It’s often amusing to watch the extents to which people will go to “get paid” when times are tough. In fact, some pray for the smallest fender bender so they can sue, settle, make a little money, and laugh all the way to the bank.
People will sue for just about anything, and every now and then, they run up on a judge and insurance company that won’t play alone.
That’s what happened in Monroe back in 2018 when a woman named Kaylonna Dotson was sitting in her car in the drive-through lane at a Popeye’s Fried Chicken when her vehicle was barely bumped by a vehicle driven by Darren Balsamo, who was in line behind her.
What began as a chicken lane bump started a two-year court fight in which Ms. Dotson sought to get paid from Balsamo’s insurance company. Instead of settling the case, the insurance company went to city court before Judge Aisha Clark.
Before Judge Clark, Dotson claimed the bump caused her to go to the Emergency Room and receive treatment from a Chiropractic 28 times. She complained of pain, discomfort, and suffering.
Judge Clark reviewed photos of the “damaged” area of Dotson’s car. The bump was so slight in that the dust on the bumpers hadn’t been disturbed.
At trial, the photos showed no scratches, scuffs, or dents on Dotson’s vehicle. Dotson and Balsamo stayed at the Popeyes for an hour after the chicken lane bump but never mentioned that she felt any type of pain.
In the trial, Dotson never mentioned, until cross-examined, how she decided that she should be checked for injuries, but she left Popeyes and made a bee-line for the hospital emergency room. The hospital medical records indicate that she had no “back pain” and no “cervical spine tenderness” (neck pain) and had a full range of motion when examined in the ER.
Judge Clark raised an eyebrow when Dotson testified that she felt no pain, then changed her story to say she felt pain after leaving the hospital.
Judge Clark raise another eyebrow when Dotson said it was her idea to go to the ER, then changed her story on cross-examination to say that her father told her to go to the ER, after which she reported feeling pain.
Within a week, Dotson had lawyered up. The lawyer sent her to a chiropractor to be treated for her “pain.” The Chiropractor treated her for 28 visits.
After each visit, her pain level was recorded by the chiropractor. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 meaning great pain, she never reported pain above a “2,” and on 19 of the 28 visits, she reported having no pain at all.
She told Judge Clark that she kept going to the chiropractic because she was ordered to do so by her doctor.
She wanted to be paid for pain, all the chiropractic visits, her ER bills, general damages, and judicial interest.
Judge Clark, known for her “cut the baby in half” biblical-style rulings, decided that Ms. Dotson should be paid for the ER visit and the first five Chiropractic visits where she showed at least a little pain.
There was no pain and suffering, no damages, no judicial interest.
Dotson appealed the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, who must have been amused to hear Ms. Dotson’s attorney say that she should have been paid for all of the Chiropractic visits even though they were unnecessary. She also said Judge Clark should have awarded her medical expenses and general damages.
It didn’t take the appeals clerk long to uphold Judge Clark’s ruling, leaving Ms. Dotson with the appeal’s cost and the cost of 23 unnecessary Chiropractic visits.
The public has a right to sue for real damages, if they have really been hurt, and if extended doctor’s visits are necessary.
We really stretch it if we feel that the public can get a lawyer, file a suit, wait for a settlement, and then appear in a legal commercial boasting how a crafty attorney made us rich.
Three cheers to Judge Clark, who made another of her wise decisions, upheld by the Appeals Court.
