What’s it Worth? February 9, 2023

Mahomes or Hurts? Chief or Eagles? Which team do the Kelce parents root for this Sunday? Which town does Andy Reid prefer? Lots of questions surround Super Bowl LVII. Speaking of questions, was it really an errant weather balloon? That’s a question we would like answered. Now on this edition of What’s it Worth?

 

COSMO CAMPODONICO V. WALMART INC., AND WALMART STORES EAST, LP (7:18-cv-08606-AEK)

DECIDED: 2023

VENUE: Southern District of New York

TYPE OF CASE: Premises Liability

FACTS: A 65-year-old retiree was test-driving a bicycle in a Walmart store when the brakes failed, causing him to crash into a row of other bicycles.

INJURIES:

• Three days after the incident, the plaintiff sought medical attention. He was treated and released from the hospital that day.
• The plaintiff claimed that he sustained a complete tear of his rotator cuff in his right, dominant shoulder.
• The plaintiff claimed to suffer a labrum tear and impingement of his right, dominant shoulder.
• The plaintiff underwent physical therapy.
• One month after the incident, the plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery to repair the rotator cuff, however the surgery was unsuccessful.
• Three months after the initial surgery, the plaintiff underwent a reverse shoulder replacement.
• In the years following the reverse shoulder replacement, the plaintiff experienced multiple dislocations of the shoulder.
• The plaintiff was ultimately diagnosed with an infection in his shoulder.
• The plaintiff underwent a third surgery to have the hardware removed in order to address the infection. The plaintiff also had an antibiotic ball inserted into his shoulder.
• One month later, the plaintiff underwent a fourth surgery: a reverse shoulder replacement and re-implantation of hardware.
• The plaintiff had minimal treatment after the second reverse shoulder replacement.
• The plaintiff claimed that he had limited movement in his right arm.
• The plaintiff claimed that he had trouble driving and sleeping.
• The plaintiff said that he could not raise his arms above his head.
• The plaintiff claimed that he was no longer able to engage in fly fishing.
• The defense counsel admitted that the plaintiff had permanent shoulder limitations, however he argued that these limitations did not result from the alleged accident.
• The expert orthopedic surgeon for the defense opined that the shoulder injury was present during the five years before the instant incident.

RESULT: The jury found that the defendant was 49% liable and that the plaintiff was 51% liable. The jury determined that the plaintiff’s damages toted $3,122,241.13. After comparable fault reduction, the plaintiff’s award would have totaled $1529,898.15, however after additional adjustments, including the addition of interest, judgement was entered for $1,564,297.33.

 

KARASU V. SECURITY AUTO SALES, INC. (4428/16)

DECIDED: January 13, 2023

VENUE: Supreme Nassau

TYPE OF CASE: Slip and Fall

FACTS: A 40-year-old old commercial roofing mechanic, was injured when he fell from a ladder about nine feet in the air, landing on his ankle.

INJURIES:

• The plaintiff sustained right ankle pilon fracture.
• The plaintiff required an external fixator for three weeks.
• The plaintiff underwent by open reduction internal fixation surgery with hardware insertion.
• The plaintiff wore a boot and used a walker for five months after surgery, at which point he progressed to crutches. Two months later, he progressed to a cane. Three months later, the plaintiff was able to remove the boot and no longer use any ambulatory device.
• The plaintiff underwent physical therapy two to three times a week for two years.
• Two years after the open reduction, the plaintiff underwent a second surgery to have the hardware removed.
• The plaintiff claimed that he was unable to bear weight on his right ankle for nine months.
• The plaintiff claimed that he was unable to return to work for two years.
• The plaintiff was able to ambulate with the assistance of a walker, however he was predominately bed ridden.
• The plaintiff complained of continuing pain in his right ankle.
• The plaintiff’s treating orthopedist recommended a fusion surgery to lessen the pain, however the plaintiff opted to forgo the surgery and stop his treatment.

RESULT: The jury awarded $1 million for the past seven years and $1 million for the future ten years of pain and suffering.

 

 

GBADHEN V. WILLIAMS (303338/16E)

DECIDED: January 13, 2023, Appellate Division, First Department

VENUE: Supreme Bronx

TYPE OF CASE: Automobile Liability

FACTS: A 45-year-old old physician was a passenger in a livery cab when it collided at an intersection with an SUV.

INJURIES:

• Immediately after the accident, the plaintiff went to the hospital, complaining of headache and right shoulder pain. He was treated and released later that day.
• The plaintiff sought no further medical treatment for three months.
• The plaintiff ultimately complained of left shoulder pain.
• The plaintiff claimed that he sustained traumatic left shoulder injuries in the accident, including a rotator cuff tear and a SLAP tear.
• Two years after the accident, the plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery to repair the tears with the insertion of two screws.
• The plaintiff’s treating surgeon opined that he still has pain and limited motion and may need future medical treatment including surgery to remove the screws.

RESULT: The jury awarded $100,000 for the past four years of pain and suffering and $300,000 for the future 29 years of pain and suffering. The trial judge set aside the verdict and held that a new trial held because testimony was elicited from defendant in which Geico was disclosed as her liability insurance carrier. The Appellate Division, First Department declined to consider the argument that the future pain and suffering award is excessive.