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

Almost ten years ago, a month after the Great Neck, New York commercial office building at 1010 Northern Boulevard had been constructed and occupied, there was a problem with some of the emergency backup lighting fixtures. The tenant notified the building owner who in turn notified its general contractor. Then, the electrical subcontractor was notified and then the manufacturer who engaged an electrical services corporation to send out an electrician, Daniel Hernandez, to see what the problem was.

So, on July 21, 2000, there was Hernandez, at the site, on a ladder, replacing the ballast on a defective lighting fixture when he received an electrical shock, fell from the ladder, broke his leg and promptly sued everyone involved – the owner, general contractor, tenant and the manufacturer.

This is the actual building where Hernandez fell:

The lawsuit was based on Labor Law Section 241(6) which provides protections to workers injured at construction sites. Plaintiff claimed that his injuries resulted from a violation of a regulation that prohibits work on electric circuits unless there is protection from electric shock by de-energizing the circuits and grounding them.

The trial began on October 6, 2008 and ended with a jury verdict on November 3, 2008 finding that Hernandez was shocked and fell because wires were not properly grounded and the power was left on.

Here's an electrician on a ladder working on ceiling lights just as Hernandez was:

In assessing damages, the jury heard from various doctors and the plaintiff. They testified that Hernandez sustained comminuted, displaced fractures of his right tibia and fibula requiring open reduction and internal fixation surgery (the placement of an intramedullary rod and screws from his knee to his ankle). The fibula fracture never healed – it was non-union. Furthermore, and most importantly, Hernandez developed reflex sympathy dystrophy (RSD) affecting both legs.

Here is what the tibia looks like after surgery with an intramedullary rod in place:

For pain and suffering the jury verdict was $3,166,667 ($1,000,000 past – 8 years, $2,166,667 future – 25.8 years). In a decision issued the day before Christmas last month, the trial judge, Louis B. York, upheld the award in full in Hernandez v. Ten Ten Co., after a post-trial motion by the defense claiming it was excessive. The defense argued that no more than $1,680,000 should be deemed reasonable

At first glance, more than $3,000,000 for tib-fib fractures seems excessive. Within the past year, we reviewed tib-fib fracture cases, here, discussing recent appellate court decisions that have upheld awards in the range of $1,100,000 to $1,500,000. In the Hernandez case, though, there are significant additional injuries such as RSD and plaintiff's:

• inability to walk without crutches
• severe, permanent and progressive loss of right knee and ankle range of motion
• chronic persistent pain requiring lifelong use of narcotic pain medication
• inability to play with his children
• clinical depression requiring anti-depressant medication

In a well-reasoned opinion, the trial judge reviewed prior appellate court decisions dealing with damages in RSD cases (Jeffries v. 3520 Broadway Management Co. [2007], Brown v. City of New York [2003] and Valentine v. Lopez [2001]) and they appear to be relevant and supportive of his decision to uphold this large verdict. For additional information on recent RSD cases, see our posts here and here.

Inside Information:

• Plaintiff was also awarded $1,900,000 for 19 years of lost earnings which the defense argued should be dismissed because there was no vocational rehabilitation expert testimony to justify the plaintiff’s claim that he could no longer work at all. The judge properly upheld the lost earnings verdict noting that the doctors had testified plaintiff was incapable of holding any job so no need for vocational rehabilitation expert testimony.
• Plaintiff's wife was awarded $341,666 for the loss of her husband’s services for the eight years leading up to trial but nothing at all for future loss of services. The defense had argued that this award was excessive to the extent it exceeded $75,000.
• The nearly 10 year delay from the accident to the verdict was due in part to an earlier appeal. In 2004, the defense had moved to have the entire case dismissed on the ground that the Labor Law did not apply because the building was not under construction at the time of the accident. That decision was reversed on appeal in 2006 and the case allowed to proceed to trial.

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

The quadriceps tendon is located at the top of the patella and is attached to the quadriceps muscle. It is critical for ambulation because it allows the knee to move from a position of extension (straight) to a position of flexion (bent). When it ruptures, the patella loses its anchoring support in the thigh and one cannot stand up as the knee will buckle and give away.

Here, you can see the importance the quadriceps tendon and muscle:

Recognizing how painful and debilitating a quadriceps tendon rupture can be, an appeals court has now upheld almost 75% of a Bronx County jury’s $2,200,000 pain and suffering verdict for a 45 year old woman who tripped and fell over a subway station’s broken step.

On April 15, 2003, Juanita Clotter was returning home after a long day as a factory worker when she entered the subway station at 149^th Street and the Grand Concourse in the Bronx (right by the courts and Yankee Stadium). She fell down the stairs when she tripped and later sued the New York City Transit Authority (the city agency that manages the subway and its station areas) claiming that she fell because the city  negligently maintained the area and created a dangerous condition in that a significant chunk of a step was worn and broken away.

