(855) 212-8200

Our Law Firm Case Results

choose the best

Personal Injury Case Results That Speak for Themselves

When clients want to seek true justice for their wrongs, they choose the tough, trial-tested attorneys of Breit Biniazan. Our lawyers have tackled personal injury cases against huge corporations and single individuals alike, pursuing legal justice for all. Our legal experts have extensive experience securing high-dollar recoveries and verdicts for victims and their families.

View our case results below to see why clients choose the personal injury attorneys at Breit Biniazan for professional, reliable legal assistance.

Product Liability

$1 Billion

Sexual Abuse

$360 Million

Car Accidents

$60 Million

Class Action

$38.2 Million

Medical Malpractice

$35.6 Million

Product Liability

$29 Million

Maritime Accident

$23 Million

Maritime Accident

$23 Million

The plaintiff suffered burn injuries that resulted from a flash fire while he was cleaning an engine with the use of a flammable brake-part cleaner. The flash fire caused the plaintiff’s coveralls to, which were flammable, to ignite. Defendant asserted plaintiff’s knowledge of a prior similar flash fire evidenced his personal responsibility for the incident and his injuries.
Plaintiff asserted the management and operation of the vessel was negligent, and that the defendant’s actions resulted in the improper use of materials, including flammable suits and products, that resulted in the fire incident that caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant asserted Plaintiff elected to disregard instructions provided to him weeks before the subject incident by supervisors and crew members that he should not use the flammable materials that he was using at the time of the incident.
Plaintiff asserted that he never received warnings or instructions not to use the brake-parts cleaner to perform his work. Defendants asserted three different witnesses warned or instructed plaintiff in this way. Plaintiffs, through the course of depositions, aimed to demonstrate that neither of the three witnesses, in fact, gave any such warning or instruction as one individual was not on the job at the time of the alleged warning, the other made a written statement contrary to any such warning being given, and the third testified inconsistently as to the time and location of any warning that was provided to Plaintiff. Plaintiff also discovered that defendant, through the course of the project, manipulated or forged safety meeting sign-in sheets to erroneously portray compliance with safety standards.
At the outset of litigation, defendant contended plaintiff’s action of spraying the flammable brake-parts cleaner on a hot engine was the cause of the flash fire that resulted in his injuries. Defendant asserted that Plaintiff not only used a dangerous, flammable product to perform his work, but also did so in haste and without waiting the appropriate time for the engine to cool before performing his work. This became a topic of expert opinion after Plaintiff retained a chemical engineer who opined that the chemical components of the brake-part cleaner had a temperature flash-point that exceeded the expected surface temperature of the engine and that, instead, the cause of the flash fire was the use of that product within the confined space that plaintiff was instructed to work. Thus, Plaintiff contended, the root-cause of the flash-fire was defendant’s election to supply the crew with the highly flammable product without instruction or warning regarding the use of the product in confined spaces, and asserted that an equally effective and non-flammable alternative was available for purchase, had been purchased by the defendant in the past, and should have been purchased for this crew.
The legal claims brought by Plaintiff included claims of unseaworthiness of the vessel and its equipment, and general negligence under the Jones Act.

