On April 10, 2016, Robert Liciaga was severely injured when a 10-foot-long railroad tie fell from an elevated subway line and struck his back while he was riding a bicycle along Broadway in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn. At the time and place of the accident, the New York City Transit Authority (the “TA”) was performing track replacement work on the elevated subway tracks.

Mr. Liciaga, then 23 years old, sued the TA claiming it was negligent in failing to secure the area below the tracks where debris was being dropped and that the tie should have been slowly lowered to the roadway. The TA argued that plaintiff should not have bicycled into the area which was obviously dangerous with cranes, barricades and safety cones. Plaintiff testified that a worker gave him permission to enter the construction zone.

The jury found in favor of plaintiff on the liability issues and then they awarded pain and suffering damages in the sum of $69,000,000 ($9,000,000 past – three years, $60,000,000 future – 48 years). They also awarded future medical expenses in the sum of $40,000,000 (48 years).

The trial judge declined to disturb the liability verdict but found that the pain and suffering damages awards were excessive and ordered reductions to $4,000,000 for the past and $12,000,000 for the future. The judge did not disturb the future medical expenses award or allow a so-called collateral source hearing by which defendant sought to reduce the amount of future medical expenses by amounts plaintiff is entitled to receive from sources such as insurance or government benefits.

In Liciaga v. New York City Transit Authority (2d Dept. 2024), the appellate court rejected the defense arguments as to liability and excessiveness of the damages awards but did find that the defense is entitled to a collateral source hearing to present evidence that the plaintiff, who was uninsured, would have his future medical expenses covered by private health insurance under the so-called Affordable Care Act.

Here are the injury details:

  • spinal fractures at T9-10 with severance of the spinal cord
  • extensive emergent spine surgery
  • hospitalized five days, inpatient rehabilitation three weeks, nursing home three months, then residence at Coler Specialty Hospital – a Medicaid facility
  • no motor activity or sensation below the T7 level leaving plaintiff permanently paraplegic, wheelchair bound, in pain and unable to attend to activities of daily living

Inside Information:

  • The defense offered no evidence whatsoever, including no expert testimony, during the damages trial.
  • The future medical expenses claim was based on plaintiff’s expert physiatrist (and an economist) who testified that the costs would be between $37,424,829 and $58,284,689. The largest item was for home care (with nurses and aides) or facility care.
  • The case settled for an undisclosed sum in April 2025.

On March 13, 2017, Carlos Fuentes, then 35 years old, was injured when the car he was driving was struck by a vehicle driven by an officer with the Nassau County Police Department. The car Mr. Fuentes was in flipped over three times; the other car burst into flames.

After a trial on liability, the jury found that the police officer was fully at fault and the jury then awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $1,025,000 ($425,000 past – four years, $600,000 future – 30 years). In Fuentes v. Ingram (2d Dept. 2025), the judgment has been affirmed.

Here are the injury details:

  • Left Knee – grade four chondromalacia requiring arthroscopic surgery
  • Hip – labral tear
  • Spine – herniated discs in neck and back

Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon was the sole medical witness to testify. He said that plaintiff’s knee cartilage had been significantly damaged to the point that bone was rubbing against bone and his surgery could not alleviate plaintiff’s symptoms. He opined that plaintiff’s injury is permanent, with restricted range of motion. Plaintiff’s other injuries did not require surgery but his surgeon testified that he has restricted ranges of motion in those areas as well and they too are permanent.

Plaintiff testified that his pain and restricted ranges of motion left him unable to resume his previously very active life that included a heavy labor job, several sports and helping out at home.

The jury awarded (and the appellate court affirmed) damages for spousal loss of services and society in the sum of $85,000 ($35,000 past, $50,000 future – 30 years).

Inside Information:

  • in his summation, plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award pain and suffering damages in the sum of $425,000 for the past and $375,000 for the future.
  • Plaintiff’s wife was employed as a paralegal with plaintiff’s law firm.
  • At the time of trial, plaintiff and his wife had been separated for about six months.
  • The judge instructed the jury that plaintiff’s life expectancy pursuant to government tables was 34.5 years; the jury instead chose 30 years for its future damages awards.

On March 27, 2015, Earl Lind was working for an electrical subcontractor at the World Trade Center vehicle security center new construction site. Mr. Lind, then 45 years old, was in the bucket of an articulating lift when he was injured after it slid down a ramp and crashed.

WTC Vehicle Center

In his ensuing lawsuit against the construction manager and premises owner, Lind was granted summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law Section 240(1) and the matter then proceeded to a trial on damages only. The Manhattan jury awarded plaintiff damages as follows:

  • Pain and Suffering – $460,000 (past only – seven years),
  • Lost Earnings – $230,000 (past only – seven years), and
  • Loss of Services – $0

Plaintiff appealed claiming that the damages awards were inadequate.

