New York Injury Cases Blog : New York Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : John Hochfelder Law Firm : Traumatic Injury, Wrongful Death

Francisco Santaella had been a construction worker for 20 years. His employer, Building Contractors, Inc., had a contract with United Parcel Services, Inc. in connection with a building project in Queens, New York when, on July 26, 2007, Francisco was working on a ladder. It shifted and he fell head first to the ground 14 feet below. With his arms outstretched to break his fall, both wrists were fractured.

It's safer on the way up ladders.

A lawsuit followed when UPS would not accept responsibility for the accident despite the strict provisions of New York’s Labor Law Section 240 that provide for near absolute liability for the injuries of construction workers who fall from ladders at work sites.

As the jury was being selected on April 26, 2010 in Manhattan Supreme Court, the parties in Santaella v. United Parcel Services, Inc. entered into a high-low agreement whereby the defendant agreed to pay $350,000 as a minimum in the event of a jury verdict of either no liability or an award of less than the agreed minimum. And plaintiff agreed to limit to $950,000 the maximum amount UPS would have to pay in the event a verdict for plaintiff exceeded $950,000. Were the verdict to fall in between the high and the low then that would be the amount the defendant would pay.

There are many reasons for entering into high-low agreements. Chief among them are defendants concerned about a runaway excessive jury verdict and plaintiffs wanting to assure a minimally acceptable recovery.

Mr. Santaella’s injuries resulted in two casts and one arm in a sling for a month. He had fractures of the distal radius in each wrist – the right one required open reduction internal fixation surgery (ORIF) with the insertion of a metal plate and screws and allograft bone grafting. A year later, he also underwent arthroscopic surgery in his right shoulder (probably related to the wrist injury on that side).

Here is what it looks like after a distal radius fracture with ORIF:

After plaintiff presented his evidence, the trial judge directed a verdict in his favor on liability and then the jury awarded the 53 year old Mr. Santaella pain and suffering damages in the sum of $1,500,000 ($500,000 past – 3 years, $1,000,000 future – 24 years).

Due to the high-low agreement, plaintiff will receive $950,000.

Inside Information:

• Defendant had offered $350,000 to settle before trial while plaintiff would have agreed to $600,000.
• The right wrist injury was clearly the main injury in this case but the parties – actually, the respective medical witnesses – disagreed over its severity and whether the fracture was into the joint space (meaning likely arthritis and possible wrist fusion surgery in the future). Here is the testimony of the defense doctor.
• The jury’s $1,500,000 award was the amount suggested in a well-crafted summation by plaintiff’s attorney, Michael Madonna.
• In view of recent appellate court decisions in wrist injury cases – for example Young v. City of New York and Cabezas v. City of New York which we've discussed here and here – it appears that the $950,000 recovery in Santaella v. United Parcel Services, Inc. is an outstanding result for the plaintiff.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 7, 2003, two New York City Police Department officers responded to a criminal trespass call at 439 East 135th Street in the Bronx where 48 year old Juanita Young was asleep in a second floor apartment.

The police had been called by the landlord who had obtained an eviction order due to Ms. Young’s non-payment of rent and the city marshals had already changed the locks. Ms. Young had re-entered the apartment and now the cops were there to arrest her and take her out.

That they did but, on the way down the stairs, with her hands cuffed behind her back, the legally blind Ms. Young fell down the stairs and hurt her wrist.

In her ensuing civil lawsuit against the city claiming excessive force and negligence in the arrest, Young won a $1,100,000 pain and suffering jury verdict for her wrist injury ($600,000 past – 4 ½ years, $500,000 future – 10 years). In addition, she was awarded $250,000 for civil rights violations because after the arrest she wasn’t given a desk appearance ticket and was in jail for more than a day before she was released on her own recognizance (she was ultimately acquitted of the criminal charges in a separate trial).

The city appealed claiming that there was insufficient evidence to justify excessive force or negligence, the pain and suffering awards were unreasonably excessive and there was no basis for the civil rights violation award.