Premises Liability

$20 Million

Car Accidents

$20 Million

Motorcycle Accident

$15.0 M

Wrongful Death

$15 Million

Product Liability

$14 Million

Medical Malpractice

$12 Million

Birth Injury

$11.5 Million

Brain Injury, Car Accidents, Wrongful Death

$11 Million

Premises Liability

$10.75 Million

Catastrophic Injury

$10.5 Million

Legal Malpractice

$8 Million

Car Accidents

$7.5 Million

Motor Vehicle Accident

$6.5 Million

Product Liability

$6.4 Million

Medical Malpractice

$6.4 Million

Wrongful Death

$6 Million

Wrongful Death/Motor Vehicle Accident

$5.0 M

Wrongful Death

$4.7 Million

Personal Injury

$4.7 Million

Motor Vehicle Accident

$4.5 Million

Sexual Assault

$4.5 Million

Medical Malpractice

$4.2 Million

Product Liability

$4.1 Million

Failure to Diagnose

$3.9 M Confidential

Medical Malpractice

$3.65 Million

Product Liability

$3.5 Million

$3 Million

Medical Malpractice

$3 Million

Medical Malpractice

$2.75 Million

Product Liability

$2.6 Million

Maritime Accident

$2.4 Million

Premises Liability

$2.195 Million

Medical Malpractice

$2.15 Million

Wrongful Death

$2 Million

Product Liability

$2 Million

Medical Malpractice

$2 Million

Medical Malpractice

$2 Million

Medical Malpractice

$2 Million

Premises Liability

$2 Million

Medical Malpractice

$2 Million

Failure to Diagnose

$2.0 M Confidential

Wrongful Death

$1.95 Million

Brain Injury

$1.95 Million

Plaintiff, a 53 year old man, had previously suffered an odontoid fracture in 2001 which required a spinal fusion from C1 to C5. He had done well and was employed as a supervisor for 30 years. When he developed some difficulty walking with secondary bilateral leg weakness, he was admitted into the hospital by his neurosurgeon for a re-do occiput to C5 instrumentation and fusion.

The anesthesia pre-procedure consult noted specific concerns for anesthesia including severely limited neck motion due to cervical traction in neutral position and a limited mouth opening. A subsequent pre-procedure consult note indicated a more normal assessment. Given the plaintiff’s presentation to the hospital, his symptoms, the requirement of cervical traction to ameliorate those symptoms and his past surgical history, plaintiff’s experts were of the opinion that the first evaluation was more accurate and the plaintiff needed a fiberoptic intubation.

Prior to the commencement of the surgery, the anesthesia providers provided some sedation while the monitor and oxygen were applied. A transtracheal block was performed. Two minutes later, the plaintiff was induced with Lidocaine and Propofol. The combination of these drugs can cause a patient to become apneic which can normally be cared for.

The records noted that the plaintiff’s mask ventilation was difficult and that he had a period of apnea following ventilation within minutes. Two oral attempts were then made with a fiberoptic bronchoscope, but were unsuccessful. It was noted that the plaintiff remained spontaneously breathing, but required pressure support via mask between attempts.

Despite these noted difficulties, it was next decided to administer Rocuronium to assist with the ventilation/intubation. Rocuronium is an intermediate-acting muscle relaxant, which is not reversible for at least 20 to 30 minutes. Essentially, the plaintiff was paralyzed at this point and could no longer breathe for himself. The anesthesia providers no longer had the option of being able to immediately awaken their patient. A third attempt at fiberoptic intubation was unsuccessful. The plaintiff then became difficult and then, impossible to mask ventilate with two providers and an oral airway. The next maneuver attempted was a direct laryngoscopy, but failed.

An attempt at supraglottic airway was made, but failed as well. The plaintiff was now bradycardic while still maintaining a blood pressure. An angiocatheter was placed through the neck into his trachea and oxygen was insufflated through the catheter. This helped for a short period of time, but became clotted and no further oxygenation was possible. At this time, the anesthesia providers decided to place a tracheostomy. An incision was made in the plaintiff’s neck and dissected down to the trachea.

Unfortunately, multiple attempts made to place the tracheostomy were unsuccessful. An ENT physician then entered the operating room to further assist. The plaintiff became more bradycardic and eventually, no palpable pulses were felt. CPR commenced and he received approximately 4 minutes of chest compressions. The plaintiff was finally intubated via direct laryngoscopy while the ENT was working on the tracheotomy. Immediately after the patient was successfully intubated, his oxygen saturations returned to more normal levels. Shortly thereafter, the providers were able to re-establish a cardiac rhythm and blood pressure. The neurosurgeon deemed that his patient was grossly unstable from a pulmonary and cardiovascular standpoint the planned neurosurgical procedure was aborted.