Unable to move from the bottom of the stairway, Ms. Clotter was taken by ambulance to a nearby hospital where she was diagnosed with a ruptured quadriceps tendon. The tendon in her right leg had literally torn away from her patella (the kneecap) and pulled away with it a small piece of the bone.

This is what a quadriceps tendon rupture looks like:

Surgery was required in which an eight inch incision was made so a hole could be drilled through the bone and fiber wire run through the kneecap and secured. At trial five years later, Ms. Clotter and her doctors testified that she was unable to walk without the use of crutches or a cane, could not return to work, had a seven inch disfiguring scar in front of her leg and had atrophy and swelling

After the jury returned its $2,200,000 pain and suffering verdict, the defendants appealed claiming it was excessive because plaintiff had only minimal treatment after the surgery and three months of physical therapy, she could not quantify her pain and made no efforts to improve her condition on her own. Plaintiff countered that her complaints of pain and disability were substantiated by her orthopedic surgeon, Jerry Lubliner, M.D., who testified in detail as to the severity of the trauma and the permanency of Ms. Clotter’s injuries.

Last week, the appellate court pretty much agreed with the plaintiff in Clotter v. New York City Transit Authority. While finding that $2,200,000 was excessive, the judges stated that $1,600,000 ($800,000 past - 5 years, $800,000 future - 16 years) would be reasonable. That’s a reduction of little more than 25%.

The only case cited by the court in its discussion of the proper amount for pain and suffering is Orellano v. 29 East 37^th Street Realty Corp. (2004); however, that case is not very relevant. It dealt with a 47 year old man who sustained a comminuted fracture of his tibia and fibula, underwent several surgical procedures during a two month hospital stay and was left with a permanent, partial disability. On appeal, his $5,500,000 pain and suffering verdict was deemed excessive and the sum of $750,000 ($375,000 past, $375,000 future) was found to be appropriate. It’s not at all clear why the judges in Clotter (dealing with a ruptured quadriceps tendon) thought that the Orellano decision (dealing with a tibia-fibula fracture) is pertinent or offers any guidance.

There were several recent cases that did deal with quadriceps tendon ruptures that were not but could and should have been discussed in Clotter not only by the judges but also by the lawyers. Here they are:

• Verzivolli v. State of New York (2002) - $675,000 pain and suffering award by trial judge ($125,000 past – 5 years, $500,000 future – 33 years) for a 39 year old roofer whose quadriceps muscle was torn by a power saw. He underwent arthroscopic surgery to remove loose cartilage in his knee. He was left with a limp and needed a cane to walk.
• Scott v. New York City Transit Authority (2004) [court order silent on injury details - affirmation of counsel, here, provides details] - $1,200,000 jury verdict for pain and suffering ($600,000 past – 4 years, $600,000 future – 18 years) for a 60 year old unemployed man who tripped and fell sustaining a rupture of his quadriceps tendon requiring surgery and leaving him with a limp and the need to wear a leg brace. The plaintiff had difficult liability issues on appeal and this case settled for less than the verdict amount while the defendant's appeal was pending.
• Gainey v. City of New York (2000) - $600,000 jury verdict affirmed on appeal for pain and suffering ($300,000 past, $300,000 future) for a 34 year old unemployed man who tripped and fell on a city park’s pathway and suffered a torn quadriceps tendon requiring surgery and leaving him in a permanently and progressively debilitated physical condition.

In view of the prior cases that dealt squarely with quadriceps tendon injuries, it appears that the plaintiff in Clotter has broken though to new heights in obtaining appellate court approval of a pain and suffering award of $1,600,000.

Inside Information:

• The original decision in Clotter that was posted on the court’s web site clearly stated at the outset that there was to be a reduction of the verdict from $2,200,000 to $1,600,000; however, the last sentence in the decision (before the concurring opinion) stated that “$500,000” each for pain and suffering would be an appropriate award. This caused no small amount of confusion that day and calls to the court revealed that there was a typographical error and the corrected decision now has $800,000 each in the body of the decision.
• While the concurring opinion of Justice McGuire states that he feels that the reduction of the jury verdict to $1,600,000 did not go far enough, he did not state what he concluded would be the proper increased reduction. Insiders tell me that his figure was $1,000,000 and that’s why there was a reference to $500,000 each (past and future) in the body of the opinion – there had been a back and forth between the majority and this justice that mistakenly made its way into the original decision.

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

A broken or fractured tibia (the shin bone) is the most common long-bone injury. Several types of fractures can occur, ranging from the hairline stress fractures common in runners to severe open fractures (where the skin is broken) often resulting from motor vehicle accidents. And when severe, the fibula (the long, thin lateral or outside bone of the lower leg) is also fractured - thus the term tib-fib fractures.