In a decision released this week, in Young v. City of New York (1st Dept. 2010), the pain and suffering award was reduced to $450,000 ($300,000 past, $150,000 future) and the civil rights claim was dismissed entirely.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the judges disclosed very little about the actual injuries involved in the case and they gave no explanation at all for why they decided to reduce the pain and suffering award by $650,000 (a cut of nearly 60%). As we often do, we’ve dug up the trial transcript, delved into the briefs on appeal and brought to light the underlying facts so that readers can try to make sense of and give perspective to appellate court decisions that otherwise don’t allow for either.

After Ms. Young fell down the stairs, while still under arrest, she was taken to the hospital complaining of right wrist pain. She was treated with a splint, a sling and pain medication. Over the next eight months, despite physical therapy and extensive treatment with an orthopedic surgeon, she failed to improve, her pain was unrelenting and an MRI finally revealed the cause: a tear in the triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC).

The TFCC is a segment of cartilage in the wrist joint. In Ms. Young's case, a piece of ligament had been torn during her fall and had been flapping around in the joint causing irritation and pain.

Surgery was required in which two holes were made in Ms. Young’s wrist through which little scopes (thus, the name “arthroscopic surgery”) were inserted – one to visualize the wrist joint and the other, with a tiny shaver attached, to operate through and remove the ligament flap. The idea was to reduce the pain by removing the irritating ligament but, ultimately, as the surgeon testified (transcript of Albert Grazioso, M.D., here), this is only buying time because the ligament removal leaves the wrist bones unprotected and more susceptible to bone on bone friction contact (the classic precursor to arthritis).

At trial, plaintiff testified that she:

• has near constant shooting, sharp pain in her wrist,
• could not write (she is right hand dominant) and
• has difficulty holding cooking and even eating utensils.

Her doctor testified that her condition is permanent, her prognosis is guarded and she will develop early arthritis which may require  a risky distal osteotomy (a surgical procedure in which the bone is transected or cut, usually to correct rotational or angular deformities by allowing the bone ends to heal in a realigned position).

In addition to failing to discuss or even mention almost all of the injury details, the appellate judges failed completely to discuss any comparable cases that would justify a modification of the jury’s pain and suffering verdict. We have previously noted, for example, here and here, that appeals courts often provide no basis at all in their decisions reducing personal injury verdicts.

In arguing for a reduction of the award, the city cited two cases that warranted discussion and should have been compared and contrasted:

1. In Garcia v. Spira (1st Dept. 2000), the jury awarded $640,000 ($300,000 past, $340,000 future) for a 36 year old woman who suffered a fracture of her nondominant wrist. Casting was unsuccessful and she required an external fixator. In reducing the verdict to $290,000 ($130,000 past, $160,000 future) the appellate court noted that plaintiff  was able to perform most of her usual pre-accident activities and felt pain only when the weather was bad.
2. In Conley v. City of New York (2nd Dept. 2007), a 74 year old woman fell and sustained a comminuted intra-articular fracture of the distal radius of her right hand requiring open reduction internal fixation surgery in which a metal plate with screws was permanently inserted. Four years later, her volar flexion range of motion had improved only to 30 degrees, she had permanent arthritis and difficulty carrying things. The jury awarded her $14,000 (all for past) but the appellate court ordered an increase to $200,000 ($125,000 past, $75,000 future).

We’ve reviewed other wrist injury cases, for example here and here, and several appear to have been worthy of some discussion before substantially modifying the award in Young v. City of New York. None were mentioned.

Inasmuch as significant wrist injuries are often sustained in trip and fall, motor vehicle and construction accident cases that end up in court, I hope that this insight into the facts and injuries in Young v. City of New York will result in an improved ability to evaluate these types of cases so that those that can and should settle before trial do so and the courthouse backlog is reduced to the benefit of all.