Despite various medical interventions that followed, the plaintiff remained neurologically devastated and did not have any spontaneous movement or response to painful stimuli. An EEG was performed and noted a pattern typically seen following anoxic injury after cardiac arrest, suggestive of a poor prognosis. Plaintiff’s brain imaging was indicative of a global hypoxic-ischemic injury. He was taken for a tracheostomy and PEG tube placement. Plaintiff’s experts were of the opinion that the induction of anesthesia and intubation sequence did not meet the standard of care directly resulting in the plaintiff’s permanent injuries.

After more than a month in the hospital, the plaintiff was discharged to a long-term care facility where he remains today. Although he has been weaned from the ventilator, the plaintiff remains unable to care for himself independently, unable to walk and unable to communicate verbally. He is currently being cared for by his parents and 5 siblings who all live locally. At the time of settlement, less than two years after the date of injury, the plaintiff’s incurred medical bills totaled almost one million dollars.

Type of action: Medical malpractice case involving permanent anoxic brain injury requiring a lifetime of care
Injuries alleged: Permanent anoxic brain injury
Court: Settlement
Verdict or settlement: Settlement (pre-suit)
Amount: $1,950,000.00
Amount of specials: $1,000,000.00
Date of settlement: November 2015

Maritime Accident

$1.9 Million

Car Accidents

$1.8 Million

Personal Injury

$1.75 Million

Brain Injury

$1.75 Million

Truck Accidents

$1.75 Million

Medical Malpractice

$1.7 Million

Personal Injury

$1.67 Million

Product Liability

$1.6 Million

Motorcycle Accident

$1.6 M

Medical Malpractice

$1.55 Million

Medical Malpractice

$1.5 Million

Premises Liability

$1.5 Million

Maritime Accident

$1.45 Million

Medical Malpractice

$1.45 Million

Brain Injury

$1.45 Million

Truck Accidents

$1.44 Million

Car Accidents

$1.4 Million

Personal Injury

$1.4 Million

Wrongful Death

$1.4 Million

Wrongful Death

$1.4 Million

The lawsuit arose after the plaintiff’s decedent, Kevin Finck, was electrocuted on April 22, 2019 on a job site in Accomack, Virginia. Mr. Finck was walking with a hoist cable connected to a digger derrick within a few feet of an energized overhead high voltage powerline owned and maintained by A&N Electric Cooperative. The hoist cable made contact with the overhead high voltage power line causing severe injuries to Mr. Finck that ultimately led to his death.

Mr. Finck was employed by Dietzel Enterprises, which was a subcontractor to Allstate Tower, Inc. Allstate Tower contracted to perform maintenance on a communications tower for Accomack County, which was the nature of the work being performed at the time of Mr. Finck’s electrocution.

Plaintiff brought suit against Dietzel Enterprises, Allstate Tower, Inc., A&N Electric Cooperative, and Morris & Ritchie Associates (MRA) who was retained by Accomack County to provide engineering services related to the work that was ultimately contracted to Allstate Tower.

Defendants Dietzel Enterprises and Allstate Tower, Inc. filed pleas in bar to dismiss the suit asserting the exclusive jurisdiction of Virginia’s Workers Compensation Act as a bar to tort recovery. The parties held a bench trial on the issue where evidence was presented along with arguments. The Court granted the plea in bar filed by Dietzel Enterprises, but denied Allstate Tower’s plea in bar.

The action was set for trial in May 2023. Prior to trial, the remaining defendants filed motions for summary judgment that included, in part, arguments that Virginia’s Overhead High Voltage Line Safety Act (Va. Code Section 58.1-406 et. Seq) barred the recovery of Plaintiff because he was performing work within 10 feet of an energized overhead high voltage power line without statutory notice on the owner operator and absence of a duty owed by MRA. Motions for summary judgment were granted, denied, and taken under advisement in part. The case proceeded towards trial against Allstate Tower, A&N Electric, and MRA.

Plaintiff reached a pre-trial settlement with Defendant Allstate Tower for $425,000.00.