In Lind v. Tishman Construction Corp. (1st Dept. 2024), the appellate court affirmed the judgment entered as to damages for pain and suffering and lost earnings while increasing the loss of services award from zero to $40,000.

The central damages issue in this case was whether plaintiff sustained new and disabling injuries to his hips that he claimed required three surgeries, left him permanently disabled and out of work and caused his wife to become his caretaker.

Plaintiff conceded he had preexisting avascular necrosis (also known as osteonecrosis – the death of bone tissue due to lack of blood supply) in both hips but argued that he was still able to work hard at his job for decades without any complaints related to his hips.

The defense argued that plaintiff’s preexisting condition was the sole reason he required the three surgeries and that the accident was not the cause of his inability to return to work or his wife’s difficulties.

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiff underwent right hip labral tear surgery six months after his accident, right hip replacement surgery in 2016 and left hip replacement surgery in 2019.
  • Plaintiff did not ask for an award of future medical expenses.
  • In his summation, plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award $7,500,000 for pain and suffering damages, $4,200,000 for lost earnings and $3,300,000 for loss of services.

On March 29, 2004, Bethany Mongeau was a passenger in a taxi cab in Manhattan when it was rear-ended by another vehicle (also a taxi cab) and she was injured.

Ms. Mongeau, then 30 years old, sued both drivers claiming that she sustained cervical spine injuries and a significant loss of earnings. Her motion for summary judgment against both drivers was granted and a damages only trial then ensued in which the jury awarded:

  • $416,666 for pain and suffering ($350,000 past – 18 years, $66,666 future – 30 years), and
  • $990,000 for loss of earnings (all past – 18 years)

In Mongeau v. SR Taxi Corp. (1st Dept. 2025), the appellate court affirmed the judgment.

Here are the injury details:

  • Loss of Earnings – plaintiff had been a lawyer with a major patent law firm and claimed that her injuries forced her to retire in 2006 when she was earning $185,000 plus a bonus per year
  • Cervical Spine – plaintiff’s doctors testified that she had a tear around her cervical joints and a post-traumatic syrinx and the defendants’ doctors conceded she had limited range of motion; plaintiff underwent 18 months of physical therapy and at trial continued to complain of pain and disabilities while still treating for her injuries

The defendants argued that the loss of earnings award was excessive and against the weight of the credible evidence. They claimed that plaintiff failed to mitigate her earnings loss by seeking alternative employment pointing to her own orthopedic surgeon’s testimony that plaintiff had the ability to be gainfully employed despite being partially disabled.

The appellate court rejected the defense argument noting that the jury was entitled to credit or discredit the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses regarding her physical condition and ability to return to work. The court also noted that the $990,000 award was less than half of the amount claimed for past loss of earnings and that nothing at all was awarded for the future.

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiff did not seek medical attention for her injuries until the next day and she did not commence her lawsuit until almost three years later (two days before the statute of limitations would have expired).
  • In his closing statement, plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award $5,200,000 for pain and suffering and $8,700,000 for loss of earnings.

On June 14, 2019, Rizwan Sharif injured his right foot at a construction site in Queens when he slipped and fell from an eight foot tall chain link fence he’d been instructed to measure. Mr. Sharif, then 34 years old, sued the property owner claiming violations of the Labor Law (he wasn’t provided a ladder) and general negligence.

The defendant failed to defend the lawsuit and plaintiff was granted a default judgment. Thereafter, on 11/3/21, an inquest on damages was held following which the judge awarded pain and suffering damages in the sum of $100,000.

Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the damages award was inadequate. In Sharif v. Pritam Properties, Inc. (2d Dept. 2024), the appellate court increased the award to $400,000.

The appellate court did not discuss the injuries sustained. Here are the injury details:

  • Lisfranc Injury – fractures of three metatarsals, cuneiform and cuboid in right foot
  • Casted for one month
  • Open Reduction Internal Fixation surgery a month after the accident
  • Hardware removal surgery two years later

The inquest was held less than six weeks after the hardware removal surgery at which time plaintiff testified that he was in great pain and still unable to return to work. His pain management physician was the only other witness; he testified that the accident also caused a herniated disc in plaintiff’s back that had required three epidural steroid injections, was still causing plaintiff pain and difficulties and would require further treatment.

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiff’s attorney asked the inquest judge to award a total of $6,400,000 ($3,500,000 for pain and suffering and the balance for lost wages and medical expenses).
  • In his decision, the inquest judge did not analyze plaintiff’s injuries or explain whether the damages were for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering or economic claims.
  • In the judgment ultimately entered on the $400,000 award, plaintiff was awarded an additional $150,000 for interest.

