Mental Distress Verdict for $200,000 and Punitive Damages Award Affirmed against Physician who Sexually Exploited Patient

Kristin Dupree had been a beautiful fashion model who married at the age of 23 and settled in Southampton, New York. When she was 29, Kristin underwent an incapacitating panic attack that led her to the office of James E. Giugliano, M.D., a local family practitioner. After 17 months of anti-depressant drugs and twice a week  "talk therapy," the married doctor and his patient began a nine month long sexual relationship.

Then:

Now:

Claiming malpractice and that the doctor ruined her marriage and caused her to suffer from emotional distress, Dupree sued Dr. Giugliano and in November 2008 a Suffolk County jury found that there was indeed malpractice and awarded her damages as follows:

  • for mental distress - $200,000 ($150,000 past - 7 years, $50,000 future - 5 years)
  • punitive damages - $166,000

The jury found that plaintiff was 25% at fault

Both the liability verdict and the damages amounts have now been affirmed on appeal in Dupree v. Giugliano (2d Dept. 2011).

Plaintiff claimed that she was a severely depressed patient who was compelled by the medical phenomenon known as "eroticized transference" to participate in sexual relations with her doctor.

The defense unsuccessfully argued that the sexual relationship was consensual - indeed provoked by the plaintiff - and in jury selection counsel suggested that this case was like the movie "Fatal Attraction" (in which a married man's one night stand comes back to haunt him when that lover stalks him and his family). Clearly, that suggestion did not sit well with the jurors.

Plaintiff proved that her anxiety and depression increased and became chronic because of the defendant's sexual exploitation. Instead of a quick cure, her expert psychiatrist opined that plaintiff would need another five years to get back to herself.

The jurors heard testimony as to plaintiff's mental distress damages:

  • tremendous guilt over the sexual relationship
  • marital discord and hostility leading to a bitter divorce
  • loss of full custody of her 11 year old daughter
  • loss of friendships and embarrassment

Plaintiff also claimed as damages:

  • $155,000 for legal fees related to her divorce (jury awarded -0-)
  • $435,000 for loss of financial support from her husband - an excavation and landscaping contractor (jury awarded $134,000, affirmed on appeal)

Inside Information:

Appeals Court Dismisses $2,750,000 Verdict for Facial Injuries; Student Assumed Risk of being Hit by Softball Bat

In 2009, a Bronx County jury awarded a 16 year old girl $2,750,000 for crush injuries to her face after a fellow student hit her with a bat during softball practice at Walton High School (shown below).

Now, in Navarro v. City of New York (1st. Dept. 2011), the entire suit has been tossed out. The appellate court held that the risk of being hit by a practice swing of a bat was assumed by plaintiff, an experienced softball player who admittedly knew the risks inherent in the sport.

We discussed this case shortly after the trial, here, and predicted that the case would be dismissed on appeal.

The city had also sought a reduction of the $2,750,000 pain and suffering award but that issue was rendered moot by the liability reversal. The parties did, though, brief the damages issue (since the court could have affirmed the liability award and then would have had to address the amount of damages).

Plaintiff cited Storms v. Vargas (2d Dept. 1998) [$4,000,000 for 31 year old with massive facial injuries]  in support of her argument that her $2,750,000 verdict should be affirmed. In that case, though, the injuries were much more severe than those sustained by Ms. Navarro. Not only did the 31 year old police officer Stephen Storms undergo 26 surgeries for his injuries but also his left eye was surgically removed and he was left with an artificial eye.

Inside Information:

  • The jury had apportioned liability 75% to the city and 25% to the student who swung the bat and they found that plaintiff had not been comparatively negligent.
  • The accident happened in June, plaintiff returned to school in September and she resumed playing softball two months later

Neck and Back Injuries Result in $1,800,000 Pain and Suffering Award Approved by Appellate Court, Despite Lack of Surgery

On July 28, 2005, James Coleman was working as a subway track worker repairing tracks for the New York City Transit Authority (the TA). He was on a hydraulic lift platform that collapsed causing him to fall 25 feet to the ground below.

Workers on a hydraulic lift:

 

Coleman sued the TA for the serious injuries he sustained to his neck and back, including multiple bulging and herniated discs.

New York's Labor Law Section 240(1) generally imposes absolute liability upon premises owners when a worker engaged in repair work is injured in a height related fall due to inadequate safety devices. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted to Coleman in 2007 and his case proceeded to a damages only trial in 2008.

On November 7, 2008, a Bronx County jury awarded Coleman pain and suffering damages in the sum of $2,100,000 ($600,000 past - 3 years, $1,500,000 future - 20 years). The TA appealed, successfully arguing that the award was excessive.

MRI reports showed that Coleman sustained the following spinal disc injuries:

  • herniated disc at C4-5,
  • bulging annulus fibrosis at C5-6
  • herniated disc at L5-S1.

The defense doctors and attorney argued that plaintiff's injuries were minor and any significant complaints of pain or disability he had were due only to degenerative changes in his spine.

EMG testing and nerve conduction studies, though, showed nerve injuries - radiculopathy at C5 and C7.

Plaintiff testified as to his current pain and limitations:

  • constant pain which radiates down his right leg
  • still takes narcotic medication
  • gets steroid injections for his back pain
  • cannot work
  • cannot engage in sports he enjoyed such as bowling and basketball
  • cannot carry shopping bags

Coleman never had any surgery for his injuries in this case but his doctor recommended that he undergo neck and back surgery - either a discectomy or laminectomy with fusion - if his symptoms continued unabated by conservative treatment.

In Coleman v. City of New York (1st Dept. 2011), the future pain and suffering award was reduced by $300,000. The total pain and suffering award now stands at $1,800,000 ($600,000 past, $1,200,000 future).

The only case on damages cited by the appellate court was Urbina v. 26 Court Street Assoc., LLC (1st Dept. 2007), a knee injury case that we discussed here. That case is not particularly relevant inasmuch as it ordered a reduction of the jury's pain and suffering award in the sum of $3,500,000 to $2,200,000 for a 31 year old man who sustained a severely fractured patella and a torn meniscus that required three surgeries.

Prior cases on damages that are relevant (i.e., that dealt with herniated disc injuries without surgical procedures as of trial) but were not even mentioned by the appellate court include:

Inside Information:

  • The defense doctor, Robert Orlandi, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, opined that Coleman hadn't even sustained a herniated cervical disc at all, just a sprained neck and degenerated discs predating the accident by many years.He was argumentative, often laughed derisively and made it clear he wasn't going to agree with questions posed by plaintiff's counsel, even before they were asked. The doctor was admonished by the trial judge repeatedly and defense counsel conceded that Dr. Orlandi was a "rather obstreperous witness" who made "wild and unsubstantiated charges" from the witness stand against plaintiff's counsel.
  • The jury award for future lost earnings in the sum of $1,500,000 was thrown out by the appellate court because Coleman failed to prove with reasonable certainty that he'd be unable to work and earn at all. The defense conceded that Coleman could not return to heavy labor (he was earning about $45,000 a year with the TA) but pointed out that plaintiff himself never claimed he was completely unable to work and testified he'd tried to work as a mechanic in a motorcycle shop (too strenuous) and inquired about other jobs he thought he could do (no offers). Plaintiff's treating pain management doctor merely testified that he would "venture to say" that plaintiff couldn't go back to work. He was unaware of plaintiff's vocational abilities or education.