NE SEPT sample vp

Document Sample
NE SEPT sample vp Powered By Docstoc
					 SUMMARIES                      $11,481,649 VERDICT – Medical Malpractice – Pediatrics – Neonatology, nurse practitioner, and nursing
 WITH TRIAL                     negligence – Failure to properly monitor premature infant in NICU for symptoms of necrotizing enterocolitis – Dead
 ANALYSIS                       bowel results in death of eight-day-old infant – Wrongful death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
                                $3,500,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY – Medical Malpractice – Pediatrics – Neonatology
Volume 27, Issue 2              negligence – Failure to expedite delivery where there was evidence of significant drop in fetal heart rate – Failure to
September 2011                  timely diagnose and treat brain hemorrhage – Brain injury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
                                $4,690,000 VERDICT – Medical Malpractice – Primary Care – Nurse practitioner negligence – Failure to
                                properly diagnose stage IV colon cancer – Loss of chance of survival – Wrongful death of 31-year-old father . . . . . . . 4
A monthly review of New         $2,604,224 VERDICT – Medical Malpractice – Surgery – Bowel perforation resulting from migration of
England State and Federal
Civil jury verdicts with        surgical tack into small bowel following hernia operation – Multiple surgeries required on 21-year-old male plaintiff . . 5
professional analysis and
commentary.                     $2,450,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY – Medical Malpractice – Hospital Negligence – Failure to
The New England cases           timely diagnose and treat bacterial infection – Infection causes plaintiff to become legally blind. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
summarized in detail
herein are obtained from        $2,000,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY – Medical Malpractice – Emergency Department – Failure
an ongoing monthly survey       to timely treat plaintiff – Failure to administer platelets – Left hemisphere hemorrhage – Vision difficulties . . . . . . . 6
of the State and Federal
courts in the New England       $1,750,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY – Medical Malpractice – Dermatology – Failure to follow-
states.                         up on patient with melanoma – Cancer progressed to stage IV two years following mole removal – Wrongful death . . . 7
                                $1,250,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY – Construction Site Negligence – Non-profit negligence –
                                Service of alcohol to underage patron at festival – Failure to alert traffic as to changed road conditions – 19-year-old
                                decedent is thrown from scooter – Wrongful death. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


 VERDICTS BY
 CATEGORY                       Professional Malpractice (3)                                       Motor Vehicle Negligence (5)
                                     Hospital Negligence . . . . . . . . 9                              Auto/Bicycle Collision . .             .   .   .   .   16
                                     Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9                              Auto/Pedestrian Collision              .   .   .   .   17
                                                                                                        Intersection Collision . . .           .   .   .   .   17
                                Product Liability (1)
                                                                                                        Multiple Vehicle Collision.            .   .   .   .   18
                                     Defective Design . . . . . . . . . 11
                                                                                                        Reverse Collision . . . . .            .   .   .   .   18
                                Age Discrimination (1) . . . . . . . . 11
                                                                                                   Personal Negligence (1) . . . . . . . 19
                                Construction Contract (1) . . . . . . . 12
                                                                                                   Police Liability (1) . . . . . . . . . . . 19
                                Disability Discrimination (2) . . . . . 13
                                                                                                   Premises Liability (9)
                                Dram Shop (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 14                                Fall Down . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
                                                                                                        Hazardous Premises . . . . . . . 21
                                Gender Discrimination (1) . . . . . . 14
                                                                                                        Negligent Maintenance . . . . . 22
                                Insurance Obligation (1) . . . . . . . 15
                                                                                                   Supplemental Verdict Digest . . . . 25
                                Landlord’s Negligence (1) . . . . . . 16




Copyright 2011 Jury Verdict Review Publications Inc.
                                                                                                       Subscribe Now
2