Inside Information:

• Juanita Young's 23 year old son was shot to death by a police officer in 2000 and her lawsuit on his behalf (Ferguson v. City of New York), claiming that the shooting was unjustified, resulted in a $10,500,000 verdict almost all of which was then dismissed by the trial judge. Oral argument of her appeal is being heard today by the same court that just ruled on her wrist injury lawsuit.
• The city had two doctors examine Ms. Young before trial but decided not to call them to testify. Plaintiff's counsel suggested to the jury that this indicated they agreed with plaintiff's doctor as to the seriousness of the injuries.
• Plaintiff's attorney told the jury in opening statements that in closing he would ask them to award pain and suffering damages of $1,100,000. He did so and that's exactly what they awarded. The defense argued there was no liability and therefore no damage.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Once again an appellate court in New York has issued a decision on an appeal from a jury verdict in a personal injury lawsuit that fails to identify important facts about the case - such as the injury for which $210,000 was awarded. So once again, we have dug into the matter so we can reveal the hidden information.

On February 5, 2002 at 7:30 a.m., Heather Bishop was on her way to work as a medical auditor in Manhattan for GHI Medicare. She was in Brooklyn headed for the F train -

But Ms. Bishop never made it to the top of the stairs where she slipped and fell due to an unsecured tread protector.

Her lawsuit against the transit authority went to trial in August 2007 and after five days the Kings County jury returned a liability verdict in her favor. Then there was a one day trial on damages that resulted in the $210,000 verdict.

The defendant appealed the liability verdict claiming that it was contrary to the evidence; however, this week an appellate court ruled in Bishop v. New York City Transit Authorty that the testimony of the plaintiff, her expert, and photographic evidence were quite enough to support the verdict.

The judges mentioned that the jury award was $210,000 but they said nothing that would disclose to the reader the nature of the injuries. We have learned that Ms. Bishop, 44 years old at the time, sustained a right intra-articular distal radius fracture and that she was required to undergo open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) surgery.

 Here is what an intra-articular radius fracture looks like:

And here is what that wrist fracture looks like after ORIF surgery:

The $210,000 verdict was all for pain and suffering ($50,000 past - 5 1/2  years, $150,000 future - 34  years). Here is a copy of the judgment.

We've previously surveyed and discussed recent New York wrist fracture verdicts and settlements, here.

While the defendant had challenged only the liability verdict (and the plaintiff did not claim her damages verdict was unreasonably low), the $210,000 pain and suffering damages verdict for a wrist injury is significant in that parties in other lawsuits and their attorneys can take guidance from it in evaluating the injuries in their cases. In that way, more settlements can be reached and fewer jury trials will clog the courthouses. That's an admirable goal of all concerned in the litigation process.

If the appellate courts would identify and discuss details of the injuries involved in all cases that challenge damage awards, and in most of the other other personal injury cases on appeal, then the goal of significantly reduced litigation would be achieved.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A 35 year old healthy construction worker was helping to build a new Lowe's Home Depot in Orangeburg (Ulster County), New York on November 14, 2002 when he fell off the roof 22 feet striking his head on the ground below.

After 63 days in the hospital (57 of them in a coma), 11 surgeries and 65 more days in a rehabilitation hospital,  Robert Doviak was left totally and permanently blind, with a sense of touch that was seriously compromised, partial loss of hearing and no sense of smell or taste. Additionally, he had substantial orthopedic injuries including fractures of his left femur, several cervical vertebrae, both zygomatic arches and other bones in and about his face and eyes, his left hand and his right wrist.

Doviak's wife hired Finkelstein & Partners, a well known personal injury law firm in Newburgh, New York and they began a lawsuit against Lowe's and others based on New York's Labor Law which provides that owners of commercial buildings under construction are liable for injuries suffered by workers when they involve falls from heights. A judge granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability grounds and the case then proceeded to a jury trial to determine the amount of damages.

