What’s it Worth? October 11, 2021

On Behalf of The Law Firm of Connors & Connors, P.C. | Oct 11, 2021 | What's It Worth? |

We would like to wish you a Happy Columbus Day or if you prefer Happy Second Monday in October Day 2021! Given the currents sports scene in New York City we are looking forward to the start of basketball, hockey, bowling and…you get the point. The question is can the NYG’s and the NYJ’s collectively win 4 out of 34 games this season? Turning to this week’s cases you will see that spinal fusions continue to have sustainable values of seven figures for past and future pain and suffering.

LENIN LOJA V. MOHAMMED S. BHUIYAN; NICK & SAMMY TAXI, INC. (200176/14)

DECIDED: 2021

VENUE: Supreme Bronx

TYPE OF CASE: Automobile Liability

FACTS: A 31-year-old delivery man was riding his bicycle when it was stuck in the rear by a taxi, propelling him onto the taxi’s windshield then falling onto the road.

INJURIES:

The plaintiff suffered a nondisplaced fracture of a finger on his left, nondominant hand.
The plaintiff received a splint for his left finger.
The plaintiff claimed to sustain a tear of his left knee’s lateral meniscus.
The plaintiff suffered a partial tear of his right shoulder’s rotator cuff.
The plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery on his left knee.
The plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery on his right shoulder.
The plaintiff received therapy for 30 months.
The plaintiff claimed that his injuries prevented him from working for two years.
The plaintiff claimed that he continues to experience pain in his right shoulder and left knee.
The plaintiff’s treating physical therapist opined that he would develop residual arthritis and would need physical therapy for the rest of his life.
The defense’s expert orthopedist opined that the plaintiff did not suffer a finger fracture and the plaintiff’s knee and shoulder injuries predated the accident. He also opined that the plaintiff made a full recovery.

VERDICT: Prior to the trial, the parties negotiated a $20,000/$100,000 high low agreement. The jury awarded the $500,000 for past and future pain and suffering, however the plaintiff only recovered $100,000 in accordance with the agreement..

PIMENTA V. 1504 CIA, LLC (502843/15)

AFFIRMED: August 18, 2021, Appellate Division, Second Department

VENUE: Supreme Kings

TYPE OF CASE: Workplace Liability

FACTS: A 42-year-old construction worker was bending over to pick up material from the floor of a worksite when a 15-foot aluminum ladder fell over and hit him in the back.

INJURIES:

The plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at C5-C6 and L5-S1.
The plaintiff underwent a decompressive laminectomy and partial discectomy at L5-S1.
The plaintiff received an implantation of a spinal cord stimulator.
The plaintiff underwent a fusion surgery at C5-C6 with placement of biomedical device, bone grafting, plate, and screws.
The plaintiff sustained a partial anterior cruciate ligament tear in his knee.
The plaintiff suffered a meniscal tear in his knee.
The plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery to address the tears in his knee.
The plaintiff claimed to experience continued pain, restricted range of motion, and extremely limited activity in all injured areas.
The plaintiff’s treating surgeons claimed that his injuries are permanent and will require future spinal revision surgeries, replacement of the stimulator’s battery, and physical therapy for the rest of his life.
Defense counsel argued that a majority of the plaintiffs’ major injuries were actually caused by a fistfight that the plaintiff was involved in three months after the incident in question. The defense counsel pointed out that the plaintiff did not complain about his knee or neck injury for several months after the accident.
A week after the incident, the plaintiff returned to light duty for two months but was unable to work after that point.

AFFIRMATION: The jury awarded the plaintiff $2,000,000 for the past four years and $15,000,000 for the future 33 years of pain and suffering. The Supreme Kings trial judge reduced the award to $1,000,000 for past and $2,250,000 for future pain and suffering. The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the trial judge’s reduction.

OLIVE V. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (11969/12)

AFFIRMED: August 11, 2021, Appellate Division, Second Department

VENUE: Supreme Kings

TYPE OF CASE: Slip and Fall

FACTS: A 12-year-old boy slipped and fell on a puddle of water on a subway station platform.