Trial commenced against Defendants A&N Electric and MRA. After arguments and rulings on jury instructions, Plaintiff and Defendant A&N Electric settled for $800,000.00. The case proceeded to closing arguments between Plaintiff and MRA. The jury returned a verdict in favor of MRA after deliberation. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal following the entry of judgment. Plaintiff and MRA settled prior to briefing before the Court of Appeals for $150,000.00.

Wrongful Death

$1.35 Million

Maritime Accident

$1.33 Million

Motorcycle Accident

$1.3 M

Medical Malpractice

$1.3 Million

Wrongful Death

$1.275 Million

Bicycle Accident

$1.275 Million

Sexual Assault

$1.25 Million

Personal Injury

$1.25 Million

Medical Malpractice

$1.25 Million

Medical Malpractice

$1.2 Million

Medical Malpractice

$1.2 Million

Motor Vehicle Accident

$1.2 Million

Personal Injury

$1.2 Million

Personal Injury

$1.2 Million

On October 9, 2018 Defendant Wei Ting Zeng (“Zeng”) rear ended Plaintiff’s vehicle in Portsmouth, Virginia at the mouth of the downtown tunnel heading towards Norfolk, Virginia. Police were not called to the scene. No police report was created to document the crash. Plaintiff did not seek immediate treatment after the collision, but instead drove home.

At the time of the collision, Plaintiff was being following by a pain management doctor for chronic pain in his lower back, bilateral knees, and right shoulder for nearly a decade. On October 11, 2018, two days after the crash, Plaintiff presented to his pain management doctor for a pre-scheduled appointment. At this visit, the Plaintiff reported a new onset of neck pain since the collision. Approximately a week later, the Plaintiff presented to Portsmouth Naval Medical Center for further evaluation of his neck pain. Plaintiff’s next medical appointment was with his primary care doctor on December 11, 2019 (two months after the collision). There, the Plaintiff complained of persistent neck pain and radiculopathy into his left ring and pinky fingers. Plaintiff was referred to a neurosurgeon (Dr. Shutack) who ultimately referred Plaintiff for an ulnar decompression performed by Dr. McGuigan. Dr. Shutack also performed an anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Dr. McGuigan and Dr. Shutack related their treatment to the motor vehicle collision. Dr. Shutack projected the Plaintiff would require a future posterior fusion in his cervical spine.

At the time of the collision, Plaintiff’s truck was equipped with a dash camera that recorded the collision. Plaintiff viewed the recording after returning home on the date of the collision and, while attempting to save the recording to the cloud, accidentally and mistakenly deleted the recording. The Defendant’s filed a motion for sanctions against the Plaintiff for spoliation. The Plaintiff filed a competing motion in limine seeking to prohibit the Defendants, and their counsel, from mentioning, eliciting testimony, or presenting evidence of the deletion of video footage from the recording system. The Court denied the Defendant’s motion for sanctions and granted Plaintiff’s motion in limine.

The parties engaged in an in-person mediation with the Hon. Thomas B. Hoover on September 7, 2021. The parties did not reach a settlement on the day of mediation. The Hon. Thomas B. Hoover continued to engage with the parties to find a resolution after the failed in-person mediation. The parties reached a settlement within three weeks of their trial date.

Premises Liability

$1.2 Million

Motor Vehicle Accident, Wrongful Death

$1.2 Million

Motor Vehicle Accident, Wrongful Death

$1.2 Million

Deams Leach, III was a passenger in a taxi-cab with mental and physical disabilities who passed away as a result of an internal decapitation during a collision between the taxi-cab and another vehicle. Deams, aged 66, was legally blind, nonverbal, unmarried, and had no children. Suit was filed on behalf of his living sisters against the cab driver, the cab companies, and the driver of another vehicle involved in the collision. Plaintiff resolved the claims against the intervening vehicle driver and insurance carriers prior to trial. Plaintiff proceeded to trial on theories of negligence against the taxi-driver, vicarious liability of the taxi-cab companies, and negligent hiring and retention against the taxi-cab companies.

