Jason A. Shartzer

Jason A. Shartzer

Attorney Profile

Top Rated Personal Injury Attorney in Indianapolis, IN

Shartzer Law Firm, LLC
 | 156 East Market Street, Suite 1000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317-969-7600
Selected to Super Lawyers: 2016 - 2018
Selected to Rising Stars: 2012 - 2014
Licensed Since: 2003
Practice Areas:
  • Personal Injury - General: Plaintiff
Attorney Profile

Jason is an attorney at the Indianapolis-based plaintiffs' litigation firm Shartzer Law Firm, LLC. He primarily represents the rights of the injured throughout the State of Indiana. Jason has experience in all stages of litigation and particularly enjoys the courtroom and jury trials. Jason is from Indiana and attended Brebeuf Jesuit in Indianapolis before obtaining his undergraduate degree from Loyola University New Orleans and his J.D. from Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Jason is admitted to practice law in the State of Indiana, including the U.S. District Courts within the state. He is also a member of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, the Indiana State Bar Association, and the American Bar Association.

About Jason Shartzer

Admitted: 2003, Indiana

Professional Webpage: www.shartzerlaw.com

Honors and Awards:

  • Received a 10 out of 10 Superb rating., 10 out 10-Superb Rating, AVVO, 2015
  • Recevied the distinction of Top 10 Under 40., Nationally Ranked Top 10 Under 40, National Academy of Personal Injury Attorneys, 2015
  • Received the distinction of Top 40 Under 40 from the The National Trial Lawyers., Top 40 Under 40, The National Trial Lawyers, 2014
  • Recieved the designation of Top 100 Trial Lawyers., Top 100 Trial Lawyers, The National Trial Lawyers, 2014
  • Received the distinction of Super Lawyers Rising Star in the area of Plaintiff Personal Injury., Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2014
  • Received the distinction of Super Lawyers Rising Star in the area of Plaintiff Personal Injury., Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2013
  • Received the distinction of Super Lawyers Rising Star in the area of Plaintiff Personal Injury., Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2012

Bar/Professional Activity:

  • Indiana Trial Lawyers Board of Directors-Member, 2014
  • Indianapolis Bar Association-Member

Scholarly Lectures and Writings:

  • Social Media, the Internet and Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Challenges:   Jurisdiction Over Websites Social Media - Complying with the Stored Communications Act Predictive Coding and Other Data Mining Procedures Overcoming Admissibility Obstacles and Authentication Challenges Identifying Who Made That Post Obtaining Posted Content Social Media Preservation Hearsay and Electronically Stored Information Motion in Limine, Presenter, Advanced Issues in Personal Injury Litigation, 2013
  • Detailed and highlighted the use of the willful and wanton exception to contributory negligence at trial., Presenter, Willful and Wanton Exception to Contributory Negligence, ITLA-24th Annual Lifetime Achievement Seminar, 2012

Verdicts and Settlements:

  • Miller v. Crossroads, et al.   Semi Collision; Verdict for Plaintiff $848,800.                      On Feb. 15, 2007, at approximately 9 a.m., plaintiff was driving her 2003 Chevy Impala northbound on North Arlington Avenue approaching East 21st Street in Indianapolis. The defendant was driving a 1997 Ford semi in the left northbound lane on North Arlington Avenue. As plaintiff was proceeding through the intersection in the right northbound lane, the defendant attempted to make a wide right hand turn onto East 21st Street. and collided with the driver’s side of the plaintiff’s vehicle. Liability was in dispute. The plaintiff argued that defendant should have kept a proper lookout and that defendant swung so far wide to make the right turn that a portion of his trailer was actually in the dedicated left-turn lane. The plaintiff argued that had the defendant looked, he would have seen the plaintiff’s vehicle. The police officer that investigated the collision testified that a portion of the defendant’s trailer was in the dedicated left turn lane at the time of the collision. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should have seen the semi’s right turn signal and known that the defendant was making a wide, right turn. The defendant also implied in argument that the plaintiff was on her cell phone at the time of the collision and introduced evidence that she was running late for work. Plaintiff initially refused medical attention at the scene of the collision and went to her job as a nurse for a medical doctor. She did, however, report her complaints of pain to her employer when she arrived at work, and later that day she sought medical treatment at St. Francis Hospital. She followed up with her family physician. Plaintiff underwent MRI testing that revealed a broad-based, central disc herniation at C5-C6 with no stenosis or effacement. She was diagnosed with right cervical radiculopathy and underwent a CT scan of her head which was ultimately negative. She continued to have multiple physical symptoms and continued to undergo treatment that included consultation with a neurologist and MRIs. Plaintiff stated in her discovery responses and testified in her deposition that she suffered from multiple injuries to multiple parts of her body with the most severe injury, in her opinion, being a brain injury. Although Melissa experienced brain injury-type symptoms, the objective tests and the information from her treating physicians was insufficient to support a claim for a brain injury related to the collision. The plaintiff’s claim for damages at trial was focused on her herniated disc at C5-C6. One of plaintiff’s treating doctors testified in advance of trial that the herniation was caused by the collision and that it was a permanent condition. Plaintiff incurred approximately $47,600 in medical expenses, almost half of which was diagnostic in nature. She did not make a claim for wage loss. Plaintiff was 34 at the time of trial and there was testimony from her doctor that she would have future medical expenses related to her herniated disc and that she would likely become a surgical candidate., 2010
  • Trent v. City of Peru; Wrongful Death; Verdict for Plaintiff; Tort Claim Cap of $300,000    In the early morning hours of Dec. 21, 2004, Shirley Trent was delivering newspapers from her vehicle in the city of Peru in Miami County. At about the same time, Officer Rodney Richard of the Peru Police Department was attending a shift meeting when he overheard a 911 call involving a suicidal male who had ingested an overdose of aspirin. Richard recognized that the 911 call originated from his parents’ home and discovered that the suicidal male was his brother. He asked his supervisor for permission to respond to the call. After being given permission, Richard left the Peru Police Department for his parents’ home which was more than 24 miles away. As Richard was traveling on Strawtown Pike Road in Peru, he crested a hill as Trent was delivering a newspaper at the base of the same hill. Richard’s vehicle struck Trent’s vehicle head-on. The impact took place in Richard’s lane of travel. Trent suffered massive blunt trauma injuries including a fractured vertebrae at the base of her head and trauma to her brain, which ultimately resulted in her death on Jan. 1, 2005. Trent’s husband brought a wrongful death action against the defendant, city of Peru, and therefore the claim was governed under the rules and restrictions of the Indiana Tort Claims Act. The defendant argued that Trent was contributorily negligent because she was driving her vehicle in the wrong lane and therefore the plaintiff’s recovery is barred. However, the plaintiff also alleged in the complaint that Richard engaged in willful and wanton conduct which, if proven, does not bar recovery for the plaintiff even if there is contributory negligence. Prior to trial, the court granted the defendant’s motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages. At trial, Master Trooper Earl McCullough, the accident reconstructionist from the Indiana State Police, testified that Richard was traveling at least 94 miles per hour when he crested the hill before the impact. In addition, Richard testified that he had intentionally blacked out his speedometer because he did not like the glare it produced and therefore he did not know how fast he was driving. There was additional evidence that Richard did not have his siren on at the time he crested the hill. At the conclusion of the liability phase of the trial, the Miami County jury returned a verdict finding that the city of Peru through its agent, Richard, was liable for the collision. After the verdict in favor of the plaintiff as to liability and prior to the commencement of the damages phase, the case was resolved in an amount equal to the cap for liability under the Indiana Tort Claim Act., 2010
  • Schachte v. State Farm; Uninsured Motorist Claim; Verdict for Plaintiff $211,000         This case involved an uninsured motorist claim against State Farm for damages arising out of an automobile collision that occurred on November 24, 2006. The plaintiff sustained a broken nose that required a surgery and a knee injury that included a torn meniscus and articular cartilage damage that required an arthroscopy procedure. The plaintiff had a pre-existing knee condition and had an arthroscopic procedure about one and a half years prior to the collision on the same knee. However, the plaintiff testified that he had been pain free after the first procedure until the collision. The Orthopaedic doctor testified in advance of trial in the form of a trial deposition taken by Rich Cook, that the lateral meniscus tear and grade 3 changes to articular cartilage at the end of the plaintiff’s femur were new findings and the rest of the plaintiff's knee condition was aggravated by the blunt force impact of his knee hitting the dashboard. In addition to the surgical procedures on the plaintiff’s nose and knee, the plaintiff also attended some physical therapy for his knee injury. The plaintiff’s last physical therapy appointment was on April 19, 2007and he did not seek any additional medical treatment from that date up to the date of trial. The plaintiff incurred approximately $30,331.07 in medical expenses and about $3,450.00 in lost wages. Prior to suit, State Farm paid $25,000.00 in med pay and offered an additional $25,000.00 of $100,000.00 policy that covered the plaintiff to settle the case. State Farm actually advanced the $25,000.00 they offered and allowed the plaintiff to sue for the remaining $75,000.00 available under the policy. Liability was not in dispute. Counsel for both parties agreed to not disclose the funds previously advanced by State Farm nor the limits of the policy to the jury. The sole question for the jury was to determine the value of the plaintiff’s claim. At the end of the one day jury trial, plaintiff’s counsel requested that the jury return a verdict of at least $134,000, which would have allowed plaintiff to collect the remaining $75,000.00 under the policy after offsets. Counsel for the defendant, State Farm, asked the jury to return a verdict of $50,000.00. After 30 minutes of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of $211,000.00, which was ultimately reduced to $75,000.00 plus costs after the offsets for the med-pay and the $25,000.00 previously advanced., 2009
  • Day v. State Farm; Underinsured Motorist Claim; Verdit for Plaintiff $212,500              On the evening of September 27, 2004, Nora Day was traveling south on Old U.S. 36 in Avon.  As she was stopped at an intersection, she was rear ended by Ricardo Lopez-Fajardo.  Although there was less than $1000 in property damage to the vehicle, the plaintiff suffered a collapsed lung and back injuries.  State Farm, paid $24,234 under the medical payments provision of the plaintiff's policy. Plaintiff initially presented her claim against Lopez-Fajardo and obtained the policy limits from his carrier Allstate in the amount of $50,000.  The case then proceeded to trial against State Farm based upon an underinsured motorist claim.  State Farm disputed the nature, extent and causation of plaintiff's injuries and there was a zero offer to resolve the case.   The case was tried over a three day period and the jury deliberated for approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes before returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $212,500.  The court applied a set-off for the $50,000 plaintiff previously received from Allstate and for th $24,234 State Farm paid under the med pay provision of her policy.  After the set-offs, the court ented a judgment in the amount of $138,265.  , 2007

Other Outstanding Achievements:

  • Recognized as a Distinguished Fellow by the Indianapolis Bar Foundation., 2014
  • Awarded an AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell in his first year of eligibility after 10 years of practice., 2013


Office Location for Jason A. Shartzer

156 East Market Street
Suite 1000
Indianapolis, IN 46204


Jason A. Shartzer:

Last Updated: 7/13/2016

Page Generated: 1.6633260250092 sec