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

Kerwin Park was a 36 year old day laborer doing construction work on a residential building in Manhattan on September 7, 2000 when a wooden plank he’d been standing on collapsed and sent him tumbling 20 feet to the unfinished basement below.

Here's what it looked like before Mr. Park fell:

Park was rushed to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a displaced, comminuted, intra-articular fracture of his right elbow’s olecranon (as well as a non-displaced fracture of his left wrist). 

Here's what an olecranon fracture looks like:

He required open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) surgery in which the elbow fracture fragments were pushed into place and then tension band wiring and pins were used to create compression at the elbow fracture site, like this:

Park underwent a second surgery to remove the hardware within a year after his accident. Then, he underwent 10 months of physical therapy. In the interim, he undertook nursing courses and he then pursued a new career as a certified nursing attendant taking care of elderly patients.

In the ensuing lawsuit against the premises owner, a contractor and others, Park claimed he wasn’t provided a safe place to work or proper equipment. After extensive pre-trial procedures and motions, Park was finally granted summary judgment on liability and a Manhattan jury returned a pain and suffering damages verdict in his favor in the sum of $2,300,000 ($1,500,000 past – 7 ½ years, $800,000 future – 33 years).

On the defendant’s post-trial motion, the trial judge reduced the verdict to $1,400,000 ($600,000 past, $800,000 future) and plaintiff then appealed.

Park argued on appeal that the original jury verdict of $2,300,000 should be reinstated in full while the defense argued that the trial judge’s reduction to $1,400,000 was not enough and the verdict should be reduced even further.

Last week, in Park v. City of New York, the judges of the Appellate Division, First Department agreed with the defendants and the judges reduced the future damages verdict another $400,000 so that the final pain and suffering verdict now stands at $1,000,000 ($600,000 past, $400,000 future).

The trial testimony by plaintiff and his doctors was at odds with that offered by the doctor who examined the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants. While there was no dispute as to the initial seriousness of plaintiff’s elbow fracture and the need for the significant surgery he underwent, the parties vigorously disputed the seriousness of plaintiff’s condition at trial and his prognosis:

• Pain: plaintiff testified he has pain every day and cannot ride a bike, play basketball or lift heavy objects; defendants pointed out, though, that plaintiff missed no time from work, showers, feed and helps his patients walk (in his new job as a nursing attendant) and that he has pain only in certain positions
• Future Surgery: plaintiff’s orthopedist claimed he’d need future elbow surgery due to post-traumatic arthritis but the defense doctor disagreed testifying that there was no evidence of arthritis and no need for more surgery
• Wrist Injury: plaintiff claimed residual pain in his left (non-dominant) wrist but the defense argued that the wrist injury was insignificant as it was treated only with a bandage, didn’t require any surgery and plaintiff testified before trial that he had good range of motion and no pain in his wrist

In reducing the plaintiff’s verdict $400,000 more than the trial judge had already reduced it – leaving plaintiff with $1,300,000 less than the jury had awarded him – the appellate judges stated that they based their decision on four prior cases involving “a comminuted fracture to the elbow/arm, multiple surgeries, potential additional surgery and permanent pain and limitation of motion.” Only one of those cases, though, Roshwalb v. Regency Maritime Corp. (1^st Dept. 1992), involved an elbow fracture ($750,000 sustained for 63 year old woman).

The other three cases cited in Park v. City of New York all involved fractures to different parts of the arm:

• Baez v. New York City Transit Authority (1^st Dept. 2005) - $980,000 for 56 year old woman with comminuted, midshaft humeral fracture [we previously discussed this case in our article on humerus fracture cases, here]
• Martinez v. Gouverneur Gardens Housing Corp. (1^st Dept. 1992) - $800,000 for 3 ½ year old boy with comminuted fracture of his arm, shortening and atrophy
• Fudali v. New York City Transit Authority (Supreme Court, New York County, 2005) - $1,200,000 for 59 year old woman with humeral neck and head fracture)

While there aren’t any cases that the judges failed to mention in Park v. City of New York that would likely have led them to a different conclusion, there were several prior cases that involved elbow fractures only that were much more relevant and instructive. Here they are (some of which we discussed in our prior article on elbow fracture cases):