Plaintiff filed and prevailed on motions in limine to exclude argument and evidence pertaining to the negligence of the driver who resolved their case pre-trial. During the trial, Defendants disputed both liability and damages. Plaintiff presented witnesses demonstrating that the taxicab driver was speeding and driving recklessly in the moments before the collision. Plaintiff also presented evidence through corporate representative and party depositions of the defendants demonstrating prior reckless driving infractions of the taxi-cab driver and the prior knowledge of the infractions on behalf of the cab companies. Defendants called the owner of the taxi companies to refute prior knowledge of the driver’s reckless driving history, but elected not to call the defendant driver to the witness stand. Defendants ultimately argued that the driver was an independent contractor, not an employee. Plaintiff countered by presenting evidence showing the driver was an agent or employee pursuant to a relationship the cab companies had with a third-party entity for the transportation of Deams’ and other disabled adults.

All Defendants contested the extent of damages, asserting that Deams’ lack of speech, work, marriage, and children meant there were no economic losses. Plaintiff presented testimony from Deams’ sisters who were his beneficiaries. Deams’ eldest sister visited him frequently (weekly or monthly) and served as his legal guardian for approximately a decade before his passing. Before that time, Deams’ sisters were not as actively involved in his life following the passing of their parents. Plaintiffs presented evidence highlighting the renewed relationship between the family and Deams in recent years with the exception of Deams’ half-sister who had not met Deams. Deams’ half-sister described how their families were estranged and she had no knowledge of Deams’ or her half-sisters until recent years and regrets having not met Deams before his passing. Plaintiff did not introduce medical bills from his multi-night stay in the emergency department or any funeral expenses. Plaintiff did not request any compensatory award for economic losses and limited evidence and argument to non-economic losses.

After deliberating for 2.5 hours, the jury returned a verdict of $1,200,000 in favor of the Plaintiff. The jury found the driver negligent in operating the taxi-cab, held the taxi companies vicariously liable for his negligence, and found them liable for negligently hiring and retaining the driver.

Sexual Assault

$1.125 Million

Dram Ship Case

$1.075 M

Car Accidents

$1 Million

Birth Injury

$1 Million

Medical Malpractice

$1 Million

Wrongful Death

$1 Million

Truck Accident

$950,000 Confidential

Personal Injury

$950,000

Personal Injury

$950,000

On June 27, 2018, the Plaintiff riding his bicycle on a shared-use path eastbound along Dam Neck Road approaching London Bridge Road in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia where he attempted to cross the roadway in a marked crosswalk and was struck by a vehicle operated by Defendant Brittain. Plaintiff admitted to not stopping before entering the crosswalk and that he recognized entering the crosswalk was a hazardous and dangerous situation. Plaintiff testified he was looking for oncoming traffic to his left but that overgrown vegetation on the side of the shared-use path obstructed his view of oncoming traffic until he was in the crosswalk. The Plaintiff was transported to Sentara Virginia Beach General Hospital, where he was treated for his injuries including grade 2 open left distal tibia and fibula intra-articular. Plaintiff underwent an external fixation of his left lower extremity followed by an open reduction internal fixation of the same extremity. Plaintiff’s wound developed an infection that required a debridement. Later, Plaintiff experienced a non-union of his left lower extremity resulting in a hardware removal and replacement operation. Plaintiff’s experts did not project future surgery or related medical treatment and opined that he had a remarkable recovery in light of the severity of his injury.

The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant Brittain failed to keep her vehicle under proper control, failed to yield to a cyclist in a crosswalk, and failed to keep a proper lookout. Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendant Brittain early in the matter wherein she testified that the overgrown vegetation adjacent to the roadway blocked her view of Plaintiff before he entered the crosswalk and blocked her view of a yield sign. Plaintiff and Defendant Brittain agreed to a settlement and covenant not to sue for her policy limits of $50,000, and dismissed her from the action. Plaintiff then resolved his claim against his UIM carrier for an additional $50,000.