                   Summaries with Trial Analysis
      $11,481,649 VERDICT – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – PEDIATRICS – NEONATOLOGY,
      NURSE PRACTITIONER, AND NURSING NEGLIGENCE – FAILURE TO PROPERLY
      MONITOR PREMATURE INFANT IN NICU FOR SYMPTOMS OF NECROTIZING
      ENTEROCOLITIS – DEAD BOWEL RESULTS IN DEATH OF EIGHT-DAY-OLD INFANT –
      WRONGFUL DEATH.
Suffolk County, MA                                           The matter was tried over a period of two and a-half
In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff            weeks. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deliber-
alleged that the defendants were negligent in                ated for seven and a-half hours and returned its ver-
failing to properly monitor the eight-day-old                dict in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
premature infant who was at an increased risk of             defendants. The jury awarded the plaintiffs a total sum
necrotizing enterocolitis and failure to recognize           of $11,481,649 in damages and interest.
and treat symptoms of necrotizing enterocolitis in
a timely manner resulting in the child’s death. The          REFERENCE
defendants denied any negligence and
                                                             Plaintiff Parents vs. Defendant Neonatologists, et al;
maintained that there was no deviation from
                                                             Judge Paul E. Troy, 08-31-11.
acceptable standards of care.
                                                             Attorneys for plaintiff: William J. Thompson and
The decedent was an eight-day-old twin girl who was
                                                             Elizabeth Cranford of Lubin & Meyer in Boston, MA.
born 30 weeks premature. She weighed two pounds
seven ounces at birth. Due to being preterm she was
at risk for developing necrotizing enterocolitis, a con-     COMMENTARY
dition where the immature bowel cannot handle the            The infant, while small at only two pounds seven ounces, was
stress of feedings, becomes infected and dies. She           healthy at birth. She was intubated at birth and weaned from the
was being fed via a tube going from her nose into her        ventilator on the second day and then proceeded to breathe room
stomach. She was diagnosed with patent ductus                air on her fourth day following birth. The child was determined to
arteriosus which required that the child receive medi-       have a heart condition called patent ductus arteriosus or PDA which
cation enterally. The plaintiffs contended that due to       required her to have medication. The medication was administered
her high risk of developing necrotizing enterocolitis,       through enteral feedings; effectively further increasing her risk of
the defendants were under an obligation to more              developing necrotizing enterocolitis. As a result, the plaintiffs con-
closely monitor the infant’s condition for signs or          tended that the child should have been even more closely monitored
symptoms of the condition.                                   for the bowel infection.
                                                             The plaintiff parents are the ones that noticed a visible difference in
The plaintiffs discovered the infant unresponsive in her
                                                             the health of their twin daughters and brought it to the attention of
crib, with no nursing staff nearby and no alarms
                                                             the medical staff at the hospital. The plaintiffs alleged that despite
sounding. The child died at eight days of life from a
                                                             their concern, it took a relatively long period of time before the
dead bowel. The plaintiffs brought suit against the de-
                                                             child was attended to and treated, which resulted in her untimely
fendant neonatologists, nurse practitioners and nurs-
                                                             death.
ing staff alleging negligence in their care and
                                                             The jury determined that one neonatologist and one nurse practitio-
treatment of the plaintiffs’ daughter. The plaintiffs con-
                                                             ner were negligent. The jury awarded the sum of $50,000 for the
tended that the defendants failed to properly monitor
                                                             child’s conscious pain and suffering and $3,500,000 to each of the
the child for signs or symptoms of necrotizing
                                                             parents for their loss of their relationship with the child. The re-
enterocolitis resulting in the child’s death.
                                                             mainder of the award consisted of interest.
The defendants contended that they met the stan-
dards of care. The defendants contended that the
child’s death was not preventable or predictable in
that the necrotizing enterocolitis arose in a fulminate
manner and there was no time to treat her.




         Reproduction in any form without the express permission of the publisher is strictly prohibited by law.