In 2013, Mario Mujica, then 29 years old, was erroneously released prematurely from prison after serving all but a week of a negotiated plea agreement to serve six months for a drug offense. On October 28, 2013, he voluntarily surrendered himself and was taken to the Nassau County Correctional Facility.

After he’d been processed on the day of his surrender, Mujica and a corrections officer got into a verbal altercation which promptly escalated into a physical altercation with three officers that left Mujica injured.

Mujica sued Nassau County and the officers for battery claiming that their use of force was unlawful; the officers claimed that their use of force was in response to plaintiff’s argumentative and combative behavior.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him pain and suffering damages in the sum of $310,000 ($150,000 past – 4.5 years, $160,000 future – eight years). In Mujica v. Nassau County Correctional Facility (2d Dept. 2024), the appellate court affirmed both the liability and the damages verdicts.

Here are the injury details:

  • Fractured Rib
  • Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and left wrist De Quervain’s tenosynovitis requiring release surgeries on both wrists and a tendon release surgery
  • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder “(“PTSD”)

There was extensive medical testimony on both sides. Two psychiatrists and a hand surgeon testified for the plaintiff; a psychiatrist and a neurologist testified for the defense.

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiff’s post-trial motion seeking an increase in the damages awards was denied.
  • The defense neurologist opined that plaintiff did not sustain PTSD adding: “He insulted an officer, the officer interacted back with him. He found himself on he floor. The rest is what followed. It’s not like he was so traumatized that it would have caused it.”

On December 18, 2014, Audrey Buckham was injured in her Brooklyn apartment when the ceiling in her bathroom collapsed on her while she was in the shower striking her and knocking her to the floor.

Ms. Buckham, then 52 years old, sued her landlord claiming that the defendant knew the bathroom ceiling had been leaking for years but the leak was never repaired and it caused the ceiling collapse. The jury agreed and assessed full liability against the defendant.

In a separate damages trial a month after the liability verdict, a new jury awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $1,350,000 ($600,000 past – 4.5 years, $750,000 future – 25 years).

In Buckham, v. 322 Equity, LLC (2d Dept. 2024), the appellate court affirmed both the liability and damages verdicts.

Plaintiff claimed she sustained injuries to both shoulders, her back and her right knee, each requiring surgery. Here are the injury details:

  • Right Shoulder – rotator cuff tear requiring arthroscopic surgery on 6/5/15
  • Left Shoulder – impingement requiring arthroscopic surgery on 7/29/16
  • Lumbar Spine – spondylolisthesis with injured disk requiring facetectomy decompression and discectomy with fusion with placement of intervertebral body cage at L5-S1 on 4/19/17
  • Right Knee – meniscal tear requiring arthroscopic surgery on 9/8/17

The defendant argued that the damages awards were excessive because (a) plaintiff admitted her back surgery improved her condition and (b) the conditions requiring surgery to plaintiff’s shoulders and knees were not related to the accident.

Plaintiff was also awarded damages in the sum of $580,000 for her past and future loss of earnings. She’d been a home health aide at the time of the accident and claimed she was unable to return to any meaningful employment as a result of her injuries. Her testimony and W-2s established that her actual loss of earnings was less than the jury award so the appellate court reduced the award by $15,000.

On January 4. 2008, Antonio Molina III was admitted to Westchester Medical Center after being diagnosed with pleural fluid in his lungs. Two days later, Mr. Molina, then 35 years old, suffered a heart attack while in the hospital’s care.

Tests later that day found that a heart vessel was completely obstructed. The insertion of a stent was unsuccessful. Thereafter, over the next three years, Mr. Molina was treated for congestive heart failure at multiple different hospitals. He died on October 27, 2011 from complications from a ventricular assist device that had been implanted earlier that year.

In the ensuing wrongful death case against Westchester Medical Center and its doctors, plaintiff claimed that the defendants failed to timely diagnose and treat Mr. Molina’s heart attack.

The jury returned a liability verdict against the defendants finding that their malpractice was causally related to both the heart attack and plaintiff’s death.

The jury awarded damages in the sum of $3,650,000 as follows:

  • $1,000,000 for pre-death emotional pain and suffering,
  • $1,000,000 for pre-death physical pain and suffering,
  • $600,00 for lost earnings,
  • $350,000 for lost services and,
  • $700,000 for loss of parental guidance.

The defendants appealed claiming both that the liability verdict should be reversed and that the damages awards were excessive. In addition, they argued that the awards for pain and suffering and “emotional” pain and suffering were duplicative.

