MAKARENKO SECURES FAVORABLE VERDICT FOR DEFENSE IN HENRY COUNTY CASE

October 14, 2017 –The Defendant, who was working at the time, fell asleep at the wheel, and after striking the Plaintiff’s truck, the vehicle flipped several times.  The Plaintiff, who was a front seat passenger, claimed injuries to his neck and back. Ultimately Plaintiff underwent surgery to his back, accruing past medical expenses in excess of $324,000.  The Plaintiff’s employer, family members and treating physician testified that his injuries were due to this car accident.  Specifically, Dr. Armin Oskouei testified that the Plaintiff’s herniated disc in his low back was due to this car accident, and that he had performed surgery to correct the problem.  Defense counsel, Nik Makarenko, Jr., retained a physician to review the Plaintiff’s scan, who ultimately testified that the surgery was not due to the car wreck.   Following 6 hours of deliberations to consider the Plaintiff’s request to award past medical expenses, and an additional $400,000 in pain and suffering damages against the Defendants, a Henry County jury secured a verdict in the amount of $123,000.  The verdict represented medical expenses prior to the treatment with Dr. Oskouei and some amount for pain and suffering.

Partner Nik Makarenko secures favorable verdict in Gwinnett County

July 2017 – Attorney Nik Makarenko was successful in defeating a Plaintiff’s claims that her neck and back surgeries were due to a car accident with his client.  Requesting that the the jury award her between  $2.4 to $3.8 million dollars for her damages, the Plaintiff presented 7 before and after witnesses, including family members, co-workers, and friends.   She testified to and presented two doctors, Dr. Pollydore and Dr. Chappius via video deposition, relating her injuries to the accident.  Dr. Chappius performed surgery to her neck, and thereafter performed surgery on her back.  The Plaintiff presented past medical bills of approximately $243,000.  Attorney Makarenko argued that the need for surgery was not due to this wreck, having a doctor testify on behalf of the Defendant.  The Gwinnett County jury deliberated about 5.5 hours before returning a verdict of $30,750.

DESPITE TESTIMONY OF DOCTOR, JURY DELIVERS EXCELLENT VERDICT

September 2017- In an admitted liability case, in which the Plaintiffs sought to recover past medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering damages from a Gwinnett County jury, attorney Nik Makarenko, Jr., was able to obtain a Judgment against his client that was less than the pre-trial settlement offers. Producing their treating physician live to trial, who related all of their injuries and treatment to this car wreck, the Plaintiffs requested in excess of $206,000 and $95,000 from the jury.  The jury deliberated for about 2.5 hours before returning verdicts in the amounts of $16,100 and $10,800.    

 

Lowry v. Cochran

Lowry v. Cochran, 305 Ga.App. 240, 699 S.E.2d 325 (2010):

Although the Georgia Court of Appeals declined to find that skydiving was an inherently dangerous activity in this matter of first impression in Georgia, because the skydiver was unable to present evidence that the injuries he sustained resulted from colliding with a spectator rather than his inevitable impact with the ground during a crash landing after his parachute malfunctioned, the spectator was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the skydiver’s personal injury suit against her.

Assigned attorneys: Paul L. Groth, Esq. & Laura Danielle Johnson, Esq.

Stoddard v. Greenberg

Ga. App. A12A0182 (April 25, 2012)
The case involved a three-vehicle motor vehicle accident.

O’Hara v. Gilmore

O’Hara v. Gilmore, Ga. App. A11A0075 (July 7, 2011):

The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff’s failure to perfect service of process upon the defendant driver within the statute of limitations, and the resulting dismissal of the plaintiff’s Complaint against her for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant driver, precluded maintaining a claim against the defendant parents of the driver under the Family Purpose Doctrine because liability of the parents would be derivative of the liability of the driver. Since a valid judgment could not be entered against the driver, a valid judgment holding the parents vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver cannot be entered as a matter of law.

Assigned attorneys: Nikolai Makarenko, Jr., Esq. & Laura Danielle Johnson, Esq.