                                                                                          Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS                                                                                                3

                                                $3,500,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY – MEDICAL
                                                MALPRACTICE – PEDIATRICS – NEONATOLOGY
                                                NEGLIGENCE – FAILURE TO EXPEDITE DELIVERY
                                                WHERE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT DROP
Founder                                         IN FETAL HEART RATE – FAILURE TO TIMELY
   Ira J. Zarin, Esq.
                                                DIAGNOSE AND TREAT BRAIN HEMORRHAGE – BRAIN
Editor in Chief
   Jed M. Zarin                                 INJURY.
Contributing Editors
   Brian M. Kessler, Esq.                   Withheld County, MA
   Michael Bagen                            In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff alleged that the
   Laine Harmon, Esq.                       defendant obstetrician and the defendant neonatologists were
   Cristina N. Hyde                         negligent in the delivery and care of the infant immediately
   Deborah McNally, Paralegal               following birth by failing to properly diagnose and treat the
   Ruth B. Neely, Paralegal                 deprivation of oxygen and brain bleed. The defendants denied any
   Cathy Schlecter-Harvey, Esq.             deviation from acceptable standards of care.
   Tammy A. Smith, Esq.
   Kate Turnbow                             The plaintiff mother presented at the hospital in labor with her second
   Susan Winkler                            child. It was noted that the fetus’s heartbeat was slower than expected.
 Business Development                       The plaintiff mother was administered oxygen as a result. Later in the de-
   Gary Zarin                               livery process, the defendant ob/gyn noticed a significant drop in the fe-
   garyz@jvra.com                           tal heart rate. This lasted for approximately five minutes and again the
Production Assistant                        plaintiff mother was administered oxygen.
   Christianne C. Mariano
                                            Approximately four hours later, the fetus’s heart rate dropped again, but
Assisted Search                             the defendant failed to take any action at that time. Two hours later, the
   Tim Mathieson                            fetal heart rate dropped again, this time into the 80s and the plaintiff was
Court Data Coordinator                      once again placed on oxygen. 45 minutes later, during the birth, the fe-
   Jeffrey S. Zarin                         tus’s heart rate once again dropped into the 80s. The child was delivered
Customer Services                           by vacuum extraction at 6:18 a.m.
   Meredith Whelan
   meredithw@jvra.com                       Within 12 hours of the birth, a neonatology intern noted that the child ap-
Circulation Manager                         peared blue with a heart rate in the 80s again and minimal respiratory ef-
   Ellen Loren                              forts. The intern advised the attending doctor of the findings, but the
                                            neonatologist failed to evaluate the child. A neonatology resident exam-
Proofreader
                                            ined the child, found similar symptoms and also notified the attending
   Cathryn Peyton
                                            neonatologist who once again failed to examine the child.
Web Development &
Technology                                  Continued symptoms consistent with a brain bleed were noted, but not
   Juris Design                             acted upon until the resident finally, after several hours, ordered the in-
   www.jurisdesign.com                      fant transferred to a children’s hospital. Diagnostic work at the children’s
Published by Jury Verdict Review            hospital disclosed a large acute hemorrhage in the brain, as well as
Publications, Inc. 45 Springfield           brain stem compression. Emergency surgery was performed on the child
Avenue, Springfield, NJ 07081
www.jvra.com
                                            to alleviate the pressure on the brain and the stop the bleed.
Main Office:                                The child suffered a significant brain injury. The plaintiff brought suit
973/376-9002 Fax 973/376-1775               against the defendant obstetrician alleging that the defendant was negli-
Circulation & Billing Department:           gent in failing to expedite the child’s birth when it became apparent that
973/535-6263                                the child was suffering from significant depressed heart rate and oxygen
New England Jury Verdict Review &
Analysis is a trademark of Jury Verdict
                                            deprivation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ neonatologists were
Review Publications, Inc.                   negligent in failing to appreciate the symptoms of the child’s brain bleed
New England Jury Verdict Review &
                                            and timely treat the child to avoid further brain damage.
Analysis (ISSN 0886-2540) is                The defendants denied the allegations. They maintained that there was
published monthly at the subscription
rate of $345/year by Jury Verdict           no deviation from acceptable standards of care. The defendants con-
Review Publications, Inc., 45 Springfield   tended that the brain bleed occurred suddenly and was not present in
Avenue, Springfield, NJ 07081.              the hours immediately following birth.
Periodical postage paid at Springfield,
NJ and at additional mailing offices.       The parties agreed to settle the plaintiff’s negligence claim in a confiden-
Postmaster: Send address changes to:        tial settlement of $3,500,000.
New England Jury Verdict Review &
Analysis, 45 Springfield Avenue,            REFERENCE
Springfield, NJ 07081.
                                            Plaintiff Patient vs. Defendant Neonatologist, et al. 01-31-11.
                                            Attorneys for plaintiff: Andrew C. Meyer and Robert M. Higgins of Lubin
                                            & Meyer in Boston, MA.