In Doviak v. Lowe's  Home Centers, Inc., an Ulster County jury found that plaintiff was entitled to $1,000,000 for his pain and suffering ($200,000 past; $800,000 future - 32 years) plus additional amounts for his lost earnings and medical expenses and his wife's loss of consortium. The jury's total award for all elements of damages was thus $3,700,000.

Since each element of a future damages verdict that is more than $250,000 must under New York law (CPLR 5014) be calculated to present value (usually resulting in a significantly lower figure) before a judgment is given to a plaintiff,  the $3,700,000 jury total really represented only about $3,000,000 for the plaintiff.

In a post-trial motion, the pain and suffering award was found by the trial judge to be unreasonably low and a new trial was directed to be held unless defendants agreed to increase the pain and suffering sum to $4,100,000 ($1,200,000 past and $2,900,000 future). Plaintiff appealed and the appeals court this week (properly relying, in part, on Villaseca v. City of New York, a loss of vision case we discussed here) added another $1,000,000 to plaintiff's future pain and suffering award which is now $5,100,000 ($1,200,000 past; $3,900,000 future). The new total (including the earnings, medical expenses and consortium claims) is $9,300,000 - a present value of about $7,000,000.

As always, and especially in catastrophic injury cases like this one, no amount of money ever makes  the injured plaintiff feel like the whole thing was worth it. Neither $7,000,000 nor $100,000,000 would be enough for any sane person to undergo what Robert Doviak has undergone and will suffer with for the rest of his life.

Now for the inside information. During the trial, the defendants offered on the record to settle for a present value of $9,250,000. Plaintiff's then attorney, without plaintiff present, rejected that offer on the spot. The next day, the defense increased the settlement offer to $10,000,000. Again it was rejected. Finally, still before the verdict, the defense made a final settlement offer -  $12,000,000. Doviak says the offer was rejected by the Finkelstein firm without bothering to consult him.

Did Doviak's lawyers fail to inform him of the $12,000,000 offer?

After the trial, the plaintiff fired Finkelstein and hired two new firms. Levy Phillips & Konigsberg (a New York City personal injury law firm best known for its extensive advertising about and its mass representation of plaintiffs in asbestos exposure lawsuits) was hired to handle the appeal decided this week. Another firm was hired to sue the Finkelstein firm for malpractice. In the malpractice suit, Finkelstein & Partners admits that the $12,000,000 offer was made but denies it acted improperly.

Doviak and his new attorneys are claiming that errors were made by Doviak's trial counsel which cost Doviak  $7,000,000 ( the difference between the settlement offer and the final appellate court figures). Here are some of the matters relevant to the ongoing malpractice dispute:

•  significant settlement offers must be conveyed to clients and if rejected then the rejection should either be on the record or in writing (with a full explanation of the consequences also on the record or in writing)
•  attorneys (and their injured clients) should not let greed serve as the foundation of a personal injury lawsuit - during summation, Doviak's attorney asked the jury to award Doviak $60,000,000 for pain and suffering, an amount Doviak's new attorneys say is preposterous and evidence of awful advocacy and which defense counsel says revealed the greed that served as the foundation of plaintiff's case

As the attorney malpractice case progresses (and surely it will move quickly now that the appeals court has ruled on the propriety of the verdict figures), we will report on claims, defenses and developments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 22, 1999, Lieutenant Nocenzu Cusumano, a New York City firefighter, reported to work at the city's recently renovated Staten Island training center. He slipped on stairway debris and fell 16 feet down to a concrete floor. He reached out for a handrail or banister but none was there as the renovation was illegal and violated the building code.

Like these stairs under construction, there was no handrail or banister:

Here are the injuries Lt. Cusumano sustained:

• crushed left hand and wrist with fractures of his hamate, capitate and lunate bones requiring reconstructive surgery with pins and wires
• left shoulder impingement requiring two surgeries (known as acromioplasty) to remove bone and scar tissue
• exacerbation of previously torn meniscus in his knee now requiring surgical repair

In the ensuing lawsuit, Cusumano v. City of New York, a Queens County jury awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $1,700,000 ($1,200,000 past, $500,000 future). The past award was for the seven years from the date of the accident to the date of the verdict. The future award was based on plaintiff's life expectancy of 15 more years.

