What can I learn from these personal injury case results?
Start with a case that resembles your circumstances,
then look beyond the amount. What injury is described?
Was fault disputed? Did the claim involve surgery,
lost income or ongoing treatment? Where the records
provide those details, the stories explain them.
For example, the intersection collision involving lumbar surgery included disputed wage loss, while the lane-drift truck collision involved crash footage and allegations of fault.
Those differences are more useful than comparing
two figures in isolation.
Are these average settlement amounts for Florida
injury cases?
No. These are selected outcomes from individual
matters handled by Todd Miner Law, not a statistical
study of Florida claims or a representative sample
of every case the firm handles. A similar crash
description, diagnosis or procedure does not establish
a similar recovery. Use the stories to understand
the firm’s experience and the issues that arose in
particular matters, not to calculate the value
of your own case.
Do the amounts show what each client received
after fees and expenses?
No. The listed settlement and verdict amounts are
not identified as the clients’ net recoveries.
They should not be read as take-home amounts after
attorney’s fees, case expenses or other applicable
deductions. If you are discussing a potential
settlement in your own matter, ask for a clear
explanation of the proposed amount, any deductions
and the estimated amount you would receive.
The figures on this page do not provide that breakdown.
Why are the $100,000 settlement and $427,000 verdict
listed separately?
The rear-end collision case with two reported outcomes involved a $100,000 UM settlement followed by a
$427,000 verdict. Separating them preserves the
distinction recorded in the case summary. Adding
the figures would not, by itself, establish how
much was ultimately collected or how much the
client received. Within the car accident section,
this entry is ordered by the $427,000 verdict
rather than by an assumed combined payment.
Did every case on this page require a lawsuit?
No. The crosswalk injury claim resolved before a lawsuit was filed after the firm
extensively documented the woman’s injuries.
Other accounts expressly describe litigation,
including the motorcycle claim initially denied by the insurer and the falling-materials case involving an immunity defense .
A settlement amount alone does not tell you whether
a lawsuit was filed. Where that detail is available,
the story states it.
Which cases involved disputed fault or contested injuries?
Several accounts identify the specific disagreement.
In the trailer collision,
the defense alleged nonworking lights and a failure
to maintain the lane. In the rear-end brain injury claim,
it disputed whether the woman had sustained a
concussion or traumatic brain injury. In the parking lot pedestrian case,
it challenged the connection between the crash,
the injuries and declining health. These are
different disputes, and the narratives explain
the documented response to each.
What evidence does the page describe the firm using?
The examples are case-specific. The firm obtained
collision footage and retained experts in the semi-truck lane-drift case.
It arranged early expert inspection of equipment
in the partial finger amputation case.
Depositions and court motions were part of the uncovered-drain matter.
These examples describe work reported in those
cases; they do not mean the same investigation
was performed in every claim listed here.
What does ACDF mean in these case stories?
ACDF stands for anterior cervical discectomy and
fusion, a surgical procedure involving the neck. Cleveland Clinic explains ACDF and the anatomy it treats .
Several case summaries identify this procedure,
while one expressly describes a need for it.
A recommendation for surgery should not be confused
with confirmation that surgery took place.
A mention of ACDF is not a medical recommendation
or a standard value for a neck-injury claim.
Where and when did these cases resolve?
Each entry includes the reported resolution date
and, when provided, the location where the matter
resolved. Some dates are approximate, such as
“mid-2022” or “late 2020,” because that is how they
appear in the case summaries. A resolution location
should not be assumed to be the site of the
collision or injury. Where the location was not
supplied, the page does not assign one.
What should I discuss during a consultation
about my own injury?
Begin with what happened, when it happened and
how your condition has changed since the incident.
Describe your treatment, any work you have missed,
and what an insurer or another party has told you.
If available, bring relevant correspondence,
photographs, treatment information and questions
about an offer you have received. A past result
can help you identify issues to ask about, but
your own facts should guide the conversation.
Do these results guarantee a similar outcome for me?
No. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
The stories describe particular people, incidents,
injuries and claims; they are not promises of a
minimum settlement, a recovery range or a timetable.
If a case here raises a question about your situation, request a free consultation and explain the circumstances rather than assuming
that a similar-looking result predicts your own.