                                                                  Subscribe Now
                                                                                        New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
4                                                                                     SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS


COMMENTARY                                                             given the decelerated heart rate during the labor and delivery, the
The child suffers from significant brain damage. The plaintiff con-    defendants should have acted more expeditiously in diagnosing and
tends that the brain injury would not have occurred if the defen-      treating the child’s condition.
dants acted more expediently in the delivery and care for the          The plaintiff maintained that the defendant ob/gyn was aware of a
newborn child. The child needs assistance for normal daily tasks.      potential deprivation of oxygen from the first instance of a de-
The plaintiff argued that the infant presented with symptoms indica-   pressed heart rate more than seven hours prior to birth and should
tive of a brain bleed in the hours immediately following birth, and    have acted to deliver the child in an emergent manner so as to pre-
                                                                       vent any brain damage. The defendants maintained that the brain
                                                                       bleed occurred suddenly and immediate action was taken to treat
                                                                       the infant.

      $4,690,000 VERDICT – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – PRIMARY CARE – NURSE
      PRACTITIONER NEGLIGENCE – FAILURE TO PROPERLY DIAGNOSE STAGE IV COLON
      CANCER – LOSS OF CHANCE OF SURVIVAL – WRONGFUL DEATH OF 31-YEAR-OLD
      FATHER.
Essex County, MA                                                       he instead went to the emergency department. At
In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff                      the hospital, an abdominal CT-scan and
alleged that the defendants were negligent in                          colonoscopy disclosed Stage IV colon cancer which
failing to properly diagnose the decedent’s                            was causing a nearly complete blockage of the right
symptoms as colon cancer which resulted in a                           side of the plaintiff’s colon. Further testing disclosed
delay in diagnosis and loss of chance of survival.                     that the cancer had metastasized to his peritoneum
The defendants denied the deviation from                               and lymph nodes. Despite immediate surgery, che-
acceptable standards of care and disputed the                          motherapy and further surgery, the plaintiff died within
nature and extent of the plaintiff’s claimed                           two years from the diagnosis.
damages.
                                                                       The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant nurse
The 31-year-old male decedent, a truck driver by pro-                  practitioner and the defendant primary care physi-
fession with a history of chewing tobacco use and                      cian alleging negligence in failing to properly diag-
heavy caffeine intake, as well as a family history of                  nose the plaintiff’s colon cancer in a timely manner.
colon cancer, presented to the defendant primary                       The plaintiff alleged that the extensive delay in diag-
care doctor’s office in October 2001 with complaints                   nosing the plaintiff’s condition resulted in a loss of the
of abdominal pain and inability to eat, burning and                    chance of survival. The defendants denied that there
cramping. He was seen by the nurse practitioner and                    was any deviation from acceptable standards of
prescribed Zantac. A follow-up examination was                         care. The defendants maintained that the plaintiff did
scheduled.                                                             not present with symptoms that warranted a
At the follow-up examination, despite complaints of                    colonoscopy.
abdominal pain and increased stools, the defendant                     The matter was tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the
nurse practitioner did not perform a rectal examina-                   jury found in favor of the plaintiff and against the de-
tion and did not send the decedent for a                               fendants. Both defendants were found liable. The jury
colonoscopy. Instead, the defendant nurse practitio-                   determined that based upon the medical evidence
ner changed the decedent’s medication and or-                          presented, the plaintiff had a 45% chance of survival
dered an upper GI series. The GI series returned                       if he was timely diagnosed which was reduced to
negative results.                                                      zero.
In approximately December, the decedent pre-                           The jury awarded the plaintiff the total sum of
sented again with complaints of continued problems                     $4,690,000.
eating. He was diagnosed again by the nurse practi-
tioner with gastritis with instructions to follow-up in six            REFERENCE
months. In April, the decedent again presented to the
                                                                       Beard vs. Hatch, et al. Case no. 2004-01801; Judge
defendant’s office with complaints of increased stom-
                                                                       Garry Inge.
ach cramping and burning. His medication was
switched and he was given an appointment with a                        Attorney for plaintiff: Annette Gonthier-Kiely of
gastroenterologist for possible additional GI testing.                 Annette Gonthier-Kiely & Associates in Salem, MA.
The decedent returned prior to that appointment,
again complaining of worsening cramping pain and                       COMMENTARY
loose stools. Again he was seen by the nurse practitio-                The plaintiff presented expert testimony to confirm the position that
ner and not the primary care doctor. The diagnosis at                  given the symptoms complained of by the plaintiff and his family
that visit was gastritis and ulcer with nicotine addic-                history of a mother with colon cancer, it was a deviation from the ac-
tion. The decedent was given an earlier appointment                    ceptable standard of care to not have ordered a colonoscopy or at
with the gastroenterologist, but due to extreme pain                   the very minimum performed a rectal exam and tested a stool sam-