INJURIES:

The plaintiff suffered a bruise on his right hip bone.
The plaintiff received physical therapy and over the counter medication and attended hospital, clinic, and doctor visits to address his right hip bone bruise.
The plaintiff sustained a tear of his hip’s anterior labrum.
The plaintiff suffered iliotibial band syndrome.
Five years after the incident, the plaintiff was diagnosed with trochanteric bursitis.
The plaintiff received steroid injections and physical therapy to address the trochanteric bursitis.
The plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery including an endoscopic bursectomy to loosen the iliotibial band and extract inflammatory material from the bursa.
The plaintiff claimed to experience continuing and permanent pain with antalgic fail limiting walking and other activities.

AFFIRMATION: The jury found that the plaintiff had been negligent, but his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing his accident. The jury awarded $200,000 for the past six and $400,000 for the future 56 years of pain and suffering. The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the $600,000 award.

CHANG, QING WU V. BINYAMIN KARR; & ZAHAVA KAR (5771/12)

DECISION: 2020

VENUE: Supreme Kings

TYPE OF CASE: Automobile Liability

FACTS: A 36 year old woman was driving through an intersection when her car was struck by another vehicle and propelled across the intersection onto the sidewalk. Each driver claimed that they had a green light which permitted their entrance into the intersection.

INJURIES:

The plaintiff claimed to suffer from herniations of her C2-C3, C3-C4, C5-C6, and L4-L5 interverbal discs.
The plaintiff also claimed that the trauma produced bulges of her C4-C5, C6-C7, and L1-L2 discs.
The plaintiff received physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic manipulation.
She received epidural injections of steroid-based pain killers directed at her cervical and lumbar regions.
She also received painkilling facet-block injections directed towards her cervical region.
The plaintiff was unable to work for two weeks following the accident.
The plaintiff claimed that ongoing pain effected her job performance and ability to care for her child.
The plaintiff claimed that a doctor has suggested a L4-5 discectomy.
The defense’s expert physiatrist opined that the plaintiff did not suffer from a serious injury and she can perform all of her normal activities having achieved a complete recovery.

VERDICT: The parties negotiated a high/low agreement in which damages could not exceed $99,000. The jury found that the plaintiff did sustain a “serious injury” and awarded $90,000 in total damages.

LOURDES RIVERA, MARCELO AGUDO V. NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY NEHAL CONTRACTING, INC., THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK (711464/15)

SETTLED: 2021

VENUE: Supreme Queens

TYPE OF CASE: Workplace Liability

FACTS: An abatement specialists was working on a renovation site when he sustained chemical burns on his hands and knees from the chemical used eliminate remaining paint.

INJURY:

A day after he realized that his hands were red and swollen, the plaintiff went to the hospital where he was diagnosed by chemical burns on his hands, knees, and right forearm.
The plaintiff claimed to develop contractures in his hands.
The plaintiff received physical therapy, including exercises and ultrasonography treatment.
The plaintiff was prescribed a topical ointment.
The plaintiff claimed that he developed complex regional pain syndrome, a complex neurological condition that is usually characterized by sever pain, pathological changes of bone and skin, swollenness and/or increased sensitivity to physical stimulus.
The plaintiff developed depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, for which he underwent psychiatric and psychological counseling.
The plaintiff claimed he could not work for 47 months after the accident. He briefly resulted but quickly stopped again, claiming that his injuries would not permit his performance of his job’s duties.
The plaintiff claimed he suffers continued swelling, discoloration, and changes of temperature of the hands.
The plaintiff’s vocational rehabilitation expert opined that the plaintiff would likely not be able to resume work.
The plaintiff’s treating pain-management specialist opined that he would require lifelong use of pain-killers.
The defense’s expert orthopedist questioned whether the plaintiff’s irritation constituted a significant burn.
The defense’s expert psychiatrist opined that the plaintiff does not suffer from depression or post-traumatic stress disorder.
The defense’s pain-management specialist opined that the plaintiff does not exhibit objective indications of complex regional pain syndrome or any specific limitations that would prevent a resumption of work.
The defense’s expert vocational rehabilitation expert opined that the plaintiff could resume his pre-accident vocation.