• Flores v. Parkchester Preservation Co. (1^st Dept. 2007) - $350,000 for 24 year old woman with an intra-articular elbow fracture
• Vertsberger v. City of New York (2^nd Dept. 2006) - $1,400,000 for 51 year old man with comminuted intertrochanteric elbow fracture
• Chisolm v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. (1^st Dept. 2001) - $400,000 for 15 year old boy comminuted elbow fracture
• Boinoff v. Riverbay Corp. (1^st Dept. 1997) - $100,000 for 58 year old woman with badly fractured elbow
• Carrasquillo v. City of New York (Supreme Court, Kings County 2009) - $1,200,000 for six year old with supracondylar fracture of her elbow [link is to the October 5, 2009 trial judge decision rendered after our earlier article discussing the $3,200,000 jury verdict]

The point in referring to the more relevant elbow fracture cases is not that the court in Park v. City of New York erroneously evaluated pain and suffering damages; rather, it’s to highlight the fact that elbow fractures are usually more significantly limiting and painful than mid-shaft humerus fractures.

The elbow involves a complex joint with three moving parts (the radius, ulna and humerus) and after elbow surgery it's typical that there will be some significant permanent loss of range of motion. The judges could and should have cited the more relevant elbow fracture cases, discussed them and enlightened all of us as to why it was proper to reduce Mr. Park’s verdict by $400,000 (after the trial judge had already reduced it by $900,000).

Inside Information:

Before trial, plaintiff had demanded $750,000 to settle against which defendants had offered $350,000.

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

In October, 2000, Susan Midler was referred by her gynecologist to Richard Crane, M.D., a rheumatologist. She had complaints of joint pain and he diagnosed her with arthritis after administering several diagnostic tests (including a urinalysis), two of which were positive for lupus erythematosis (an autoimmune disease that can affect vital organs).

Dr. Crane’s letter to the referring physician stated that continued monitoring was required to make a more definitive diagnosis as to lupus. He treated Ms. Midler for arthritis over the next two years but never again followed up with another urinalysis until January 2003 when he definitively diagnosed lupus nephritis (lupus affecting the kidneys). Ms. Midler’s kidneys rapidly failed, she underwent five months of three times a week dialysis (the process of cleansing the blood by passing it through a special machine) and then in December 2003 she underwent a kidney transplant.

A medical malpractice case followed and after a seven day trial in November 2006, a Manhattan jury concluded that the doctor had departed from good and accepted medical practice in the manner in which he monitored the plaintiff, including not performing urinalysis tests between October 2000 and January 2003. The jury then proceeded to evaluate pain and suffering and determined that this woman in her 60's sustained damages in the sum of $2,500,000 ($500,000 past, $2,000,000 future – 21 years). Both the liability and damages verdicts were upheld on appeal this week in Midler v. Crane.

As often occurs, the jury’s pain and suffering verdict was ruled upon by the appellate court without any significant reference to the facts supporting the pain and suffering figures. After extensive discussion of the treatment constituting the malpractice and the legal standards applicable thereto and after analyzing the testimony of the competing medical experts, the appellate judges addressed the substantial $2,500,000 damages award merely by stating: “ … the awards for pain and suffering do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation ….”

Once again, we get from the appellate court canned language drawn directly from the controlling statute, CPLR 5501, without any guidance as to why the award was upheld.

What follows then are the missing details as to Ms. Midler’s pain and suffering:

• terrifying fear and pain during the eight months leading up to the definitive diagnosis of lupus nephritis in January 2003
• emergency hospitalization in May 2003 with life-threateningly low blood count
• dialysis three times a week for five months with pain, nausea, sickness and suicidal psychological effects
• kidney transplant surgery in December 2003
• constant fear of transplant rejection
• likelihood of additional dialysis (transplanted kidneys likely have a life span of 5-10 years)
• need to take immunosuppressant drugs to avoid transplant rejection

Inside Information:

• The jury found the doctor only 60% at fault and assigned 40% of the fault to Ms. Midler because she hadn’t returned to Dr. Crane before January 2003 after being directed to do so by another physician and also because she didn’t treat with a kidney specialist for a month after Dr. Crane told her she had lupus nephritis. So: the $2,500,000 verdict gets reduced by 40% and Ms. Midler’s take is not $2,500,000 but is $1,500,000 (before attorney’s fees and disbursements)
• Two of the five appellate court judges dissented from the liability finding of the majority and would have ordered a new trial because, they said, the liability verdict was inconsistent in finding that the doctor committed malpractice in failing to monitor his patient for the development of lupus while also finding that he was not negligent in failing to diagnose and treat her for lupus

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

In a case we discussed here, a Kings County trial judge (Hon. James G. Starkey) has now issued a written decision upholding a jury's verdict awarding $1,030,000 for an 11 year old boy's pain and suffering ($190,000 past, $840,000 future) due to an ankle fracture.

Jonathan Bermudez sustained a severe bimalleolar ankle fracture during his sixth grade gym class back in November 2001 when  he was trying to kick a soccer ball during an unsupervised game of line soccer. The case, Bermudez v. New York City Board of Education, went to trial seven years later and after the verdict was rendered, the defendant (the New York City Board of Education) made a motion to set it aside, both as to liability and as to the amount of damages. As to liability, the judge stated in his opinion, here, that there was enough evidence to allow the jury to make a finding that the defendant was negligent in failing to supervise the soccer game. It's likely that an appeals court will have the final word on this issue.

Assuming the appeals court allows the liability verdict to stand, it will also be presented with the damages issue: is $1,030,000 excessive under the circumstances of this case? Judge Starkey said the award was not excessive and that the award should not be set aside.

Here are the factors the judge relied upon:

• plaintiff's proof included detailed testimony from his treating orthopedic surgeon supported by particularized medical records
• the defendant did not call an expert of its own
• plaintiff's life expectancy is 56 years and he may require surgical fusion of his ankle due to arthritis
• plaintiff's had four separate surgical procedures before trial (including an osteotomy)

Here is what an osteotomy looks like:

As this case makes its way up to the appellate court (the Appellate Division, 2nd Department), the parties need to be mindful of the recent decision by that court in Smith v. Bywise Holding LLC in which a 44 year old man fell and sustained a fracture of the distal region of his tibia (which forms the upper portion of his ankle). Robert Smith underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery and his pain and suffering Kings County jury verdict of $775,000 ($175,000 past, $600,000 future - 25 years) was reduced by the trial judge and ultimately set by the appeals court at $500,000 ($175,000 past, $325,000 future).

The ankle injuries, treatment and prognoses in Smith and Bermudez, are quite similar so there is a good chance that the appeals court would affirm the damages verdicts in Bermudez. While we note that Jonathan Bermudez was awarded much more than Smith for future damages ($840,000 compared to $325,000), Jonathan's life expectancy (and therefore the amount of time he is expected to suffer from his injuries) is a little more than twice that of Mr. Smith's so the future damages award to Jonathan appears to be in a permissible range.

We will follow this case and report back as it makes its way through the appeals process.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Jurors in a recent shoulder trauma case tried to a verdict awarded $2,162,000 for pain and suffering involving a torn rotator cuff.

                                                                                            Torn Rotator Cuff:

In another late 2008 jury verdict, $1,100,000 was awarded for pain and suffering for a similar injury.

These pain and suffering verdicts appear to be well above the norm and may be modified downward on appeal. Neither case resulted in a court decision that has been publicly reported; however, we have obtained detailed information about each case, both of which are discussed below.

In Bauer v. NYC School Construction Authority (Supreme Court, Kings County; Index # 4119/05), after a seven day trial the jury determined that a 46 year old laborer who fell off a scaffold at a construction site was entitled to $2,162,000 for his pain and suffering ($650,000 past pain and suffering plus $1,512,000 future pain and suffering). Plaintiff's injuries included a tear of his left, non-dominant shoulder's rotator cuff that required three surgeries and left him with residual arthritis, fibrosis (a thickening of the connective tissues) and scar tissue).

In Kirk v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (Supreme Court, New York County; Index # 10694/06), a 69 year old actress was walking through an open interior doorway when the doorway's metal frame fell on her and injured her shoulder. She was awarded $1,100,000 for her pain and suffering ($300,000 past pain and suffering plus $800,000 future pain and suffering). She underwent arthroscopic surgery which disclosed an irreparable torn supraspinatus tendon and during which a piece of the clavicle was excised. A second surgery was required two years later - a palliative release of the shoulder's biceps and an anterior capsulectomy (removal of some membranes). Her orthopedic surgeon testified at trial that the falling door frame caused permanent inflammation of the shoulder which could not be fixed by more surgery. While the $1,100,000 verdict may well be reduced on appeal, the defendant cold have gotten out much cheaper with a settlement: the plaintiff offered to settle for $750,000 but the defense offered only $650,000 before the verdict.