The defendant appealed, claiming that $1,700,000 was excessive and the appellate court agreed as to the past pain and suffering verdict. It held that $1,200,000 was too high and reduced it by $455,000 to $755,000. The $500,00 verdict for future pain and suffering was affirmed.

So, on what basis did the appeals court conclude that $455,000 should be deducted from the jury verdict for past pain and suffering? We have previously noted that appeals courts often provide no basis at all in their decisions reducing personal injury jury verdicts (for example, here and here). In this case, though, the judges purport to provide some basis for their decision.

The decision states that  " ... upon consideration of the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff [the court did recite the specific injuries in its decision], the jury's finding that the plaintiff sustained damages in the sum of $1,200,000 for past pain and suffering deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation to the extent indicated herein [i.e., the past pain and suffering verdict was $455,000 too high]." That's the usual standard statutory language of CPLR 5501 inserted into almost every appeals court decision wherein damages are reduced (or increased). That provides no guidance or justification.

The judges then go on to cite six prior cases as support for their decision. Let's take a look at those cases and see if they do.

1. Deshommes v. Hussain - 40 year old taxi driver in car accident sustained a herniated disc (no surgery). The jury verdict of $1,200,000 ($300,000 past, $900,000 future) was reduced on appeal to $700,000 ($200,000 past, $500,000 future).
2. Pitera v. Winzer - a 37 year old man in a car accident sustained a torn meniscus requiring surgery (as well as bulging cervical discs and a herniated lumbar disc none of which required surgery). The jury's $1,100,000 verdict ($450,000 past, $650,000 future) was reduced on appeal to $550,000 ($200,000 past, $350,000 future).
3. Jansen v. Raimondo & Son Constr. Corp. - a 36 year old firefighter fell injuring both shoulders requiring surgery on each. The jury verdict of $730,000 for future pain and suffering was reduced to $400,000. The $350,000 for past pain and suffering was affirmed and thus the total affirmed was $750,000.
4. Purcell v. Axelsen - a motorcyclist sustained fractures of her pelvis (no surgery),  wrist (surgery) and a lumbar vertebrae (no surgery). The jury verdict of a mere $10,000 (past only) was increased on appeal to $250,000 ($130,000 past, $120,000 future). There were significant credibility issues at trial regarding both plaintiff and her treating doctor that resulted in the low jury verdict.
5. Frascarelli v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. - a 35 year old who was assaulted sustained a torn meniscus requiring arthroscopic surgery. Plaintiff was out of work for only six weeks and required no more surgery.  The jury verdict of $700,000 ($300,000 past, $400,000 future) was reduced on appeal to $450,000 ($225,000 past, $225,000 future).
6. Perez v. Farrell Lines - a 58 year old fell and sustained a traumatic brain injury and a shoulder injury. The jury verdict of $650,000 ($400,000 past, $250,000 future) was affirmed.

We have reviewed the six cited cases in detail and urge readers to do so as well. In many respects, they deal with injuries different from those ruled on in Cusumano v. City of New York. We do not believe they support the decision to deduct nearly half a million dollars from Lt. Cusumano.  The jury that heard this case listened to each of the witnesses (including of course the plaintiff and his treating doctor), assessed the credibility of each and every witness and deliberated carefully among themselves before rendering their verdict. That's how our legal system works in New York injury cases.

An appeals court may disturb the jury's verdict only when it finds the amount deviates materially from reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501). To make that finding, the appeals court must have a basis. It cannot pull numbers out of thin air. It should explain its reasoning. Merely citing cases, some of which involve similar injuries and some of which involve injuries not at all relevant is not right. It is neither instructive to the bar and the public nor is it even academically proper.

