Tommie C. DePrima - Vernis & Bowling

Tommie C. DePrima, Esq.
Vernis & Bowling of Broward, P.A. 5821 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (954) 927-5330
Email: TDePrima@Florida-Law.com
Fax: (954) 927-5320
Website: www.national-law.com
V-Card Email

Verdicts and Dispositions

Altheda Henry v. Panda Express
Tom Paradise and Tommie DePrima (Hollywood, FL) (Slip and Fall) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Panda Express, in a negligence action brought by Plaintiff, Altheda Henry, against Defendant, Panda Express, in a jury trial that took place in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, between June 6th through June 9th, 2023.

The Plaintiff claimed that she sustained injuries as a result of an incident that occurred on July 25, 2019, at Panda Express. The Plaintiff, Altheda Henry, was a Doordash courier and went to the Panda Express restaurant to pick up a food order. As she entered the restaurant, she alleges that she slipped and fell on a wet floor which caused her to sustain certain injuries. Ms. Henry alleges that Panda Express negligently failed to correct a dangerous condition about which it either knew or should have known by the use of reasonable care. As a result of the incident, Ms. Henry claimed that she severely injured her left knee, sustaining a torn meniscus which required surgery, and an injury to her hip and lower back which required prolonged physical therapy and injections to both areas. The past medical bills were in excess of $72,000.00 and there was a claim for future medical expenses as well. Panda Express took the position that they did not have notice of the hazardous condition on the floor and that the Plaintiff may have tripped or slipped as a result of the shoes that she was wearing at the time. The defense was also able to show some inconsistencies in her medical records regarding causation.

In less than 25 minutes, the jury found in favor of Panda Express with a finding of no liability. Due to an expired PFS, Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Panda Express’ attorney’s fees and costs is pending.

Plaintiff’s Demand at Trial: A range was submitted between $250,000.00 and $1,000,000.00.
Summary Judgment Confirmed in Appellate Ruling of Sexual Abuse Claim
Tommie DePrima and Tom Paradise (Hollywood, FL) (Appellate) previously obtained a Summary Judgment ruling in favor of the Defendant in a case involving the alleged sexual abuse of a minor female student by her school coach, over a two-year period. The student brought a lawsuit alleging negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The student’s mother made a corresponding claim for loss of filial consortium. Upon deposing the Plaintiff, defense counsel confirmed that the alleged abuse had ended more than four years prior to the Plaintiff bringing the lawsuit. As such, defense counsel argued that because the Plaintiff had brought the lawsuit when the four-year statute of limitation had expired, Summary Judgment was proper as to all claims related to the alleged abuse. In response thereto, the Plaintiffs argued that while the sexual contact had ended over four years before the Complaint was filed, under the continuing torts doctrine the ‘improper relationship’ (which was not limited to the sexual contact) continued beyond the final sexual encounter. Plaintiffs also attempted to argue that based upon their negligent retention claim, and the fact that the coach was not terminated until a year after the relationship had been known, that the statute of limitations had not run out at the time of the filing of the lawsuit. Prior to the Court’s ruling on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs demanded $1,000,000 to settle the instant claim. The Court thereafter granted the Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment as to all claims.

Appellate Update: The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal before the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and argued that the continuing torts doctrine should apply. The Plaintiffs also attempted to argue that the judge who presided over the summary judgment motion should have recused himself due to potential conflicts and/or bias that the judge may have had with Plaintiff’s counsel. The appellate court affirmed the lower’s court’s ruling on all issues. Plaintiff’s petition to the Florida Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of this case was also denied. The Defendant is currently seeking all its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the case given the Plaintiff’s denial of a previously filed proposal for settlement.
June Scott and Patrick Scott vs. USAA Casualty Insurance Company
Tom Paradise and Tommie DePrima (Hollywood, FL) (Automobile Liability) obtained a favorable Jury Verdict after a 5-day trial. The Plaintiff claimed serious injuries to her right hip, elbow, wrist, a lumbar herniation and psychological injuries as a result of being hit by a car as a pedestrian in a parking lot. The Plaintiff contended she was crushed and pinned between the vehicle that hit her and another parked vehicle. She was claimed ongoing, severe pain to her right hip and low back. Plaintiff’s husband also filed a loss of consortium claim.

Before trial the Plaintiffs’ settled the claim with the tortfeasor for $100,000.00. The Plaintiffs also filed a claim against USAA, their UM/UIM carrier, and demanded the stacked policy limits of $600,000.00. The Plaintiffs always demanded the policy limits so the matter proceeded to trial against the UM/UIM carrier, USAA. The insurance carrier admitted fault on behalf of the tortfeasor but disputed that the accident caused all the damages that were being alleged by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff was claiming approximately $50,000.00 in past medical expenses and $60,000.00 in future medical care, both of which included the cost of psychological care and counseling. Prior to the incident, the Plaintiff suffered from pre-existing mental health issues which she had sought treatment for before the subject incident. At trial, the defense also had an expert physician testify that the Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain were not supported by the objective findings of the Plaintiff’s medical records and imaging studies. It was further indicated by the defense’s expert that PRP treatments, which the Plaintiff was contending helped with her pain, were not reasonable and necessary given that these types of injections are still deemed experimental by the larger medical community.

At the close of trial, the Plaintiff asked for $1 million in total damages to the Plaintiffs. The jury returned a total verdict of $29,000.00 for past medical care only, with a finding of no permanent injury. The verdict was less than the underlying tortfeasor’s liability limit so USAA obtained a defense verdict. The Defendant, USAA, also filed a PFS when the claim was first filed so it will be filing a motion to recover almost all of the fees and costs incurred in the defense of the claim.

Areas Of Practice

Government Law
PIP/Personal Injury Protection Litigation

Bar & Court Admission

Florida Bar
District of Columbia

Education

Graduate:
University of Miami, 2012
Honors: cum laude
Undergraduate: Cornell University, B.S. 2009

Tommie DePrima was born in Pensacola, Florida and grew up in Miami. In 2009, she graduated from Cornell University with dual Bachelor of Science in Applied Economics and Management and Development Sociology. She later attended University of Miami School of Law and earned her Juris Doctorate in 2012.

Since being admitted to the Florida Bar in 2012, Tommie practiced Plaintiff’s work pertaining to Personal Injury Litigation. Subsequent thereto, Tommie gained valuable experience in the areas of Corporate Defense and Insurance Defense, and has since joined Vernis & Bowling of Broward and is practicing General Insurance Defense Litigation, Liability and First and Third Party Property Claims.

Footer