                                                                                                    Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                5


ple. The plaintiff further alleged that the primary care doctor was       tion that at the time of the initial visit the plaintiff was most likely
under an affirmative duty to supervise the actions of the nurse prac-     already a Stage IV with extremely limited chance of survival. The
titioner in his office. The defendant countered that the plaintiff’s      defendants attempted to argue that their failure to diagnose, if that
symptoms did not warrant a colonoscopy, given complaints of burn-         was the jury’s finding, would have little or no impact on the out-
ing which were more likely a gastrointestinal problem.                    come and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for loss
The plaintiff presented expert testimony that given the fact that at      of chance of survival.
the time of initial complaints the plaintiff’s cancer was most likely a   The defendant primary care doctor strenuously disagreed with the
Stage IIIA or a Stage IIIB, which had a 65% and 45% rate of sur-          plaintiff’s position that he had an affirmative duty to supervise the
vival, respectively. The jury used the figure of a 45% rate of survival   actions of the nurse practitioner. The defendant maintained that he
to calculate its damage award, agreeing with the plaintiff’s argu-        regularly reviewed the medical records, but had no duty to sign off
ment that by the time the plaintiff was diagnosed, there was a 0%         on each and every chart handled by the nurse practitioner.
likelihood of survival. The jury did not follow the defendant’s posi-