Plaintiff’s action continued against the City of Virginia Beach under theories of negligent maintenance of the shared-use path and adjacent vegetation obstructing Plaintiff’s sight line of Defendant Brittain’s oncoming vehicle. Plaintiff retained Christian Englemann, a civil and traffic engineer, to inspect the subject intersection and crosswalk to provide opinions regarding the industry standards in roadway design and maintenance of sight lines to provide motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians adequate sight lines of others on the roadway. Mr. Englemann opined that the maintenance of the subject intersection resulted in a grossly deficient sight distance for bicyclists entering the crosswalk and, as a result, the crosswalk wherein Plaintiff was struck was an unreasonably dangerous condition on the roadway. Joel Koci, an ISA certified arborist, inspected the vegetation adjacent to the roadway and shared-use path leading up to the crosswalk and opined that that vegetation was negligently maintained. Koci opined that the vegetation at issue was in a substantially similar condition for months if not years providing adequate notice to the City of the sight line obstruction. Koci further opined that the vegetation at issue sprout in the spring around March or April thus, at a minimum, the City was on notice of the dangerous condition created by a sight line obstruction several months before the subject incident occurred in June. Matthew Dwyer performed a scan of the subject intersection to provide accurate measurements to Englemann to appropriately calculate sight lines and stopping distances.

The City of Virginia Beach admitted to being responsible for the maintenance at the subject intersection and to owning the property where the subject vegetation was located. The City denied any negligence and asserted it properly maintained the vegetation because it did not intrude onto the roadway or onto the shared-use path. The Plaintiff deposed City inspectors who testified they inspected the subject location yearly in the years leading up to the incident but that a transition in the department meant that no inspection was performed the year of the subject incident.

The City retained Stephen Chewning who opined that, had the Plaintiff stopped, the subject motor vehicle collision would not have occurred. Chewning further opined that the Plaintiff and Defendant Brittain had ample sight distance to see, react, and respond to each other had they been paying proper attention based upon the Virginia Code’s table of vehicle speeds and stopping distances.

Plaintiff and the City of Virginia Beach settled for $950,000 weeks before trial. At the time of settlement, Plaintiff had filed a motion to limit the testimony of Chewning at trial and exclude him entirely asserting his opinions were not based in fact.

Brain Injury

$851,000

Car Accidents

$770,000

Car Accidents

$700,000

Bicycle Accident

$700,000

Premises Liability

$612,000

Personal Injury

$550,000

Premises Liability

$500,000 Confidential

Sexual Assault

$415,000 Confidential

Sexual Assault

$300,000

Personal Injury

$300,000

Car Accidents

$250,000

Premise Liability

$200,000 Confidential

Car Accidents

$135,000

Legal Malpractice

Car Accidents

Medical Malpractice

Wrongful Death

Medical Malpractice

Pharmaceutical Errors

Medical Malpractice

Car Accidents

Medical Malpractice

THE STATE BAR RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT REQUIRE ALL ATTORNEYS TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT AND DISCLAIMER TO THEIR CASE RESULTS:

SETTLEMENTS AND VERDICTS IN ALL CASES DEPEND ON VARIOUS FACTORS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. THEREFORE, PAST RESULTS IN CASES ARE NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION OF SIMILAR RESULTS IN FUTURE CASES.

We Are Personal Injury Attorneys

Fill out our contact form to speak to our experienced personal injury attorneys and get the justice and recovery you deserve.

se habla Español

(855) 212-8200

Contact Us

Virginia Beach
600 22nd Street
Suite 402
Virginia Beach, VA 23451
(757) 992-8462

Richmond
2100 East Cary Street
Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23223
(804) 351-9040

Arlington
1010 North Glebe Road
Suite 310
Arlington, VA 22201
(703) 291-6666

Phoenix
1 E Washington Street
Suite 1130
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602) 491-9010

Washington DC
700 12th Street NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 800-3588

Portsmouth
355 Crawford St
Suite 704
Portsmouth, VA 23704
(757) 673-0001

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

Sitemap