Pedestrian Hit by New York City Bus Wins $1,400,000 Pain and Suffering Jury Verdict for Back Injuries; Appeals Court Orders New Trial Because Plaintiff Failed to Allege Preexisting Condition

Posted on March 2, 2010 by John Hochfelder

Defendants routinely and successfully argue in back and neck injury cases that  plaintiff’s injuries pre-existed an accident and no pain and suffering damages should be awarded (even if defendant is found to have caused the new accident). There’s merit to the argument but it’s not as simple as I’ve implied.


Under New York law, a plaintiff who’s been injured before is still entitled to recover pain and suffering damages resulting from a new injury to the same body part; however, a plaintiff is only entitled to damages to the extent to which he’s been further disabled or injured as a result of the new accident.

And, a plaintiff must make the aggravation or exacerbation of injury claim in his lawsuit pleadings before a trial judge will tell the jury that they may make an award for the increased pain and suffering. Otherwise, a plaintiff has to prove that all of his injuries were caused in the new accident and the defendant will win by convincing the jury that plaintiff’s injuries predated the current accident.


Plaintiffs usually claim that their preexisting neck and back injuries were resolved and that for years they had returned to prior levels of activity and were pain free. Now, they say, new trauma has caused new injuries, especially herniated discs, and they are in great pain and disabled as a result. The problem is, though, that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which illustrates the herniated discs very often is interpreted to show degenerative disc disease. When that happens, defense doctors will testify that the degeneration means plaintiff has preexisting disc disease and that it’s unclear what, if any, new spinal injuries were caused by the recent trauma.


With this background, we now turn to the case of Leslie Rodgers, a 40 year old man who was struck by a city bus at about 8 a.m. on September 23, 2003 while in the crosswalk on Gates Avenue at its intersection with Franklin Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. He was taken by ambulance to a local hospital where he was treated for minor back and other injuries and released. A month later, an MRI showed a herniated disc at L5-S1 with impingement on the S1 nerve root. Rodgers began a long course of conservative treatment including physical therapy, chiropractic treatment and two epidural steroid injections.


Finally, after three years, Rodgers underwent back surgery: a laminotomy and diskectomy at L5-S1. During the surgery, the doctor plucked out a disc fragment that had been impinging upon a nerve.

Here is what the diskectomy procedure looks like:


Post-operatively, Mr. Rodgers was much improved but his pain soon returned and at trial he testified that he was in great pain and disabled. He complained of intermittent numbness and pain up and down one leg with low back pain lasting all day and night. His surgeon opined that these conditions would be permanent. That meant Rodgers could no longer return to his job (at Fortune Society assisting HIV positive ex-convicts find housing); nor would he ever again enjoy basketball, handball or running.


The jury assessed pain and suffering at $1,400,000 ($200,000 past - 4 1/2  years; $1,200,000 future – 25 years).

The city appealed asserting:

  1. that there was evidence that Rodgers had degenerative disc disease before the accident (the MRI a month after the accident revealed an osteophyte growth at the site of plaintiff’s L5-S1 herniation as well as desiccation and degeneration of the disc),
  2. that he failed to make a claim in the lawsuit that the bus accident injuries may have been due, at least in part, to his preexisting condition and
  3. that the trial judge should not have instructed the jury that they could award damages for plaintiff’s increased susceptibility to injury

Here is a comparison of normal, healthy discs with degenerated discs with osteophytes:


Last week, in Rodgers v. New York City Transit Authority (2nd Dept. 2010), the appellate judges agreed with the city and ordered a new trial, thus vacating the entire jury verdict (Rodgers was also awarded $1,000,000 for past and future lost earnings).


The trial judge had told the jury they could award pain and suffering damages for all of the injuries suffered by Rodgers if they found that his prior physical condition left him more susceptible to greater injuries than a healthy person (i.e., one without preexisting degenerative disc disease). The defense claimed it was prejudiced by this charge (Pattern Jury Instruction 2:283) in that plaintiff had proceeded in the lawsuit for years on the sole theory that all of his injuries were caused by the bus accident and he had never once put the defense on notice that some injuries may have been exacerbated or due to his prior condition that had left him with an increased susceptibility or the possibility of asymptomatic conditions becoming symptomatic. The appellate court agreed and ruled that the jury’s verdict was improper because it may have included damages for injuries that Mr. Rodgers sustained before the bus accident.


In the new trial, the jury will consider only those injuries actually caused by the bus accident and they may award pain and suffering damages only for those new injuries. That’s a huge win for the defense in that it will be very hard for Rodgers to convince the jury that he sustained any new injuries at all in view of his preexisting condition.


