In the world of business litigation, some judicial decisions are groundbreaking. Others are not, but still kind of amusing. The Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Weinhoffer v. Davie Shoring, Inc. falls into this second category.

At times, severe pain suffered after an injury may seem out of proportion to the injury itself or underlying diagnosis. When this occurs in litigation, defense lawyers will usually claim that the victim is simply making up the pain to inflate his/her claim. But a serious underlying condition is the possible culprit. RSD (reflex sympathetic dystrophy) and CRPS (complex regional pain syndrome) are synonymous terms for a rare, often undiagnosed, condition that physicians have been reporting on since around 1865. About 200,000 individuals a year experience this condition in the United States. CRPS/RSD can be the result of a serious injury but in many cases, CRPS results from a relatively minor injury. The diagnosis is often made when the pain experienced is disproportionate to the level of injury.

Getting a driver’s license is an American rite of passage for teenagers. Unfortunately, teenage drivers are far more likely to have accidents than more experienced drivers. Drivers 16-19 are three times more likely to be involved in a fatal car crash than drivers over twenty. Even more common among teenagers are accidents resulting in non-fatal injuries. The 16-19 age range is also far more likely to live at home and use a parent-owned car.

The American Tort Reform Foundation– a lobbying organization representing insurance carriers, chemical manufacturers, tobacco companies, and other large industry interests -- just released its annual “Judicial Hellholes” report for 2021-2022. For Georgia litigants, the results are either great or terrible, depending on your vantage point. From the perspective of the ATRF, any verdict awarding pain and suffering to an injured plaintiff is a tragedy. ATRF’s efforts, along with other similar groups, have marketed “tort reform” as a good thing for the U.S. despite its robbing plaintiffs who were harmed of just compensation[1].