A rear-end collision might seem routine, but when it causes a brain bleed, life changes in an instant. The hidden symptoms of a subdural hematoma, confusion, chronic pain, and emotional volatility—can destroy a person’s daily life, even if they aren’t visible to the outside world.
Many victims mistakenly believe that if their symptoms eventually improve, their case loses its value. Insurance companies prey on this misconception, arguing: “You are healed now, so we don’t owe you much for your past suffering.”
This case study proves that theory wrong. Even though experts agreed our client’s symptoms had mostly resolved, Kohan & Bablove refused to back down. We fought for the hell our client endured, securing a massive $3,250,000 brain bleed settlement right before trial and proving that past suffering demands full compensation.
The Challenge: Managing a Crisis and Overcoming Expert Opinions
Following the crash, our client faced two monumental battles. The first was the personal chaos and intense suffering caused by his injury. The second was a critical legal obstacle that emerged from the expert medical opinions—an obstacle that threatened to devalue his entire claim and prevent a substantial brain bleed settlement.
The Crash and the Chaos: Rear-End Impact Leading to Brain Bleed
The incident began as a seemingly ordinary rear-end collision, but the consequences were catastrophic. The impact was severe enough to cause a subdural hematoma, a dangerous brain bleed that unleashed a plethora of debilitating symptoms. This traumatic brain injury plunged our client’s life into disarray, marked by confusion, memory issues, and extreme emotional volatility.
Managing his recovery became a full-time job. Navigating a complex web of doctors, specialists, and therapists was overwhelming. The intense physical pain was matched by a daily battle with his own emotions, straining his relationships and his ability to function. The life he knew before the crash was gone, replaced by a constant struggle to manage his health and hold his life together.
The Major Legal Obstacle: “Medical Resolution”
The most significant challenge, however, arose during the discovery phase of the litigation. In a rare and difficult turn of events, both the defense’s medical expert and our own primary expert agreed that the majority of our client’s symptoms had “resolved” over time. The defense seized on this expert witness testimony, arguing that his recovery minimized his right to significant pain and suffering damages.
This is often a death blow to a high-value case. Insurance companies use this type of “resolution” to argue that any past suffering is minor and that future damages are nonexistent. They believed this expert agreement gave them the perfect leverage to push for a lowball offer, confident that a jury would not award a large sum to someone who was now “better.” This put the entire potential for a fair brain bleed settlement at extreme risk.
The Strategy: Aggressive Litigation and Expert Testimony
Faced with a defense strategy that aimed to minimize our client’s suffering, Kohan & Bablove launched an aggressive counter-offensive. We refused to let the “medical resolution” argument define the case. Our strategy was to shift the focus from our client’s current condition to the immense trauma he endured, proving that his past pain and suffering had a significant, compensable value.
Hiring a “Ton of Experts” to Validate the Trauma
We did not let the primary expert opinions deter us. Instead, we bolstered our case by hiring a team of supplemental experts to provide critical expert witness testimony. These specialists focused on the hell our client went through during the acute and recovery phases of his traumatic brain injury. They created a vivid picture for the defense, detailing the terror of a brain bleed, the daily struggles with pain, and the emotional chaos he experienced.
Our argument was simple and powerful: “Getting better” does not erase the trauma. The period of intense suffering has its own immense value. This strategy allowed us to build a compelling case for massive pain and suffering damages, completely independent of his eventual recovery.
Double Mediation and the Threat of Trial
The negotiation process was extremely difficult. The defense was dug in, clinging to their argument that a “resolved” injury meant a small settlement. We attended an initial mediation, but the offers were unacceptable. Unwilling to compromise our client’s future, we walked away and scheduled a second, more aggressive mediation.
Our leverage was clear: we were not afraid of a jury. We made it clear to the defense that we were fully prepared to present the story of this horrific rear-end collision and its consequences at trial. The risk of a jury hearing about a subdural hematoma and awarding a runaway verdict was a threat they could not ignore. This relentless pressure and credible threat of trial forced them to completely re-evaluate their position, paving the way for a fair brain bleed settlement.
The Outcome: A Life-Changing Settlement
Our relentless strategy of aggressive mediation and unwavering trial preparation culminated in a remarkable victory for our client. By refusing to accept the defense’s narrative that “resolved” symptoms meant a resolved case, we forced them to confront the true human cost of the rear-end collision. This outcome wasn’t just a number; it was validation for a year of silent suffering.
$3,250,000 Secured on the Eve of Trial
On the very eve of trial, with a jury waiting in the wings, the defense finally buckled under the immense pressure. They agreed to a massive $3,250,000 brain bleed settlement to avoid facing our compelling case in court.
This result is exceptional, especially considering both sides’ medical experts agreed the client’s symptoms had largely resolved. It stands as a powerful testament to the ability of Kohan & Bablove to successfully argue for the immense value of pain and suffering damages. We proved that the terror, confusion, and agony endured during the recovery from a subdural hematoma have a value that cannot be erased simply because a patient gets better.
Client Appreciation and Emotional Closure
For our client, the settlement was far more than just financial compensation; it was emotional closure. He was incredibly appreciative that our firm not only managed his complex legal battle but also provided a source of stability during the most chaotic and emotionally draining time of his life.
The $3.25 million settlement served as powerful validation for the invisible battle he fought every single day following the traumatic brain injury. It acknowledged that his pain was real, his struggle was significant, and that what he went through mattered. Kohan & Bablove was proud to deliver the financial security and emotional justice he so deeply deserved, allowing him to finally close this painful chapter and move forward.
Conclusion
Do not let an insurance adjuster tell you that your case has no value simply because you are “healed.” A brain bleed from a rear-end collision is a catastrophic event, and the recovery process involves immense pain, fear, and disruption. At Kohan & Bablove Injury Attorneys, we believe that “getting better” doesn’t erase the suffering you endured. We build our cases to prove the full value of your experience, ensuring the past trauma is not ignored.
Have you suffered a traumatic head injury or brain bleed in an accident? Even if your symptoms are improving, you are owed significant compensation for what you went through. Contact Kohan & Bablove today for a free consultation. We specialize in turning complex medical facts into compelling legal arguments, pushing for the most money possible, every time.
Kohan & Bablove Injury Attorneys was founded by three former defense attorneys who were tired of helping insurance companies and big corporations save money by paying the least amount possible to resolve claims. We wanted to open a law firm where we could use our years of experience handling the toughest and largest claims to benefit the individual. Each of us were tired of being cogs in the wheel that focused on paying the least amount possible to injured persons regardless of injuries or the validity of their claims.