Inside Information:

  • Before the accident, plaintiff had been a drug addict and served 12 years in prison for participating in a kidnapping (by the time of trial he had become a productive member of society, working and enrolled in a Ph.D. program at Hunter College).
  • Plaintiff claimed unfair surprise too – only three days before jury selection the defense notified plaintiff’s counsel that a defense radiologist would testify that plaintiff’s injuries were preexisting.
  • The jury apportioned liability 80% on the city and 20% on the plaintiff and in the new trial that apportionment will stand with the new jury considering only the issues of which injuries (and the amount of damages), if any, were caused by the bus accident.
     
Tags: , , , , ,

Slip and Fall Plaintiff's New York Jury Verdict Awarding More Than $1,000,000 for Future Medical, Custodial and Rehabilitation Expenses Affirmed in Back Injury Case Despite Prior Accident in which Back Surgery had been Recommended but Declined

Posted on February 3, 2010 by John Hochfelder

Ramona Ulerio, a 36 year old homemaker, sustained serious back injuries when she slipped and fell down subway stairs in New York City on October 5, 2002. She sued the New York City Transit Authority claiming it was negligent in its maintenance of the stairway and that its negligence created a dangerous condition. She won her case five years later when a Bronx County jury ruled that it was a missing non-slip plate that caused the accident.

The subway station looked something like this:

The jury then calculated and awarded damages in the sum of $1,500,000, as follows:

  • past medical expenses - $30,000
  • future medical expenses - $381,322
  • future custodial care - $441,163
  • future rehabilitation expenses - $214,318
  • future pain and suffering - $433,197

Each of the future periods was 20 years.

The transit authority appealed on the basis that the damages awarded were excessive but yesterday the appellate court affirmed the award in its entirety in Ulerio v. New York City Transit Authority (1st Dept. 2010).

The case is significant and a big win for the plaintiff because Ms. Ulerio had sustained a previous back injury (also in a fall down accident) three years earlier. And her doctor recommended surgery for a disc at L5-S1 that was injured in the first accident. That very same disc was injured in the new accident, in addition to a disc at L4-L5.

So, the defendant argued at trial and on appeal that plaintiff’s injuries pre-existed and were not caused by the 2002 accident, noting also that Ms. Ulerio had even scheduled surgery for her back after the 1999 accident (although later canceled).

The defense urged that any treatment plaintiff claimed she’d need in the future was directly related to the old accident and injury. On the face of it, this sounds plausible; however, there were several facts that led the jury and the appellate judges to believe otherwise:  

  • a doctor who treated plaintiff for both accidents testified that the first accident was minor and the second quite major,
  • plaintiff was able to maintain all of her usual activities after the first accident but after the second accident she was rendered totally disabled

The treatment after the second accident included extensive physical therapy, epidural injections and two surgeries – a laminectomy at L4-L5 with bilateral foraminotomies and a bilateral laminectomy at L4-5, L5-S1 with L5-S1 fusion.

The L5-S1 fusion was clearly a new and huge injury and in that procedure the doctor fused the two vertebrae together fusing metal hardware and her back now looks like this:

 

Unfortunately, Ms. Ulerio remained at trial in unremitting pain (despite morphine) and unable to resume her household duties. She could not stand for more than 15 minutes, sleep at night, bathe or dress herself. She needed a cane to walk and wore a back brace at all times. She was diagnosed with failed back syndrome.

Ms. Ulerio’s need to incur future expenses was explained by testimony from her doctors and an economist who concluded that Ms. Ulerio  would require 40 years worth of physical therapy (30-50 times a year), pain management, household help (20 hours a week) and medical testing and care (including additional spine surgeries). They added it all up to more than $3,500,000. The jury agreed that these categories of future expenses would be required but only for 20 years and only in the total sum of about $1,000,000.

Inside Information:

  • plaintiff was found to be 30% at fault for her accident so her total recovery is $1,050,000 (not $1,500,000)
  • the jury clearly decided that the total verdict should be $1,500,000 and then it “backed into” that figure by awarding odd amounts for each category of damages
  • plaintiff had before trial stopped going for physical therapy so the defense argued that there was no reason to believe she’d continue or need it in the future – plaintiff countered that the reason she stopped was she could not afford therapy and the jury’s award would allow this needed care in the future
  • the future pain and suffering award ($433,197) was not challenged on appeal (and it would not have been modified downward anyway in view of case precedent we've discussed before, here and here
  • the appeal of this important case was handled superbly by noted appellate counsel Brian Isaac

 

Tags: , , , ,

Spouse Awarded $1,000,000 for Loss Of Consortium Claim

Posted on March 7, 2009 by John Hochfelder

Loss of consortium is the term most often used by judges and lawyers to refer to the claims of physically uninjured spouses in personal injury cases brought by their physically injured mates. The claim arises when a physically injured person cannot as a result provide his or her spouse with the services, companionship, love, affection and sexual relations enjoyed before the accident.

