FILED 4.13.00
`DEC 30 2024. Ye/tac
`HARTFORDJ.D.
`
`no SUPERIOR:COURT
`DOCKETNO.: HHD-CV23-6174331-S
`:
`J.D. OF HARTFORD
`ANGELMANUELCOLON
`v
`gE ATHARTFORD
`MARKSMITH = DECEMBER 20, 2024
`MEMORANDUMOF DECISION
`|
`The:Gourtappointed Kevin Brignole.asArbitratorfor anArbitration oftheabovecaptioried
`case. The case was: arbitrated ‘pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-549u. The.
`procedural and substantive: laws ofthe StateofConnecticut govern this decision. The above
`captioned case wastriedto thisArbitrator.onDecernbér13, 2024.At said Arbitration thePlaintiff
`| waspresentandrepresentedbyattomeyMartinaBriafrom the ZayasLawFirm..TheDefendant
`. ‘wasnot’présent, but,wasrepresentedby attorneyMichael Collinsfrom Halloran &Sage.
`LA:
`The Plaintiffbroughtthis cause ofaction in a single Count sounding in negligence. The:
`Plaintiffallegesthat on November 22, 2021, atapproximately: 6:42.a.m., he was operatinghis
`motor vehicle on route.218in Windsor.The:Plaintifffurtherconteridsthat he:brought his vehicle
`toa'stop‘inobservanceofa.schoolbus‘that had displayedits “STOP”sign.ThePlaintiffcontends
`‘that theDefendantrear-ended the Plaintiff's vehicle. The Plaintiff. alleges thatthe: impactofthe
`collision:¢aused him to. sufferinjuriestohis cérvical:and (umbarspine. The Plaintiffallegesthat.
`
`
`DEC 30 2024. Ye/tac
`HARTFORDJ.D.
`
`no SUPERIOR:COURT
`DOCKETNO.: HHD-CV23-6174331-S
`:
`J.D. OF HARTFORD
`ANGELMANUELCOLON
`v
`gE ATHARTFORD
`MARKSMITH = DECEMBER 20, 2024
`MEMORANDUMOF DECISION
`|
`The:Gourtappointed Kevin Brignole.asArbitratorfor anArbitration oftheabovecaptioried
`case. The case was: arbitrated ‘pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-549u. The.
`procedural and substantive: laws ofthe StateofConnecticut govern this decision. The above
`captioned case wastriedto thisArbitrator.onDecernbér13, 2024.At said Arbitration thePlaintiff
`| waspresentandrepresentedbyattomeyMartinaBriafrom the ZayasLawFirm..TheDefendant
`. ‘wasnot’présent, but,wasrepresentedby attorneyMichael Collinsfrom Halloran &Sage.
`LA:
`The Plaintiffbroughtthis cause ofaction in a single Count sounding in negligence. The:
`Plaintiffallegesthat on November 22, 2021, atapproximately: 6:42.a.m., he was operatinghis
`motor vehicle on route.218in Windsor.The:Plaintifffurtherconteridsthat he:brought his vehicle
`toa'stop‘inobservanceofa.schoolbus‘that had displayedits “STOP”sign.ThePlaintiffcontends
`‘that theDefendantrear-ended the Plaintiff's vehicle. The Plaintiff. alleges thatthe: impactofthe
`collision:¢aused him to. sufferinjuriestohis cérvical:and (umbarspine. The Plaintiffallegesthat.
`
`
`
`the Defendarit wasnegligentinthat.he failéd to keep a reasonableand proper lookout,in that
`hé was traveling toofast, and that he wasfollowing the Plaintiff's vehicle more closely than was
`reasonablein violationof C.G.S. §14-240. The Plaintiff alleges.that itwas the Défendant's _
`negligentoperation of his.motor vehicle that causedthe collision and proximately caused his
`injuries. The Plaintiff hasalleged that he suffered economic and non-economicdamages.
`|
`‘The Defendant filed an Answerand Special Defense. In thé. Defendant’s Answer, the
`Defendant denied that it was his negligencethat causéd the collision. By way. of Special
`Defenses,the Defendantcontendsthatthe Plaintiffis.barredfrom.récovering in that the Plaintiff's.