More and instructive reasoning must be given so that the bar and the public can be guided by the upper and lower limits appeals courts are likely to set in New York injury cases. When that's done, there will be a reduction in trials as more cases are settled because everyone knows the limits.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Slip and fall injury cases in New York are quite common. They are also among the most difficult to win for the injured party. All three cases in the latest round of slip and fall trial court decisions released in New York are from accidents in the winter of 2006-2007. Two were dismissed on motions for summary judgment by the defense and only one is being permitted to proceed to trial.

In Officer v. 450 Park LLC, a woman arrived at work just before 9 a.m. on February 14, 2007, took a few steps into the lobby of her building and promptly slipped and fell on the marble floor severely injuring her shoulder.

Building lobbies, with marble floors, are the subject of two new cases:

In her ensuing lawsuit against the building owner and manager, she claimed that on this wet, snowy, rainy day there should have been a safety mat by the entry door to prevent her fall.

In dismissing Ms. Officer's case (after depositions were held but before trial), the judge noted:

• video and still film supported the security guard's statement that mats were placed at the two entrance doors
• plaintiff did not know where she fell: whether on a mat or the marble
• defendant had mopped the floor 20 minutes before plaintiff fell

There is no legal requirement that property owners provide a constant remedy to the problem of water being tracked into a building in rainy weather; nor is there an obligation to continually mop up all tracked in water. And in general there's no obligation to put down floor mats when it rains.

To win a case like this, a plaintiff must show:

1. the defendant caused or created the dangerous condition or
2. had actual (someone told him) notice of the dangerous condition (the wet floor) or
3. had constructive notice - i.e., the condition was present for a long enough time that the defendant should have known about it and had time to correct it.

It's extremely rare that plaintiffs ever prove a defendant caused or created a dangerous condition in a slip and fall case and it's nonexistent in tracked-in rainwater cases. Actual notice is also rare - only a few times in many years of practice have I had a case in which evidence was uncovered of someone actually telling the premises owner of a dangerous condition before my client fell. So, we are almost always left trying to win slip and fall cases using constructive notice as a basis for liability.

In the Officer case, the judge held that the defendant knew of the dangerous condition before plaintiff fell but no liability was possible because the judge said that the defendant took reasonable steps for the safety of its customers - it placed mats down and mopped the floor.

In a similar case, Brenowitz v. Commerce Bancorp, a woman slipped and fell on a wet marble floor at the defendant bank at 2 Wall Street in Manhattan on a rainy day -  December 1, 2006. She fractured her wrist and sued the bank claiming that liability should be imposed because the bank's marble floor was unusually slippery and dangerous when wet. In dismissing her case, the judge noted that the bank neither created the wet condition, nor did it have actual or even constructive notice of it. In any event, the decision notes, the bank had umbrella stands available, a porter who would mop when the floor was wet (and he was not advised to do so that day) and the entrance area was carpeted.

Umbrella stands can help property owners win in slip and fall cases:

The one new case that's being permitted to go to trial is Stellman v. New York City Transit Authority. In that case, on February 15, 2007 (the day after Ms. Officer fell - see above case), a man slipped and fell on ice that had formed on the steps of a city subway station at West 86th Street.

Here's what the icy steps may have looked like for Mr. Stellman:

His claim against the city was that its employees knew or should have known of the ice formation because snow and freezing rain from the day before ended 15 hours before Mr. Stellman's fall. Since there was no new snow or ice after that and since the temperature did not rise above 30 degrees once the snow and rain stopped, plaintiff (through an expert in meteorology) showed to the court's satisfaction that the city's employees had enough time to clear up the ice so as to prevent plaintiff's fall. The plaintiff did not thereby win his case. He simply survived the defendant's motion for a dismissal at this early stage and he's now allowed to proceed to trial. There, the jury will hear testimony, see exhibits and determine for itself whether or not to impose liability against the city.