In Molina v. Goldberg (2d Dept. 2024), the appellate court upheld the liability verdict but reduced the damages award by the $1,000,000 that the jury had awarded for emotional pain and suffering. The court stated that this award was for pre-impact terror delineated as emotional pain and suffering and it was inappropriate as a separate item of damages.

Inside Information:

  • In 2023, the Appellate Division, First Department reached a different conclusion as to pre-impact terror emotional damages in Small v. City of New York (a case in which I was plaintiff’s damages consultant). In that case , the court allowed both an award for physical pain and suffering and an award for emotional pain and suffering (i.e., for decedent’s fear of impending death).
  • The parental guidance damage award was for Mr. Molina’s younger son who was seven years old at the time of trial. He was born after the malpractice occurred.
  • On 12/27/07, Mr. Molina had been in a single car accident (he was the driver). He was treated that day and released from an ER after complaining of chest, back and ankle pain.

On September 8, 2015, Alan Rosenthal sought medical treatment from Danny Sperling, M.D., an interventional radiologist specializing in the treatment of prostates. Mr. Rosenthal, then 60 years old, had a history of an enlarged prostate, he’d been recently diagnosed with two tumors in his prostate and he was concerned he might have prostate cancer.

Dr. Sperling removed eight biopsy samples to test for possible cancer but at the same time, before any results were obtained from the samples, he performed an invasive focal laser ablation (FLA) procedure.

Although there was no cancer, as a result of the procedure, Mr. Rosenthal suffered significant and debilitating injuries to his urinary system, lower gastrointestinal system and compromised sexual function.

He sued the doctor claiming that the FLA procedure was unnecessary, not indicated and done without informed consent. The Bronx County jury found that the defendant committed deviations from accepted medical practice and that the FLA procedure caused injuries to the plaintiff.

The jury then awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $2,575,000 ($500,000 past – four years, $2,075,000 future – 16.6 years). The defendant appealed arguing that there was no basis for liability against him and that the damages award was excessive. In Rosenthal v. Sperling (1st Dept. 2024), both the liability and damages verdicts have been affirmed.

Plaintiff asserted a claim for punitive damages and the jury found that punitive damages should be awarded because of testimony that the procedure was experimental and that defendant directed changes to plaintiff’s medical records. That finding was vacated, though, based on an error in the jury charge.

Inside Information:

  • This case has been hard fought with a three month trial, extensive motion practice, multiple appeals and a bankruptcy filing by the defendant. Plaintiff’s attorneys – Charles Gucciardo of The Gucciardo Law Firm at trial and Jonathan Dachs on appeal – have been outstanding.
  • Plaintiff’s wife was awarded $200,000 (past only) for her loss of society and services.

On June 14, 2018, Mauricio Plazas was stopped at a red light in Somers when a left-turning car driven by Brenna Sherlock struck the side of his car. She claimed he’d moved past the stop line into the intersection when the collision occurred. Mr. Plazas, then 45 years old, sued Ms. Sherlock claiming that he sustained significant neck injuries.

The drivers were determined to be equally at fault for the crash and the Putnam County jury awarded pain and suffering damages in the sum of $53,625 (all past – three and a half years). The jury declined to award anything for future pain and suffering, future loss of earnings or future medical expenses.

Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the jury award was inadequate.

In Plazas v. Sherlock (2d Dept. 2024), the appellate court :

  • agreed that the award for past pain and suffering was inadequate and increased it to $200,000
  • affirmed the jury’s award of no damages at all for any item of future damages

Here are the injury details:

  • Plaintiff did not complain of any pain at the scene of the crash and drove himself to work; later that day he drove himself to the local hospital where he complained of wrist and lower back pain. He was treated and released.
  • 10 days later, plaintiff was seen by an internal medicine physician with complaints of neck and lower back pain.
  • physical therapy intermittently for three years
  • epidural steroid and trigger point injections
  • herniated discs at C5-6 and C6-7 per July 2018 MRI
  • cervical discectomy and fusion surgery on 6/18/19
  • continuing pain, limitations of range of motion

The defense argued that this was a minor impact car accident and that plaintiff was not seriously injured. Their orthopedic surgeon expert testified that plaintiff did not sustain any causally related herniated discs and that the surgery plaintiff underwent was not necessitated by the injuries caused in the accident.

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiff continued to work at a shelter for minors as a quality insurance coordinator but quit six months later due to continuing pain.
  • In his summation, plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to and pain and suffering damages in the sum of $2,500,000. Defense counsel agued that the injuries claimed did not meet the so-called threshold under the Insurance Law and therefore there should be no award of damages at all.