`own.negligence éxceedsthat oftheDefendant.The Defendantallegesthat the Plaintifffailedto
`keép a proper lookout, stopped suddenly, failedto utilize his mirrors'to observetraffic conditions,
`failedtokéap his vehicle.under proper-control, was. inattentive and wasspeeding.
`.
`|
`
`©
`
`ThePlaintiff denied the Defendant’s Special Defenses.
`
`EVIDENCE:
`
`At the Arbitration Hearing, Plaintif’s attorney: introduced ‘a number of exhibits. The.
`following exhibits were-entered:
`4, Schedule A: Angel Colon’s medicalbills:
`_2, Angel:Colon’smedical records;
`
`
`
`3. Police Report (redacted);
`
`4. Photos
`
`The Defendant énteréed the following exhibits:
`
`A. Policé Report (unredacted).
`
`. B. Photosof the property damage
`
`LEGAL ISSUES AND FINDINGS:
`I. LIABILITY:
`Under our common-law negligence.laws, the failure of a party touse reasonable care
`under the circumstance. constitutes negligence.In this instance,thePlaintiff allegesthatthe
`Defendantfailed to.keepa reasonable distance betweenhis.vehicle.andthePlaintiff's vehicle. A
`driverof ani automobile has a duty to’ use reasonable care to avoid dangers. that he may
`encounter:‘such as: other vehicles. on the roadway: Adriveris required to keep a redsonable
`lookoutforothervehicles'that heislikelyto encounter.McDonald v. Connecticut Go., 197:Conn,
`14,17 (1963). Additionally, the violation of the Statute governing theoperation of motor vehicle
`
`could constitute negligence.
`
`In this. instance, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendantviolated
`
`C.G.S, § 14-240(failure:to drive areasonable distance apart), C.G.S. § 14-218 (speéding), and.
`
`failed to keep a reasonableand properlookout.
`
`
`
`The Plaintiff was: present andtestified using the servicesof ah intefpreter. The Plaintiff
`
`testifiedat the Arbitration that he was travelingin theleft-handlane of route 218, on adark and
`
`rainy morning, whén a school bustravelling in the opposite direction displayed the “STOP”sign.
`
`The Plaintiff testified that he. immediately stopped and was. rear ended: by’the Defendant. The
`Plaintiffwas adamantthat he did not abruptly change lanesprior to stoppingfor the schoolbus.
`‘The Plaintiff testified that he had_a very limited understanding of Englisty and wasnot fluentin
`the: English language. The Plaintiff furthertestifiedthat theinvestigating officer did not speakto
`him. in Spanish andan interpreter was notutilized when hetried to tell thepolice what had
`
`|
`
`‘transpired.
`The Defendant, through counsel, contested liability andblamedthePlaintiffforthe crash
`- stating thatthe Deféndant would testify that the Plaintiffabruptly cutin front of him:andstopped.
`This is consistent.with what. the Defendanttold the investigating officer. The Defendant rélied
`heavily on the inconsistencies inthe Plaintiff's version ofeventsif thé. policereport. Specifically,
`the Plaintiffinitially states that he. is. traveling in the left lane when a-schoolbustraveling in.the.
`opposite direction displayedthe “STOP”sign.. However, the Defendanttold theofficer aboutthe
`Plaintiff's abruptlane changeand when theofficer questioned the Plaintiff, sometime lateF'the —
`Plaintiff respondedwith a one word answer of “maybe”.
`
`
`
`In light ofthe circumstances,the statements bythe parties in the police report; the actions:
`of theparties documentedby the policé, and thePlaintiff's explanation of howthecollision took.
`place,liabilityshouldbe foundin favor of the Plaifitiff by a fair preponderance of the evidence.
`Althoughthe Defendantargues‘thePlaintiff's statementsare inconsistent, thereis evidence that
`thé Plaintiff did not understand the investigatingofficer. The Defendant's deemed to be 100%
`at faultforthe collision.
`|
`
`I.
`
`CAUSATION:
`
`Additionally, the Plaintiff must prove that any injuries that he may have suffered were
`proximately caused by theDefendant's negligence. Winnv. Posades, 281 Conn, 50, 56(2007).
`ThePlaintiff must prove that hedid in fact-suffer an actual injury and that theinjury was caused
`
`
`
`_
`
`by the Defendant's negligence.
