Welcome back to “What’s it Worth?” We apologize if you received last week’s edition twice or did not receive it at all, we were experiencing some technical difficulties. This week’s edition is a bit shorter as promised. Like previous weeks, we analyzed verdicts and settlements from around New York and pulled those that we found would be most beneficial to our clients. We hope that this information helps you decide how to navigate cases in these very uncertain times in which courts are closed for what feels like forever. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about these cases or if you would like us to feature one of your own.
HUMBERTO MEJUA V. KARL SCHAPIRO (717523/18)
ARBITRATED: 2020
VENUE: Supreme Queens
TYPE OF CASE: Auto Liability
FACTS: An 81 year old man was walking in a parking lot when he was struck by the defendant’s car, which was reversing into a nearby parking spot. The plaintiff was propelled upwards onto the hood of his own car and then fell onto the ground.
INJURIES:
- The plaintiff suffered a nondisplaced, transverse fracture of his left ankle’s lateral malleolus (the bony protuberance that extends from the left side of the ankle). He wore a cast on his left ankle for 6 weeks.
- The plaintiff claimed that he suffered a partial tear of his left ankle’s anterior talofibular ligament, which he suffered on the tear of his left foot’s calcaneofibular ligament, which joins the ankle and the heel.
- Two tears of his left hip’s labrum.
- The plaintiff attended 64 sessions of physical therapy which spanned 6 months. The sessions focused on his left ankle and left hip and included electrical stimulation.
- The plaintiff wanted surgery to both his ankle and hip, but his doctors advised against surgery, claiming that it was too risky.
- The plaintiff claims that he suffers residual pain, diminution, and range of motion of his left ankle which has prevented his performance of household chores, exercise, and has caused insomnia.
- Defense argued that the injury was insignificant as an examination, performed within hours of the accident, indicated that the plaintiff had full range of motion.
- The defense’s expert orthopedist opined that the fracture resolved.
- Defense claimed that the rest of the conditions were degenerative, as the plaintiff was 81 years old at the time of the accident.
- The plaintiff did not undergo any surgery or receive any painkilling injections.
ARBITRATION: Full liability was assigned to the defendant and the plaintiff was awarded $175,000 for past and future pain and suffering.
JENNIFER MARIA SOSA V. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JEFFERY SUTTON, AND JEFFERY EMILIANO (15092/16)
SETTLED: 2020
VENUE: Supreme New York
TYPE OF CASE: Auto Liability
FACTS: A 23 year old unemployed woman was a passenger in the front-seat of a car making a left turn into an intersection when it was sideswiped by a fire truck also turning left into the intersection.
INJURIES:
- The plaintiff did not seek medical care until a week after the accident, at which point she underwent minor medical treatment.
- Herniation of her C4-C5 intervertebral disc, which she claimed caused impingement of the thecal sac (houses the roots of the spinal nerves) and resultant radiculopathy.
- The plaintiff received acupuncture, chiropractic manipulation, and physical therapy, however she claimed that her pain continued.
- The plaintiff underwent surgery including a discectomy, excision of her C4-C5 disc, and a fusion of the corresponding level of her spine.
- She received physical therapy, a painkilling trigger-point injection, and two epidural injections of a steroid-based painkillers following the surgery.
- Defense argued that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury and that she achieved a good recovery and that any injury or symptom related to the accident should have been resolved by the surgery.
SETTLEMENT: The City of New York agreed to pay $1.1 million and Emiliano’s insurer tendered its policy, providing $50,000 of coverage, totaling to a settlement of $1.15 million.
SUZANNE KUSULAS V. DIANE SACO (134 A.D. 3d 772)
AFFIRMED: December 9, 2015, Appellate Division, Second Department
VENUE: Supreme Kings
TYPE OF CASE: Auto Liability
FACTS: A woman was a passenger in a vehicle when it was hit by the defendants’ vehicle
INJURIES:
AFFIRMATION:
