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

Gerard Malloy had been an elevator mechanic for many years at 14 Wall Street in Manhattan when, on July 21, 2004, he tripped and fell over an air handler cover that had been left on the floor. He was thrown several feet and struck his back against nearby stairs.

Diagnosed with herniated discs at L3-4, Malloy was forced to undergo fusion surgery.

Here is what the spine looks like after lumbar fusion surgery:

Malloy had been earning $90,000 a year with full union benefits but was never able to return to work due to his injuries. While the building owner and operator denied they were negligent in maintaining the area and creating a dangerous condition, a Manhattan jury disagreed and found them 100% at fault.

On February 4, 2008, the jury awarded Malloy $3,260,000 in damages which included $1,600,000 for his pain and suffering ($400,000 past – 3 ½ years, $1,200,000 future – 25 years) plus $1,064,000 for lost earnings ($344,000 past, $720,000 future – 12 years).

Defendants did not challenge the reasonableness of the pain and suffering awards; nor would any such challenge have been successful in view of prior appellate court decisions (discussed here) and the severity of Malloy’s injuries such as:

• chronic, severe low back pain leaving him totally unable to return to work
• bilateral branch blocks at L1-L4 in which an anesthetic was injected into the spaces surrounding the nerve roots
• insertion of a spinal cord stimulator device which had to be removed after 10 days because it worsened the pain
• implantation of an intrathecal pump which emits a flow of narcotics into the spinal canal

Here is what the intrathecal pump looks like:

The defendants appealed on the issue of whether the lost earnings award should be reduced by social security disability (“SSD”) payments that plaintiff expects to receive in the future.

In one of the last decisions of 2009, the appellate court in Malloy v. Stellar Management ruled that the $100,000 of SSD payments already received by the time of trial should be deducted from the verdict; however, in a victory for the plaintiff the court also ruled that the estimated $400,000 in future SSD benefits should not be deducted.

The operative law is New York’s CPLR 4545 which requires trial judges to reduce a future loss of earnings verdict to the extent that it will with "reasonable certainty" be replaced or indemnified from a collateral source such as social security.

New York’s so-called common law (the law as set forth in court decisions) used to be that a personal injury plaintiff’s damages would not be reduced by the amount plaintiff received from collateral sources such as insurance. Beginning in 1975, the legislature started to chip away at that doctrine – the “collateral source rule” - and each evolving diminution of the doctrine was intended to prevent double recovery by plaintiffs and to curb rising liability insurance costs.

The question in Malloy v. Stellar Management was whether defendants had proven with reasonable certainty that plaintiff would continue to receive future SSD payments.

Since plaintiff was already awarded SSD and the award could be reduced or discontinued in the future only if the Social Security Administration made a new finding of employability (based on new medical evidence) and since plaintiff had argued at trial (based on testimony from his doctors) that he was permanently disabled and unemployable, defendants argued that they met the reasonable certainty test and they should be credited with $400,000 of future SSD payments.

Plaintiff argued that because there was conflicting medical testimony at trial as to whether he was totally disabled from employment, the defense could not meet its heavy burden of proving that it was highly probable the plaintiff would continue to be eligible for SSD benefits. The appellate judges agreed stating that an offset for future SSD benefits was not warranted because the trial record showed that plaintiff’s condition had improved and, although still primarily disabled, he was capable of performing some limited sedentary work.

Inside Information:

• This case drew wide attention shortly after the trial in 2008 when David Golomb, one of New York’s top trial lawyers, skewered two doctors on cross-examination. The doctors had examined Malloy for the defense and issued reports that purposefully omitted information that would have been favorable to the plaintiff. Eric Turkewitz discussed those issues, here, praising Golomb and suggesting that there may have been deception and a breach of ethics by those acting for the defendants.
• Four years before Malloy fell at work, he had been injured in a car accident in which he sustained herniated discs at L4-5 and L5-S1 requiring a laminectomy and fusion. He returned to work three years before his new accident but as part of his new surgery in 2005, the old hardware had to be removed.
• Defendants had also appealed on issues concerning (a) the so-called discount rate to be applied to the portion of the judgment that’s to be paid in installments over the years (under CPLR Article 50-B, certain portions of personal injury verdicts for future damages are to be paid out over time) and (b) whether plaintiff could insist that the annuity to fund the future payments be issued only by a top rated insurance company. Plaintiff’s position was upheld in both instances.
• Sources tell me that while the appeal was pending the parties settled for a $3,000,000 lump sum payment plus between $150,000 and $750,000 more depending upon the outcome of the appeal.

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

On April 13, 2003, Sergeant Michael Lauro of the New York City Police Department was performing a station-house security check at his precinct when he slipped and fell in a puddle of water.

After minor treatment, he was diagnosed with a rib fracture (which healed) and back pain. Unfortunately, the back pain never got better, MRIs revealed two herniated discs in his back pressing on spinal nerves and, despite years of treatment thereafter, Lauro could never return to work and remains disabled to this day.

On May 18, 2007, a Queens County jury returned a verdict in the 49 year old plaintiff’s favor finding that his injuries were due to the city’s negligence and awarding him pain and suffering damages in the sum of $810,000 ($160,000 past, $650,000 future). Last week, that verdict was upheld on appeal in Lauro v. City of New York.

The pain and suffering verdict is significant because plaintiff never underwent surgery (his doctor testified he’d require it but that the outcome is totally uncertain). Juries and appellate courts frequently devalue back and neck pain and suffering claims when there’s been no surgical repair.

• In many car accident cases in New York, this type of back injury claim is dismissed without a trial due to the restrictions of Insurance Law Section 5102 which mandates that plaintiffs’ injuries meet a narrow statutory threshold. My colleague, Eric Turkewitz, discusses plaintiffs' frustrations with this law over at New York Personal Injury Lawyer, here.

Mr. Lauro, though, had several factors in his favor which influenced the jury and the appellate judges:

• multiple MRIs over the years after the fall that showed the protruding discs pressing upon spinal nerves (causing excruciating pain)
• markedly decreased range of motion – forward flexion was severely limited to 20 degrees;
• continued prescriptive use of narcotic medication (Vicodin) for credible complaints of unremitting pain resulted in dependence and side effects (including memory loss and lethargy);
• inability to return to work or engage in activities such as camping, biking, swimming or bowling

Inside Information:

• The defense case was impaired severely because of its failure to produce at trial its doctor who had examined plaintiff two years earlier and was expected to testify. Defense counsel claimed the doctor was suddenly unavailable but the trial judge agreed with plaintiff’s counsel that a “missing witness” charge should be made whereby the jury was told it could make a negative inference due to the doctor’s absence. In fact, the defense doctor’s report of his examination supported plaintiff’s injury claims and that, plaintiff’s lawyer urged, was clearly the reason for the doctor’s curious absence.
• Plaintiff had a motorcycle accident in 1989 in which he injured his neck and the defense urged that plaintiff’s current injuries were all related to the prior accident. Plaintiff claimed the prior injuries were minor and the jury agreed apportioning only 2% of the damages to the prior accident and 98% to the current one.
• Plaintiff’s claim that he was permanently disabled from work was credited by the jury which awarded him $1,400,000 lost earnings damages. The trial judge, though, invoked the doctrine of “collateral estoppel” and set aside that award because, when Lauro applied for disability retirement from the city after the current accident, the city’s medical board ruled that while indeed Lauro is disabled the disability resulted from the 1989 accident. Plaintiff successfully urged on appeal that his lost earnings verdict should be reinstated. His eminent appellate counsel, Arnold E. DiJoseph, noting that plaintiff worked for 14 years straight after the 1989 accident and it was only after the 2003 accident that he never returned to work, pointed out that the city stood to gain a great deal by simply shifting blame for plaintiff’s disability to the 1989 incident.

There was only one case cited by the appellate court in Lauro v. City of New York to substantiate the reasonableness of the pain and suffering verdict. In that case, Wimbish v. New York City Transit Authority (2003), an $800,000 pain and suffering verdict ($300,000 past – 8 years, $500,000 future – 30 years) was upheld for a woman in a bus accident who sustained three large herniated discs in her neck. She underwent no surgery but remained in excruciating pain and would require future surgery.

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

On November 20, 2001, Yuko Yamamoto, a 37 year old registered nurse, was walking to work in Manhattan when she was struck and knocked to the ground by a taxicab. In her lawsuit to recover pain and suffering damages for her resulting neck injury, a judge determined that no trial would be needed on the issue of liability because it was obvious that the accident was wholly the fault of the taxi driver.

The only issue that required a jury, therefore, was the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled. Ms. Yamamoto presented to the jury a somewhat typical fact pattern for people who have sustained non-catastrophic, non-fracture injuries in motor vehicle accidents:

• complaints of neck and/or back pain, ambulance to the hospital, x-rays negative, treated and released to home within a few hours
• follow-up medical treatment within a day or so
• a short period of missed work (here, eight days),
• extensive chiropractic treatment over the ensuing years (here, three years)
• positive test results such as a nerve conduction study and an MRI with significant findings (here, herniations and bulges at C3-7 with radiculopathy, pain and weakness)
• range of motion deficits objectively measured (here, as much as 50% loss of extension)
• continuing complaints of pain and disability but no surgery as of the trial date

Here are the areas injured in the case of Ms. Yamamoto:

Many cases with fact patterns like those above are routinely dismissed before trial because judges find that the plaintiffs’ injuries do not meet the so-called “serious injury” threshold required in car accident cases under New York’s Insurance Law Section 5102 (d).

The defendant in Ms. Yamamoto’s case sought such a dismissal but his motion for summary judgment was denied in November 2007 because, the judge held in Yamamoto v. Carled Cab Corp., there appeared to be enough facts so that a jury could conclude that Ms. Yamamoto’s injuries met the statutory standard. At the same time, the judge granted plaintiff summary judgment finding that the accident was wholly the fault of the taxi driver.

This is what a herniated cervical disc looks like:

At trial, plaintiff established and the jury found that she suffered a serious injury in that she had a significant limitation of a body function or system (her cervical spine) and also a permanent consequential limitation of her cervical spine.

After plaintiff’s attorney requested a total of $500,000 in damages, on February 6, 2008, the jury awarded her $175,000 as follows:

• $50,000 for past pain and suffering (almost six years)
• $ -0- for future pain and suffering
• $5,000 for past medical expenses
• $120,000 for future medical expenses

On appeal, the defense argued that the future medical expense award was speculative and should be tossed out and also that the jury acted properly in declining to award anything for future pain and suffering.

Plaintiff argued that the future medical expense award was fair and proper (her chiropractor had testified she’ll need about $6,000 a year in treatment and testing for an unspecified period) and that the failure to award anything at all for future pain and suffering was unreasonable. Plaintiff suggested that an award of $300,000 for future pain and suffering would be reasonable and should be ordered or else there should be a new trial on that issue.

In an appeals court decision this week, the jury’s verdict was affirmed in its entirety. The judges stated that the failure to award any damages for future pain and suffering was supported by the evidence which showed plaintiff had:

• not altered her lifestyle,
• still worked the same job,
• cared for her young child and
• participated in her daily activities.

Addressing the apparent inconsistency in the jury’s award of substantial damages for future medical expenses but noting for future pain and suffering, the appellate judges stated that the jury could have concluded that funding regular chiropractic treatments would alleviate plaintiff’s future pain. This is an amazing statement. And it is inherently illogical. The court is saying that medical treatment will be necessary for 20 years and defendant should pay $120,000 for such treatment but that plaintiff will have no pain in the future because the treatment for her pain and disability will be paid for. That makes no sense.

If substantial medical treatment is needed in the future that’s because plaintiff will be in pain and somewhat disabled; otherwise there’s no need for the treatment and the $120,000 award should have been overturned. If, however, the treatment is needed then that’s because there’s expected to be some pain and suffering in the future.

Some award for future pain and suffering – anything but nothing – was required. The jury's failure to award anything for future pain and suffering in this case was, at a minimum, inconsistent with its substantial award for future medical expenses.

As we recently discussed, here, this very same appeals court just a few weeks ago overturned a jury verdict in a New York personal injury lawsuit where it found that the verdict was inconsistent and appeared to represent the jury's attempt at compromise in a case with questionable liability and significant damages. And the same court in Lamanna v. Jankowski (2008) made the same finding where a jury found "permanent consequential limitation of use" yet failed to award any future pain and suffering damages. A different appeals court (the Appellate Division for the Second Department) recently ruled that the failure to award any damages for future pain and suffering cannot be reconciled with the finding of permanent injury , as we discussed here.

While liability was not at all questionable in Yamamoto v. Carled Cab Corp., it does appear that either the jury engaged in an impermissible compromise or that its verdict as to future pain and suffering was simply against the overwhelming weight of the evidence (evidence that the jury itself found required an award of $120,000 for medical treatment expenses over a 20 year period). In any event, the verdict was wildly inconsistent.

