$500,000 Knee Injury Pain and Suffering Verdict Upheld on Appeal as to Reasonableness but Liability Verdict against City of New York to be Retried

A few weeks after the 9-11-01 tragedy, Donna Fisk, then 49 years old, moved from Florida to New York to volunteer at what became known as Memorial Park,  (a site at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York on East 30th Street) where remains were identified.

Mrs. Fisk's job was to input computer entries at an on-site trailer and give tours to new volunteers. After more than seven months and her last day of service, on May 16, 2002 Mrs. Fisk  tripped and fell over the tines (the "forks") of a forklift that extended six feet across her pathway about four inches above the ground at the site sustaining an injury to her knee that required surgery.

Here is a forklift with tines similar to those over which Mrs. Fisk fell:

Seeing two men with cameras peering into the site's entrance about to violate strict rules against photography at the site (enacted to protect the privacy of families of the deceased), Mrs. Fisk had left her trailer determined to stop them.

In her fall, Mrs. Fisk's knee hit the corner of one of the tines resulting in the following injuries:

  • significantly comminuted right patella fracture with the articular surface of the anterior pole in five bone fragments
  • ruptured patella tendon
  • open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and tendon reattachment surgery
  • six inch surgical scar

Here are the several types of patella fractures:

Plaintiff's injuries from the accident left her with permanent disabilities including:

  • inability to stand for long periods preventing resumption of duties as church lector
  • instability in the knee joint making it difficult and painful to squat, kneel or bend
  • significant reduction of ability to hike which plaintiff regularly enjoyed before
  • pain in and about the knee (qualitatively and quantitatively different from pre-existing polio-related pain)

Mrs. Fisk sued the city and in a trial that ended on October 30, 2007, the Manhattan jury found that the city had breached its duty as a landowner in that the location of its forklift created an unsafe condition. Plaintiff was awarded pain and suffering damages in the sum of $500,000 ($250,000 past - 5 1/2 years, $250,000 future). On appeal, though, in Fisk v. City of New York, the city won a reversal of the verdict and a new trial on liability because the jury failed to reduce the award to account for plaintiff's own negligence.

The city had argued during trial that even if it was negligent so was the plaintiff in that she assumed a risk (tripping over the forklift) when it was unreasonable to do so in view of her pre-existing disability (childhood polio affecting her lower leg) and the fact that her conduct was unreasonable in proportion to any alleged danger (i.e., confronting people taking prohibited photographs).

The jury agreed that plaintiff was negligent but found that her negligence was not a proximate cause of her injuries. Those findings, the appellate court held, could not have been reached by any valid line of reasoning, were therefore irreconcilable and require a reversal of the verdict and a new trial on liability.

Without stating why, the appellate court concluded that the jury's damages award does not deviate from what would be reasonable compensation and that if plaintiff prevails on liability in a new trial then then the damages award will apply, subject to any reduction for a finding of liability against the plaintiff.

Here are the cases discussed by the trial judge (the Hon. Karen S. Smith) in her post-trial decision upholding the verdict:

Inside Information: The jury in Fisk v. City of New York awarded $500,000 for pain and suffering in a patella fracture case notwithstanding plaintiff's childhood polio that affected her same leg. Mrs. Fisk, formerly a school teacher, retired in 1990, classified as totally disabled.

  • Plaintiff argued that her pre-existing polio affected only her lower leg, not her knee and that she had not needed any walking aids before the accident.
  • The defense argued that polio affected plaintiff's hips, that before the accident she'd needed several leg surgeries (including a 1985 ankle fusion) and that she had been a slow walker with a limp.

 

 

 

New Judicial Decisions in Knee Injury Cases Set Pain and Suffering Awards between $250,000 and $900,000

Judicial decisions in several recent cases demonstrate the wide range of possible outcomes for pain and suffering awards in knee injury cases.

We last visited this topic when discussing the New York City police officer who shot himself in the knee and convinced a jury not only that the city was at fault but also that he should recover  $4,500,000. That case will not be over until an appeals court rules. We expect a significant reduction in the pain and suffering award, if not an outright dismissal on liability grounds. We are following.

A very significant knee injury award for pain and suffering was largely upheld on appeal early last year in Urbina v. 26 Court Street Associates LLC . There, a 31 year old laborer fell off a scaffold and suffered both an intra-articular patella fracture and a torn meniscus. After three surgeries, he still needed at least two total knee replacements. Mr. Urbina was left with permanent pain, a limp and severe disabilities. The jury's $3,500,000 pain and suffering verdict ($1,000,000 past, $2,500,000 future) was reduced on appeal to $2,200,000 ($700,000 past, $1,500,000 future).

In the meantime, a Nassau County judge in a trip and fall case has issued a post-trial decision in Linzer v. Town of Oyster Bay reducing a $950,000 pain and suffering verdict ($450,00 past, $500,000 future) to $375,000 ($150,000 past, $225,000 future). In that case, a 45 year old doctor sustained a comminuted intra-articular fracture of her right leg's patella (the kneecap) requiring surgery to insert two metal screws to hold two large bony fragments together and sewing a third piece, all so that the patella would be held together.

Here's what that knee looked like after surgery:

 

After trial, the defense made a motion to set aside the $950,000 verdict as against the weight of the evidence. Justice F. Dana Winslow issued a decision on the post-trial motion that addressed all of the injuries and discussed the case precedent cited by each side.

In reducing the jury verdict, the judge was influenced by the facts that Dr. Linzer:

  • did not suffer from any post surgery complications
  • was on pain medication for only one month
  • had no limp
  • returned to work three months after the surgery

In a recent appellate court decision, the court in Smith v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority upheld a Bronx county jury's $900,000 verdict for pain and suffering in favor of a 43 year old woman who injured her knee when boarding a bus whose driver closed the door on her causing her knee to twist, and then he drove away and dragged her about eight feet.

Ms. Smith sustained these injuries:

  1. tears of her medial and lateral menisci          
  2. torn cruciate ligament
  3. torn cartilage
  4. permanent osteochondral defect

 

 

She underwent arthroscopic surgery but by the time of trial six years later, plaintiff had developed significant scar tissue, had substantial range of motion deficits and suffered from continuing pain, buckling and weakness all of which her doctor said were permanent injuries that would require more surgery including a knee replacement.

Lastly, we mention Gaston v. City of New York, in which a Bronx county jury awarded the grand total of $5,000 for past pain and suffering and nothing at all for future pain and suffering for a woman who suffered a torn meniscus that necessitated surgical repair. The appeals court found those awards to be unreasonable and ordered an increase to $250,000 ($200,000 past, $50,000 future).

The cases discussed here make plain that the range of damage verdicts in knee injury cases is quite wide - not only for the juries ($5,000 in the Gaston case to $3,500,000 in the Urbina case) but also for the appeals courts ($250,000 in Gaston to $2,200,000 in Urbina).  As we see in Gaston, when the jury awards a figure the appeals court finds is too low, then there will be an increase but not to the highest figure the court would have sustained. Instead, as in Gaston,  the courts will increase an unreasonably low award to the lowest amount that would have been upheld as not unreasonably low. And when an award is found to be unreasonably high, the appeals court will simply order a reduction to a figure that is the highest it would have sustained.

If the jury comes in too high or too low well then watch out because the appellate court will not make it all just perfect. The appellate courts will merely order an increase or a decrease into a range they deem reasonable. And in knee injury cases, the range of sustainable pain and suffering awards is quite wide.