Hard Facts About Soft Tissue Injuries:
A Case Study

By John Foote

      Larry Kirkland was a happy man on April 14, 1996, as he drove home from work to eat lunch. But life as he knew it was about to change forever. On his way back to work, Mr. Kirkland, while driving his small pickup truck over Interstate 10, was hit broadside by a dump truck attempting to turn left in front of him.

      Up until the wreck, Mr. Kirkland, 35, provided for his wife and four children by doing work that was very physically demanding. As an agricultural technician at the University of Florida Research Center in Quincy, Florida, he worked to develop manual farming techniques for use in Third-World countries. His job involved such things as harvesting wheat with a sickle, lifting heavy containers filled with grain, putting up and maintaining fences and caring for livestock. In addition to working a full-time job, Mr. Kirkland worked at odd jobs to make ends meet.

     Mr. Kirkland also enjoyed playing sports. Sometimes he would even play basketball during his lunch hour after being in the fields all morning, and then return to the fields in the afternoon.

     The accident took Mr. Kirkland's physical abilities away from him. He was no longer able to do his demanding job or to enjoy sports. This was because he suffered from what are known as "soft-tissue injuries." The soft tissues of the body include muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Unlike broken bones, injuries to soft tissues are difficult to prove at trial because the damage does not show up on medical tests. MRIs, X-rays, and CAT scans all appear normal, despite the fact that the victim suffers excruciating pain. Furthermore, people with soft-tissue injuries don't necessarily appear injured. These injuries affect people in different ways, and in many cases, cause permanent damage and pain.

      We took this case to trial and began by letting the jury get to know Mr. Kirkland. We brought in a variety of people who could testify about what he was like before the accident, as well as about the changes they had seen in him afterwards.

      We started with Mr. Kirkland's aunt, who has been close to him for most of his life. She did a wonderful job of describing Mr. Kirkland as a hardworking, conscientious and fun-loving person. She poignantly described how he was no longer able to enjoy family gatherings or working in the yard. She also told the jury about how his injuries and inability to work affected his mood and the negative way he now saw himself - especially as a father.

     Several of Mr. Kirkland's co-workers and friends also testified that they observed his pain, and the fact that was no longer able to enjoy himself. He no longer participated in social gatherings because he did not want to put a damper on the good times of his friends.

     Our next challenge was to explain the extent of our client's medical problems. The defense hired an expert and paid him close to $10,000 for his hour-long examination and testimony regarding Mr. Kirkland's injuries. We anticipated that he would say that our client was "faking it" and didn't really try to exert himself when he was examined. We knew it wasn't true, but we had to make sure the jury knew the truth - that Mr. Kirkland was suffering.

     To counter the arguments made by the defense, we used three experts to prove our case. First, Mr. Kirkland's main physician explained to the jury what soft-tissue injuries are and that Mr. Kirkland would never return to the physically demanding job that he had before the accident.

     Next to testify was Dr. John McKay, a rehabilitation specialist. He examined and tested Mr. Kirkland to find out what type of job he may be able to do in the future. Dr. McKay's testing showed that Mr. Kirkland would have to do a great deal of retraining to return to the work force, and that his employment outlook was pessimistic because jobs are limited in Gadsden County.

     Dr. McKay's testimony refuted that of the defense's expert, who gave the opinion that with a couple of months of free training, Mr. Kirkland could make far more money than he had ever made before.

     Finally, we had to explain to the jury how to quantify the damages. We hired a forensic economist to explain the value of Mr. Kirkland's loss: his job, pension, health insurance and earning ability in the future.

     As in every case, the plaintiff, our client Mr. Kirkland, was the most important part of the trial. When he took the stand the jury could see for themselves what type of man he is. Not only were we there to help him recover fair compensation for his injuries, we were there to help him get some closure by telling the jury about his human emotions, including his pain and suffering.

     As mentioned above, the defendant's insurance companies spend tens of thousands of dollars attempting to prove their contentions and to convince the jury that they shouldn't have to pay anything.

     Accordingly we too had to make sure that Mr. Kirkland's case was properly presented, and that his real story was told. We feel it is important to develop the case fully and not to cut corners.

     In the end, the jurors believed Mr. Kirkland and knew he was hurt. They understood that he was permanently damaged by the accident, and determined that his injuries and their effects had a value of $500,000.00. Most importantly, Mr. Kirkland has now "had his day in court." Not only does he feel good about being fairly compensated, he also feels vindicated by the verdict.

     Today Mr. Kirkland hopes to retrain and start a new, productive career. Even though he will never be able to do the kind of work he loves, he is now able to enjoy his family a little bit more without worrying about providing for them day to day.