In the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, every case with a demand not in excess of $50,000 is subject to court-mandated arbitration. This arbitration procedure permits an expedited process for a plaintiff. However, a plaintiff may not recover more than $50,000 in the arbitration. The plaintiff may elect to appeal an arbitrator’s award but is then limited to a potential recovery up to only $25,000. In cases where a plaintiff’s alleged injuries seem to have a tenuous nexus to the underlying accident, the appeal process essentially gives the plaintiff a second bite at the apple by getting to present the causation issue to a jury if an arbitrator deems the injuries unrelated.
In Morgan v. Houston, Nichele Morgan brought a lawsuit against Houston alleging multiple injuries to her lumbar spine resulting from a traffic accident. The front driver’s side of Morgan’s Honda Accord was struck by the front of Houston’s van as he was exiting a parking lot and attempting to turn left. Houston stipulated to negligence, but the arbitrator found in Houston’s favor on the issues of causation and damages. Morgan appealed pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1311.1.
The accident occurred on June 7, 2012. Morgan presented to the emergency room and was diagnosed with strains and sprains to her thoracic and lumbar spine. She also presented to a separate medical center with complaints of lower back, shoulder, and front torso sprain. Morgan was recommended for physical therapy, but she did not begin the program until August of 2012. She did not treat in September but treated once again in October and November of 2012. Morgan also had an MRI performed that was negative for cervical injuries but revealed damage at the L5-S1 vertebral body. Defense counsel countered that its medical expert conducted MRIs which suggested no recent injury. Furthermore, Morgan went to Las Vegas in September of 2012 and traveled to Europe in 2014.
The jury found that Houston’s negligent operation of his vehicle was a factual cause of the injuries sustained by Morgan. The jury awarded $50,000 to Morgan, and that figure was reduced to $25,000 pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1311.1.
Once again, the arbitration appeal process gives the plaintiff a second chance to prove causation in front of a potentially more sympathetic audience – a Philadelphia jury. As always, a case like this provides yet another factor to consider when examining the cost-benefit analysis of settling a relatively minor claim prior to arbitration, and if appealed, trial as well.
Thanks to Eric Clendening for his contribution.
For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at