An appellate court in New York has just upheld a $1,100,000 jury verdict for a 45 year old woman's pain and suffering ($500,000 past, $600,000 future) for fractures of her tibia and fibula. In Keating v. SS&R Management Co., Lori Keating was a passenger in a taxi that was struck by another car. She sustained an open fracture of her tibia and a fracture of her fibula, requiring six surgical procedures performed over the course of three years, including external fixation and internal fixation, as well as skin, muscle and nerve grafts. The Manhattan jury was also told of the fact that Ms. Keating's fractures did not heal (non-union), causing her significant pain and leaving her with severe scarring. The jury awarded her a whopping $12,000,000 for her pain and suffering ($5,000,000 past, $7,000,000 future) but those amounts were reduced by the trial judge to the amounts then sustained this month by the appellate court.

Here's an intraoperative (during surgery) illustration of the type of open reduction internal fixation ("ORIF") surgery that Ms. Keating underwent showing how the rod is placed down into the tibia:

In another recent appellate case, Bello v. New York City Transit Authority, a jury's $1,500,000 verdict for pain and suffering ($750,000 past, $750,000 future) was upheld for Vidal Bello, a boy who was seven years old when he was struck by a moving bus that then rolled over his leg resulting in open tib-fib fractures as well as a degloving injury to that leg (i.e, the skin was torn away, or avulsed). By the time of trial, Vidal had already suffered through eight surgical procedures including external fixation, grafting and placement of an intramedullary rod.

Here's what his leg looked like with the intramedullary rod in place:

Vidal also had ugly scarring from the accident, a permanently curved leg and a limp that would only get worse over the course of his entire life.

The Keating and Bello cases are important in evaluating the upper limits of lower leg pain and suffering verdicts and settlements; however, it's also important to appreciate that juries can award much lower amounts that will be sustained and that the appellate courts are not forced to modify up or down jury verdicts that to the litigants seem too low or too high. The standard, as we have previously discussed here and here, is simply this as set forth in CPLR 5501:

• The jury's pain and suffering award will be deemed excessive or inadequate "if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation."

CPLR 5501 is not much of a guide for injured persons or their attorneys. Add to that the fact that appellate court decisions routinely fail to advise the readers of the precise injuries or the disabilities suffered. Worse yet: the appellate court cases often cite as support (for their rulings increasing or decreasing a jury award) cases that do not even deal with or discuss the injuries in the pending case.

As readers of this blog know, it is our aim to fill these voids as much as possible by digging into these cases, to find out -- from appellate briefs, trial transcripts, trial court motions and the like -- exactly what it was that happened to the injured plaintiff. In that way, all concerned with injury case pain and suffering evaluation can have more and relevant information with which to make educated settlement and trial decisions.

We leave you with an example of a recent appellate court case dealing with the reduction of a jury's award for pain and suffering in a a case involving comminuted fractures to the shaft of a 53 year old man's tibia and fibula. In Brown v. Elliston, a pedestrian was injured in 2003 when a car hit him and came to a stop on top of his leg and then rolled back over it a second time. In 2006, a Suffolk County jury awarded Mr. Brown $800,000 for his pain and suffering ($300,000 past, $500,000 future) after hearing evidence that Brown's leg was in a hard cast for nine months, he developed an ulcer at the fracture site, he had open reduction internal fixation surgery and was left with an angled foot and a limp. All of that was gleaned from the appellate court decision which then goes on to reduce the future pain and suffering jury award from $500,000 to $400,000 while affirming the $300,000 past pain and suffering award - total appellate determination: $700,000.

Here's what is disturbing about the decision in Brown:

• There is no mention of Mr. Brown's prior accident, in 1995, when he was crushed between two garbage trucks and left totally disabled, unable to walk well and on narcotic pain medication. The defense briefs on appeal which we dug up made much of these facts. The appeals court makes no mention of them. That's simply  not instructive, if not downright unfair, to future litigants and their attorneys who constantly need to evaluate injury cases and seek to do so in large part with guidance from appellate court precedent. After all, when both sides are fully informed as to injury case evaluation, then there will be more settlements and fewer trials. Aren't those admirable goals and aren't they to be facilitated by lofty appeals courts?
• There is no explanation at all for why the appeals court chose to reduce the future pain and suffering award from $500,000 to $400,000. That's not such a large percentage and one wonders: why not reduce by $50,000? why not by $250,000? For most people, $50,000 here and $250,000 there are significant amounts and if we are to have appeals court judges who were not present at the trials reduce or increase the jury's verdicts by these or any similar amounts then are we not entitled to some explanation?
• The cases cited are not instructive. For example, the first and the most recent case cited is Singh v.Catamount Development Corp. That's a case involving a 14 year old boy in a skiing accident who sustained both a fractured femur and a fractured shoulder. No tibia or fibula fractures. And there, the plaintiff returned to competitive skiing 10 months after his accident. So why refer at all to that case as precedent in which there was an upward modification to $300,000 (the jury had awarded $18,000 for past pain and suffering and nothing for future)? What's the relevance? What lesson is the court trying to impart? Beats me - it's totally unclear.

We will continue our effort to shine light on and analyze significant pain and suffering verdicts and settlements so that persons with traumatic injuries and their attorneys can evaluate their own cases with more knowledge and information than is available from the publicly reported court decisions.

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