was $40,000. The case then went through significant litigation by Etehad Law.

Outcome

The defendant then offered to settle the case for the insurance policy limits of $500,000.

What happened

Our client was a rideshare driver whose car was sideswiped by a passing vehicle. The car had only minor damage.

Injuries

Our client did not suffer new injuries in the crash, but it made some preexisting medical problems worse.

Before Etehad Law

Our client first hired a different law firm, which had no success resolving the claim. The defense’s early settlement offers fell far short of what the case called for.

How Etehad Law handled it

After taking over the case, Etehad Law found the medical treatment our client needed, showed that the crash had seriously worsened the prior injuries and moved the case toward arbitration. Throughout, the firm kept the focus on our client’s worsened medical condition.

Outcome

The case settled for $500,000, significantly more than our client believed she could recover.

What happened

Our client was driving safely on a three-lane street when the defendant driver abruptly turned left in front of her, causing a T-bone crash.

Injuries

Our client suffered serious neck injuries, and she later had surgery.

How Etehad Law handled it

The defendant’s first settlement offer was $136,000. Etehad Law litigated the case, and the defendant raised the offer to $398,000.

Etehad Law’s trial team prepared the case for trial throughout the litigation.

Outcome

On the courthouse steps, just days before trial, the defendant offered to settle the case for the insurance policy limits of $1,500,000.

What happened

Our client was driving when a defendant driving a commercial vehicle rear-ended her.

Injuries

Our client suffered serious back injuries and went on to have surgery.

What the defense argued

The defendant disputed the extent of our client’s injuries and whether the lower back surgery was needed.

How Etehad Law handled it

The defendant opened at $135,000. As Etehad Law pressed the case in litigation, that offer rose to $403,000.

The firm prepared the case for trial and showed the defendant its potential exposure if the case went to trial.

Outcome

The defendant then offered the insurance policy limits of $1,000,000 to settle the case.

What happened

Our client was at a loading facility when a forklift carrying cargo struck him.

Injuries

He suffered serious neck and back injuries. In the end he had low back surgery.

How Etehad Law handled it

In litigation, Etehad Law proved that the defendant’s employee was not qualified to operate the forklift and that there had been prior incidents.

Outcome

The defendant then offered to settle the case for the insurance policy limits of $1,000,000.

What happened

Our client was a pedestrian. The driver of a pickup truck fell asleep and crashed into him.

Injuries

Our client was seriously injured and underwent multiple surgeries on his leg.

What the defense argued

In litigation, the truck driver claimed to be unemployed.

How Etehad Law handled it

Etehad Law suspected otherwise. Over a three-year investigation, which included obtaining body-worn camera video from the police officers who responded to the crash, the firm’s trial team identified the construction company that employed the driver and held it responsible.

Outcome

The construction company’s insurer offered the insurance policy limits of $1,000,000 to settle the case.

Before Etehad Law

Our client came to Etehad Law after another law firm had represented him in his pedestrian injury case. That firm was looking to resolve the case quickly for about $30,000.

His damages were extensive. It was also clear that establishing liability, if it could be done at all, would be difficult, costly and time-consuming.

How Etehad Law handled it

The firm decided the case warranted that time and effort. Rather than accept the quick offer, Etehad Law filed a lawsuit and pursued all potential sources of recovery. The case involved substantial litigation.

Outcome

Etehad Law secured $1,025,000 for our client, the full available policy limits, in a case that had earlier been considered for a $30,000 settlement.

What happened

Our client went to the emergency room with Fournier’s gangrene, a serious and potentially life-threatening medical condition.

The case involved allegations that the severity of our client’s condition was not recognized or addressed promptly in the emergency room.

Injuries

The claim was that this resulted in significant injuries and complications.

How Etehad Law handled it

Etehad Law investigated the medical care our client received and reviewed the circumstances of the treatment.

Outcome

The case settled for $950,000.

What happened

While in a skilled nursing facility, the child suffered burns to her hands and thigh.

Injuries

The burns fully resolved without any scarring.

Outcome

Etehad Law obtained a $365,000 medical malpractice settlement for the child.

What happened

The dispute arose from a condominium project. The company involved held only a C-15 flooring and floor covering license. It did not hold the required Class B general contractor license during construction, yet it took part in work that needed that license, including drywall, doors, waterproofing and concrete.

What the defense argued

In arbitration, the company argued that it did not need a Class B license because it did not act as a general contractor. It said it acted only as a manager and consultant and that licensed contractors did most of the construction work.

Etehad Law argued that working without the proper Class B license was a per se violation of the Contractors’ State License Law. If that argument was right, our client was entitled to millions of dollars in disgorgement damages. The arbitrator ruled against our client.

How Etehad Law handled it

An arbitration award must be confirmed by a trial court to become final. Etehad Law opposed confirmation, but the trial court confirmed the award, ruling that it had no power to review the arbitrator’s decision for errors of fact or law.

The firm appealed. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed. It held that section 7031(b) of the Contractors’ State License Law, which addresses unlicensed contractors, is an explicit legislative expression of public policy, so the general rule against judicial review of arbitration awards did not apply. The case went back to the trial court for a fresh review of whether section 7031(b) applied.

Outcome

Etehad Law returned to the core licensing issue in arbitration and prevailed. The result was a $16,500,000 arbitration award in our client’s favor.