While each case is different and each person's pain and suffering is unique, the appellate courts in New York will look to awards in prior cases for guidance when ruling on appeals from jury verdicts that are claimed to be excessively high or inadequately low. If either the Bauer or the Kirk cases discussed above is ruled on by an appellate court, it's likely that the following cases will be relevant:

• DeSimone v. Royal GM, Inc. - $350,000  pain and suffering verdict ($100,000 past and $250,000 future) upheld on appeal for a 30 year old hotel guest services agent in a car accident who sustained a torn rotator cuff and underwent an unremarkable arthroscopic surgery. She made a good recovery, was able to return to work within five months and required no further medical treatment after one year.
• Miller v. Weisel - $700,000 pain and suffering verdict ($200,000 past and $500,000 future) for Erb's palsy suffered by a boy due to medical malpractice at birth. He was 13 years old at trial and the appellate court reduced the jury's verdict from $1,200,000 to $700,000.
• Chase v. Mullings - $190,000 pain and suffering verdict ($60,000 past and $130,000 future) for a 58 year old woman in a bus accident who sustained a partial tear of her left, non-dominant rotator cuff requiring arthroscopic surgery.

Personal injury lawyers such as New York's Eric Turkewitz will tell you that just because you read about a verdict in the news, or it's reported in blogs such as here, does not mean the plaintiff will actually get the money. Under CPLR 5501(c), as Turkewitz notes, and as we have previously discussed, the appellate courts can rule that a jury verdict deviates from what would be reasonable compensation and require a new trial on damages unless the parties stipulate to the amount determined reasonable by the appellate court.

We will follow the recent verdicts discussed here for further treatment by the appellate courts and report if and when there are new developments.

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

In Pryce v. County of Suffolk, New York's appellate court which handles appeals from Long Island as well as Westchester and nearby counties, the Appellate Division Second Department, upheld a jury's $575,000 pain and suffering award for a 63 year old maintenance man who fractured his ankle after stepping off a county bus and being struck by another vehicle.

The plaintiff suffered open comminuted fractures of the distal portions of his left leg's tibia, extending into the lateral portion of the ankle joint.

He had to undergo open reduction internal fixation surgery (surgical repair of fractured bones using hardware such as plates, screws and rods)  and the application of an external fixation device. Also, he had to have the fixation device removed surgically and he underwent four weeks of inpatient rehabilitation.

At 63 years of age, the life expectancy tables indicate the plaintiff had about 18 years more to live and part of the jury's award, $275,000, was meant to compensate him for his future pain and suffering from this injury in which he claimed he'd have to walk forever with a limp (the defense claimed he'd made a good recovery).

In another recent case, Bermudez  v. New York City Board of Education (Supreme Court, Kings County, Index # 27303/02) [no court decision and not reported publicly but summary available for purchase at Verdict Search], an 11 year old schoolboy fractured his ankle in gym class in a game of soccer. He sued claiming negligent supervision by  his teachers. The jury awarded him $1,030,000 for his pain and suffering - $190,000 for past pain and suffering plus $840,000 for the future.

The boy's ankle fracture was first treated by open reduction and internal fixation and then two years later he underwent an osteotomy (surgical cut through a bone with pieces then removed or repositioned).

At trial, Bermudez's lawyer argued that he would develop residual arthritis and need in the future a surgical fusion of his ankle (in which joint cartilage is removed and screws, plates, rods or pins are placed to hold the position to allow the bones to fuse solid over a few months time).

There are important distinctions between these two recent ankle fracture cases.

• The disparity in age between the two plaintiffs: in Pryce, a 63 year old and in Bermudez, an 11 year old. Clearly the jury concluded that the 11 year old plaintiff would suffer for many years more than the 63 year old Pryce and awarded him $840,000 for his future damages as opposed to only $275,00 for Pryce's future damages.
• The Pryce case is an appellate court case and therefore provides much more guidance and is of significant value in guiding lawyers and insurance companies in evaluating pain and suffering in ankle fracture cases.
• In Bermudez,  not only could there be an appellate reversal on the liability grounds (i.e., whether the city was negligent as a matter of law for either failing to instruct the class or failing to supervise them) but also it appears that the damages award is subject to attack. First, the plaintiff's settlement demand before trial was only $450,000 (the city had offered only $60,000). Second, any appeal in this case would go to the Appellate Division, Second Department, which ruled in Pryce and which is generally more conservative in its evaluations than its co-equal branch the First Department (which hears appeals from Manhattan and the Bronx only).

We will follow and report any changes.

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