Ms. Yamamoto must be justifiably perplexed and upset with the court's ruling denying her future pain and suffering claim and she's likely considering a motion to appeal this decision to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Under CPLR  5602 , however, the standard for granting such a motion is quite strict and the prospect of success is dim. We will follow this case for significant developments.

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

Deanna Kmiotek was 32 years old on July 8, 2004, sitting in her car at a red light in hometown Amherst, New York when out of nowhere the town's dump truck carrying an 18 ton load smashed into the rear of her car. She was seriously injured and sued the town for her damages.

A judge ruled well before trial that the facts and fault were plain and that the issue of fault need not be addressed at trail; the only issue at trial would be the amount of damages.

Deanna sustained herniations in her back requiring surgery to fuse lumbar discs at L4-5 and L5-S1 with a bone graft from her pelvis and the insertion of two metal titanium rods and six screws. As a result, she could no longer work either at home or as a commercial cleaner and she could no longer pick up her children or give then baths.

Here's what a spine looks like after lumbar fusion surgery:

The town offered $250,000 to settle before trial but the offer was rejected. In November 2007, an Erie County jury awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $75,000 ($35,000 past, $40,000 future). On appeal in Kmiotek v. Chaba, $75,000 was held to be unreasonably low and $225,000 ($75,000 past, $150,000 future) was found to be the minimum amount the jury could have awarded as a matter of law based on the evidence at trial.

The amount determined by the appellate court as reasonable in this case is strikingly lower than awards in similar cases and the court should have ordered an increase to at least $500,000. 

It cannot be repeated enough that each case, each person, each injury and each recovery  is unique so there's no one guideline or set of numbers to look to when ruling on appropriate pain and suffering damage figures. That said, the appellate courts in New York routinely rule in these cases by looking to prior cases for guidance. 

Had a thorough review of precedent been undertaken and relied upon, it's clear to me that Ms. Kmiotek would have had her paltry $75,000 jury verdict increased to more than $225,000 - say, $500,000 or more. Here are cases that the appeals court did not mention in its decision:

• Baird v. V.I.P. Management Co., Inc. - $700,000 ($400,000 past, $300,000 future) for a Westchester County woman who fell and underwent three surgeries with bone grafts to fuse and repair two cervical discs. Plaintiff in that case testified she was in constant pain and could not work; although she admitted on cross-examination that she had told her doctors before trial that she was improving and in less pain.
• Kihl v. Pfeffer - $1,845,000 ($625,000 past, $1,200,000 future) for a 38 year old passenger in a car accident who sustained a neck injury that required spinal fusion surgery involving the removal of her disc at C2-3 and its replacement with bone from her hip. Unfortunately, surgery made her worse and her doctors had to implant a permanent morphine pump to alleviate her pain.
• Barrowman v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. - $3,000,000 for a worker who fell off a scaffold 12 feet down to a concrete floor. He sustained herniated discs in his neck and back requiring spinal fusions with bone grafts. There was evidence that his neck and back injuries would worsen and more surgery would be needed.

                               Here are side and back views of the whole spine:

Inside Information:

• Defense counsel argued in summation that plaintiff sought a big damage award so that the Town of Amherst could buy her a new building. Counsel was playing to the well known reluctance of jurors to render big damage awards against their own municipalities.
• Defense counsel also suggested repeatedly in closing that a 10 year old car accident plaintiff had been involved in somehow caused the injuries plaintiff was suing for in the 2004 accident lawsuit - this despite the fact that the defense offered no proof at all as to any lingering injuries.
• Juries and courts are often affected by and reduce pain and suffering verdicts because of any bits of information as to any prior injuries or accidents. A good example of this is found in Sanz v. MTA-Long Island Bus where an appellate court reduced a jury's award from $750,000 to $400,000 in a cervical fusion case apparently influenced by facts related to an accident eight years earlier.
• Plaintiff's counsel objected to what he called improper, unethical closing argument statements made by defense counsel, such as above, that were intended to influence the jury and the appellate court agreed that the statements were improper.  But not so improper that plaintiff should be afforded a new trial on damages.

The appeals court in the Kmiotek case missed the ball on two counts:

1. Its increase of the paltry $75,000 verdict to $225,000 was much too low in view of plaintiff's debilitating injuries and similar prior sustained verdicts.
2. Second, defense counsel's statements to the jury in closing were outrageous, and should have resulted in a new trial so that a new jury could rule on damages without being affected by improper arguments that clearly influenced them to render such a meager award.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• 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