Slip and fall cases - especially those arising from wet floor or stair surfaces - often result in very serious injuries such as hip fractures, wrist fractures and shoulder injuries. Injured parties often think that simply because they fell on someone else's property which was dangerously wet there must be liability against the property owner. Not so. Not even close.

The law is very much in favor of the property owner in these cases and there are several hurdles (such as the "notice" requirements) that a plaintiff must jump merely to be allowed to present his case to a jury. Even then, of course, the verdict may be in favor of the defense.

The three recent cases discussed herein are well in line with the trend in New York favoring the defense in slip and fall cases. Both injured parties and their lawyers should be guided accordingly and approach these cases with caution and a realistic view of their chances of success.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

It was hardly two weeks ago that we discussed wrist fracture cases in New York and how they can command settlements and verdicts between $450,000 and $900,000. Now comes the case of Serrano v. 432 Park S. Realty Co., LLC and an award of $3,100,000 for pain and suffering.

In this new case, a 38 year old construction worker fell eight feet from a ladder while attempting to dismantle an air conditioning duct. He sustained comminuted fractures of his wrist that required both external and internal fixation surgery. Then, he suffered from posttraumatic arthritis and underwent wrist fusion surgery which permanently restricted him from being able to move or bend his hand up or down at the wrist.

This case did present  additional injuries other than the severe wrist fractures:

• a herniated disc requiring an operation, and
• reflex sympathetic dystrophy ("RSD" - a chronic, painful and progressive neurological condition often presenting as a burning sensation after surgery or trauma)

At trial in 2007, a New York County jury awarded Mr. Serrano $600,000 for his past pain and suffering plus $4,240,000 for his future pain and suffering. On appeal, the court determined in a decision released today, that the past pain and suffering award was reasonable but ruled that the future pain and suffering award should be reduced to $2,500,000.

It was the RSD, which left Mr. Serrano with a functionally useless hand, that led the court to distinguish this case from Cabezas v. City of New York, (in which $900,000 was found to be the proper pain and suffering award for a 50 year old man with a comminuted intra-articular radius fracture and a displaced ulna styloid fracture that required two surgeries and would need a fusion surgery in the future) and from Hayes  v. Normandie (in which $985,000 was found to be the proper pain and suffering award for a 52 year old man with a comminuted fracture of his radius extending into his wrist requiring future fusion surgery).

• Insider's Tip: The defendant in the Serrano case claimed that the plaintiff's employer should have to reimburse it for the verdict because the employer was negligent (the employer could not be sued by plaintiff because of the Workers' Compensation Law that gives employees wage and medical benefits but prohibits them from suing their employers for negligence). The problem was that New York law does not allow such reimbursement unless the plaintiff has sustained  a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law Section 11. The jury was told by the judge that "grave injury" in this case meant a total loss of use of plaintiff's hand and it ruled that plaintiff's injury, which it found was "worth" over $4,000,000 for pain and suffering was not a "grave injury." That finding appears to be reversible error. There was uncontroverted evidence from many physicians that Serrano had no "functional" use of his hand but the jury disregarded that and the appellate court disregarded the arguments made on defendant's behalf by the highly regarded Mauro Goldberg & Lilling law firm (the only firm in New York that is devoted exclusively to appellate litigation). While the "grave injury" issue will not affect plaintiff's damage award in this case, watch for that issue -- whether there is a difference between "functional loss of use" and "loss of use" -- to be ruled upon soon by the highest court in New York (the Court of Appeals). 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With a serious enough injury, traumatic wrist injury cases in New York can and do command upwards of $500,000-$900,000 for pain and suffering alone and can even bring in a $1,000,000 sustainable verdict.

The wrist is an extremely complex collection of many joints, including eight separate small bones called carpal bones that connect the two bones of the arm, the radius and the ulna, to the hand. The metacarpal bones are the long bones that lie mostly within the palm. One reason the wrist is so complex is that every small bone forms a joint with the bone next to it.

