The Fresno office of a national civil litigation law firm is taking a victory lap after successfully defending a client against a potential $4 million jury decision.

Tyson & Mendes represented defendant Sarah Bilvado in Tulare County Superior Court in the case Lopez v. Bilvado in what the law firm called a “high-stakes auto liability lawsuit.

According to Michael E. Lehman, lead attorney for the defense and a partner in the Fresno office of Tyson & Mendes, the lawsuit resulted from an auto accident that occurred in July 2017 in Tulare.

The firm’s client ran a stop sign and struck a vehicle belonging to plaintiff. At that time, the plaintiff was 17, according to a news release from Tyson & Mendes, and had suffered a concussion playing soccer in December 2016 and claimed she suffered another concussion as a result of the collision.

“She was referred to a neuropsychologist and diagnosed with a mild neurocognitive disorder,” said Lehman in the release. “Although she did not seek treatment related to the subject accident, except for one physical therapy visit in February 2018, she sued our client for $4 million based upon a life care plan set forth by their experts, a loss of earning capacity for life, and both past and future pain and suffering.” 

According to Lehman, despite being diagnosed with neurocognitive problems, the plaintiff continued to work full time and did not attend most of the trial.

The defense team admitted liability on behalf of their client but was able to secure a “defense verdict.” They initially offered a figure of $40,000 even while the jury was being selected.

“We never changed the number and carefully described why we gave these numbers — using themes of common sense to explain why the plaintiff’s arguments were not based upon reasonable or factual information, including arguing future pain and suffering,” Lehman said. “Additionally, our client was present in the courtroom for the entire trial, which demonstrated for the jury that she cared about the lawsuit and was invested in the outcome.”

According to Lehman, no one explained why the plaintiff didn’t receive medical care during the six years from the time of the accident until trial.

“We also asked the jury to consider why the plaintiff went to her doctors for treatment of other problems but never mentioned the accident-related complaints during that same period. These were just a few of numerous things that the plaintiff could not explain away. Ultimately, we argued that common sense should dictate the results,” he said.

The defense asked the jury to award the plaintiff $40,000 for past pain and suffering and future medical treatment, said Lehman. After 4 1/2 hours of deliberation, the jury brought back a verdict of $44,000.