`In this case, the Plaintiff claimsinjuries to his cervical spine, ‘thoracic spine and post
`traumatic headaches. The Plaintiffpresented to Hartford OrthopedicMedicinefor an-assessrtient
`on November 29, 2021. He complained of neck and-backpain and-was prescribed muscle
`relaxers and anti-inflammatories. He underwentx-rays ofhiscervical and thoracicspinewhich
`
`werelargely unremarkabléand showednoacutefractures. Dr. Wei XuatHOM recoirimended a
`
`course ofchiropractic treatment.
`
`
`
`Between December1,2021 andFebruary 23, 2021 the Plaintiff underwent.22 chiropractic.
`treatment sessions. On February 23, 2021 the Plaintiff was experiencing occasional cervical
`pain, butwas managing his symptoms. He was discharged from chiropractic care.
`ThePlaintiffcontinued to follow up with Dr..Xufor his cervical and thoracic injury. On May
`25, 2022 heunderwent.afinal evaluation withDr. Xu. During thisvisit his physician references.
`aprior cervical injury. The Doctor referencesongoingpain management treatmentforthat prior
`cervical injury. DoctorXu performs an evaluation which reveals a cervical Spine ratige of motion
`thatislimited and a tharacie range of motion thatis “improved? All other orthopedic testing is
`negative. Dr. Xu diagnosed thePlaintiff with acervical Strain and sprain with ‘residual pain,
`thoracic sprain and strain (improving). and post traumatic headaches. (itnproving).. Dr. Xu opines
`that thePlaintiff hasreached MMI and statesthat his currentinjuries are causallyfelated to the
`motorvehicle collision onNovember22, 2021. Dr. Xudoesnotassign the Plaintiffwith a disability
`rating. Dr. Xuopined that thePlaititiffmay need additional treatment, but'there: is no évidence
`‘thePlaintiff has sought additional treatment since May of 2022.
`.
`
`The. Defendant has: not disclosed any experts contradicting the doctor’s opinionor
`
`contestingthat the treatment/bills were excessive. The.Defendantpointed.out atthe Arbitration
`thatthe Plaintiff was involved in a priorincident where the Plaintiffinjured his neck-and hada _
`
`numberofinjections.
`
`
`
`| In thiscase,the PlaintiffHasproved bya preponderanceofthe evidencethathe'suffered _
`anexacerbation injury tohiscervical spine,an injurytohis thoracic spine and post traumatic:
`headacheswhich is morelikely than notdirectly and proximately causedbythetraumatic events.
`of November22, 2021.
`:
`Finally,thé.Plaintiffallegesthat he-suffered both economic and noh-econontic damages.
`The: Plaintiff claims economic damiagés of Five Thousand Six, Hundred and Seventy-Séven
`Dollars ($5,677.00)in outstanding medical ‘treatmentto. Hartford Orthopedic Medicine, Shaw |
`Chiropractic, andMichaelYoo!, FurtherthePlaintiffallegeshe sufferednon-economicdamages
`ofpastand futurephysical painand sufferingand past and future emotional pain and suffering.
`|
`Areview’ofthe Plaintiffsmedicals: records: and in-conjunction withhis testimony reveals
`thatthePlaintiffclearlysifferadacatviealandthoracicinjury asa resultofthe-accident aridpost
`traumatic headaches. ThePlaintiffdid-notsuffer-any:pénvianentinjuriesbutstilloccasionally has
`some discomfort.ThePlaintiff testified thatprior to thecollision he'wasvery activeandused to-
`‘playbaseball, The Plaintiff claimsthatthe injuries havemadehim less activeandcaused him to:
`stopplaying baseball. The Plaintiff has proved bya. preponderanceofthe evidence:that. he’
`_ Sufferednon-economic damages forpastphysical-and emotionalpainandsuffering.
`
`
`
`Theréfore, the: judgement shall énter for the Plaintiff in the amount of$5,677.00in
`
`economic damages and $8,000 in non-economic damagesforatotal of$13,677.00.
`
` 73 Wadsworth Street
`
`Hartford,CT 06106.
`(860) 527--9973
` Juris#:436173
`
`12/30] 2024
`
`sear
`
`des
`
`Law Frey
`Lagan
`20 -Graceh
`Skreee
`Hered) CT DIO
`
`LLP
`Sage
`4
`Hallercan
`One Goodwin
`Lavuace
`Les Asylum Sheer
`Hath: Cr O03
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