Here's a look at basic wrist anatomy:

Simple wrist fractures that do not involve surgery often heal well and do not result in large jury verdicts or settlements. When there's no extended period of pain and suffering, awards for non-surgical wrist injuries in the range of $15,000 to $60,000 are typical.

When there are serious fractures and surgery is required, then jury verdicts can be as high as $1,000,000 just for pain and suffering and they will be upheld by the appellate courts.

Here are some recent jury verdicts in New York for significant wrist fracture claims:

• Sitkowski v. Oggi Realty Corp. (Supreme Court, Bronx County; Index # 13050/05; 12/19/08) - $450,000 jury verdict ($250,000 past pain and suffering, $200,000 future) for a 38 year old truck driver whose hand was struck by a gate. He sustained an intra-artiular fracture of his distal radius and was casted. He developed arthritis and his doctor said he may need wrist fusion surgery. The defendant paid the verdict in full after losing a post-trial motion to the trial judge seeking to set aside the damages award as excessive.
• Cedano v. City of New York (Supreme Court, Bronx County; Index # 14687/05; 11/24/08) - $550,000 pain and suffering verdict for a 54 yer old cab driver who fell and fractured his distal radius requiring open reduction and internal fixation (the surgical implantation of a plate and five screws).
• Hernandez v. MVAIC (Supreme Court,New York County; Index #101153/06; 6/10/08) - $500,000 ($300,000 past pain and suffering , $200,000 future) for a 32 year old hit by a car who sustained a non-displaced radial styloid fracture and a torn scapholunate ligament in her wrist that required surgery.

These recent jury verdicts in the $500,000 range for serious wrist injuries would likely be upheld were any to be appealed in view of appellate court cases such as:

• Karwacki v. Astoria Medical Anesthesia Assoc., P.C. (Appellate Division 2nd Dept., 2005) - $600,000 pain and suffering verdict ($200,000 past, $400,000 future) upheld for a man who fell off a ladder and sustained a comminuted intra-articular distal radius fracture with two operations.
• Hayes v. Normandie (Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2003) - $985,000 pain and suffering damages for a 52 year old man with a comminuted fracture of his radius extending into the wrist and requiring the insertion of a metal plate and screws and a future fusion or artificial joint surgery. After the jury verdict, the trial judge granted the defendant's motion to reduce the future pain and suffering award from $750,000 to $350,000 but the appellate court reinstated the $750,000 future damages award.
• Cabezas v. City of New York (Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2003) - $900,000 jury verdict upheld for a 50 year old man with a comminuted intra-articular distal radius fracture and a displaced ulna styloid fracture. The plaintiff required two surgeries, one of which was the placement of an external fixation device and he will need a future fusion surgery. The trial judge had agreed with the defendant and reduced the pain and suffering jury verdict from $900,000 to $325,000; however, the appellate court reinstated the $900,000 jury verdict.

Fusion surgery is very complicated and debilitating, as you can see:

As with most if not all traumatic injury pain and suffering evaluations, these wrist cases show clearly that each case is unique, each injured person is unique and each injury is unique. Lawyers who tell clients or others that a wrist fracture case is worth a certain dollar figure are usually doing a disservice to their clients and exposing themselves as ignorant.

One must await resolution of the injuries or the time when it's clear that maximum medical improvement has been reached before even starting to evaluate a pain and suffering claim figure. Then, pain and suffering verdict and settlement amounts can be estimated in view of the specific body parts injured (including the specific bones fracture and/or ligaments torn). Next, factor in the prognosis (and remember, the defense will have the right to have the plaintiff examined by a defense doctor and nearly always the defense doctor and the treating doctor differ widely on prognosis and it's up to a jury ultimately to decide upon the prognosis).

Once all these of analyses are done, then one must compare and contrast as many trial and appellate court decisions and settlement reports as can be found. Then, you can add in the dozens of other factors that apply in every case.

Being asked "what's this case worth" really does justify that typical but dreaded response many lawyers give to client questions: "Well, that depends ...."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link