The loss of consortium claim is usually not a significant one unless the physically injured spouse has suffered a devastating, long-lasting injury such as paralysis, incontinence, loss of sexual function or inability to walk.

Judges in New York tell juries in personal injury cases that in determining the loss of consortium damage amounts they are to consider following factors and traits of the physically injured spouse:

  • disposition and temperament
  • social life
  • services rendered in supervising the household
  • acts of affection, love and sexual intercourse

It's obvious that these elements of the claim are vague and I can tell you from experience that juries often misunderstand them. As a result, loss of consortium awards range from shockingly low or even nothing at all to amazingly high. The appellate courts do not hesitate to exercise their powers, in New York under CPLR 5501, to increase or decrease loss of consortium verdicts when they find the amounts awarded deviate from what is reasonable compensation.

Here are some of the higher awards sustained in New York for loss of consortium claims:

  • Villaseca v. City of New York (Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2008) - a Bronx County jury awarded Diane Villaseca $1,800,000 for her loss of consortium claim in connection with an $8,000,000 pain and suffering award for her husband who suffered loss of vision after nine surgeries (his pain and suffering claim was reduced to $5,000,000, as we noted previously here). On appeal, Ms. Villaseca's award was reduced to $750,000 ($250,000 past, $500,000 future), with the court noting that she had assumed full responsibility for household chores, cooking and helping her husband move about.
  • Bissell v. Town of Amherst (Appellate Division, 4th Dept., 2008) - an Erie County jury awarded Sherry Bissell $3,000,000 for her loss of services claim ($1,000,000 past, $2,000,000 future) in connection with her husband Peter's fractures of his lumbar vertebrae from a workplace fall that left him paralyzed, incontinent and sexually dysfunctional. Ms. Bissell took over all aspects of her husband's hygienic care. The appeals court reduced her award to $1,000,000 ($250,000 past, $750,000 future).

  • Hopper v. Regional Scaffolding & Hoisting Co., Inc. (Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2005) - a Bronx County jury awarded Laurel Hopper $1,500,000 ($300,000 past, $1,200,000 future) in connection with her husband Bill's spinal injuries from an elevator hoist drop. He underwent a T10-12 laminectomy and suffered ruptured blood vessels that led to a spinal cord stroke. He was left in constant pain, incapable of sitting long and with frequent urinary urge. His wife became his caregiver. His prognosis was poor and the $1,800,000 pain and suffering award was upheld on appeal and the loss of consortium award was reduced to $800,000 ($200,000 past, $600,000 future).

In some cases, juries have awarded nothing at all, or too little. For example, in Barnaby v. Gold Construction Corp. (Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2008), the judge in a non-jury damages only trial in Bronx County awarded nothing at all to the spouse and only $50,000 to a laborer who fell at work sustaining a fractured ankle and torn meniscus in his knee. A new trial was ordered because the judge failed to state why he didn't make an award for loss of consortium, especially in view of the fact that Ms. Barnaby was left with a spouse largely confined to their home and unable to do any household chores.

Don't get the impression that loss of consortium claims are often in the $750,000 to $1,0000,000 range. They aren't. Typical awards in significant but non-catastrophic injury cases are more along the line of the following cases:

Insider's Tips:

  1. When there's a divorce or the spouses separate after the accident, the loss of consortium claim will be negatively affected. There's no spousal claim for the time period after the separation and any award for the prior time when they were together will likely be much less than had the jury not known about the marital strife. Savvy lawyers will either avoid adding the loss of consortium claim at all or they will try to get the uninjured spouse to drop the claim. Jurors do not want to hear about the divorce or the separation. As Maryland attorney Ron Miller has noted, they want to see the spouses sticking together "for better or worse."
  2. Usually, a loss of consortium claim is included in (i.e,, derivative of) a personal injury claim and counts toward the limit of liability under any applicable liability insurance policy. In some cases, though, for example in Tennessee under the Government Torts Claim Act, the loss of consortium claim is separate. (h/t Day on Torts)

Tidbit:

Loss of consortium claims began in England in 1846 via statute as Lord Campbell's Act and were originally paired in a Latin expression: "per quod servitium et consortium amisit,"  translated as "in consequence of which he lost her society and services."

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,