      $2,604,224 VERDICT – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – SURGERY – BOWEL PERFORATION
      RESULTING FROM MIGRATION OF SURGICAL TACK INTO SMALL BOWEL FOLLOWING
      HERNIA OPERATION – FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE PRESENCE OF TACK IN SMALL BOWEL
      DURING SURGERY – FAILURE TO REMOVE TACK FROM WALL OF BOWEL – MULTIPLE
      SURGERIES REQUIRED ON 21-YEAR-OLD MALE PLAINTIFF.
Worcester County, MA                                                      The matter was tried over a period of three days. The
In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff                         jury deliberated for nine hours and returned its verdict
maintained that the defendant hospital and                                in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
surgeon were negligent in allowing surgical tack                          The jury determined that the defendants were both li-
to move into the plaintiff’s small bowel during                           able. The jury awarded the plaintiff the total sum of
hernia surgery and in failing to take action to                           $2,604,224 in damages consisting of $2,000,000 for
recognize and remove the tack. The plaintiff                              pain and suffering; $586,244 for medical expenses
suffered a perforated bowel which required                                and $17,880 for loss of earning capacity.
multiple surgeries to repair. The defendant denied
the allegations and alleged that the injury the                           REFERENCE
plaintiff suffered was a known risk of the
                                                                          Plaintiff’s general surgery expert: Steven I. Cohen,
procedure to which he had given informed
consent.                                                                  M.D. from Providence, RI. Defendant’s infectious
                                                                          disease expert: Philip C. Carling, Jr., M.D. from
The 21-year-old male plaintiff was a patient at the de-                   Dorchester Center, MA. Defendant’s surgery expert:
fendant hospital under the care of the defendant sur-                     Matthew H. Hutter, M.D. from Boston, MA.
geon for laparoscopic hernia surgery. After the                           Jorge Rosado vs. UMASS Memorial and Richard
surgery, it was determined, based upon the plaintiff’s                    Perugini, M.D., 06-01-11.
symptoms, that surgical tack from the procedure had
migrated into the plaintiff’s small bowel, causing a                      Attorney for plaintiff: Gregg J. Pasquale of Keches
perforation. As a result of the incident, the plaintiff was               Law Group in Taunton, MA.
required to undergo a total of eight additional
surgical procedures.                                                      COMMENTARY
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendants alleg-                  Due to the migration of the surgical tack, the plaintiff had to un-
ing negligence. The plaintiff alleged that the defen-                     dergo eight more surgical procedures. As a result of the blockage,
dants were negligent in failing to properly monitor the                   he developed another hernia which caused another bowel obstruc-
location of the surgical tack during the procedure, in                    tion. Due to an infection that developed following the surgery, the
failing to realize that the surgical tack had made its                    plaintiff was a patient in the intensive care unit on a breathing tube.
way into the plaintiff’s small bowel and remove it; and                   He also alleged to have undergone an ileostomy and had an open
in failing to properly suture the lining of the plaintiff’s               abdominal wound for a week.
stomach.                                                                  The plaintiff contended that each subsequent surgery brought more
                                                                          problems to the plaintiff. The second surgery caused another bowel
The defendants denied the allegations of negligence.                      obstruction, and during the third surgery, the defendant was negli-
The defendants contended that the migration of sur-                       gent in failing to properly repair a tear which was causing the plain-
gical tack is a known complication of this type of sur-                   tiff’s bowel contents to leak into his abdomen.
gery. The defendants maintained that there was no                         As a result of the numerous surgeries and resulting complications,
deviation from acceptable standards of care and the                       the plaintiff maintained he was at an increased risk for additional
plaintiff gave informed consent for the procedure with                    bowel obstructions from surgical adhesions. This could cause the
its inherent and known risks.                                             plaintiff to undergo even more abdominal surgery in the future.



                                                                          Subscribe Now
                                                                                                        New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
6                                                                                       SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS

Moreover, as a result of the defendants’ negligence and the compli-     ation from acceptable standards of care and rather, the injury sus-
cations following the surgeries, the plaintiff lost seven months from   tained by the plaintiff was known complication of the procedure he
his job as a mechanic.                                                  underwent.
The defendants maintained that it is known surgical risk that the ti-
tanium tack which is used to close abdominal wounds can become
loose over time. The defendants maintained that there was no devi-

      $2,450,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – HOSPITAL
      NEGLIGENCE – FAILURE TO TIMELY DIAGNOSE AND TREAT BACTERIAL INFECTION –
      INFECTION CAUSES PLAINTIFF TO BECOME LEGALLY BLIND.
Withheld County, MA                                                     manner. The defendant denied the allegations of
In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff                       negligence and disputed that there was any devia-
alleged that the defendant hospital was negligent                       tion from acceptable standards of care.
in failing to timely diagnose and treat a bacterial                     The parties agreed to a confidential recovery of
infection which spread to her eyes and caused her
                                                                        $2,450,000 to resolve the plaintiff’s claims.
to become blind. The defendants denied the
allegations and disputed the liability and
damages.                                                                REFERENCE
                                                                        Plaintiff Patient vs. Defendant Hospital. 02-15-11.
The 77-year-old old female plaintiff presented to the
defendant’s emergency room on several occasions                         Attorney for plaintiff: Barry D. Lang of Barry D. Lang,
prior to her admission with various complaints includ-                  M.D. & Associates in Newton, MA. Attorney for
ing nausea, vomiting, a problem with her foot and                       plaintiff: Max Borten, M.D. of Gorovitz & Borten in
swelling, pain and discomfort in both wrists. The plain-                Waltham, MA.
tiff was initially diagnosed with gout pending lab re-
sults. Some of the fluid from her wrist was withdrawn                   COMMENTARY
and sent to the lab for bacterial testing on a STAT ba-                 Both the emergency room physicians and later the hospitalist and
sis. The plaintiff was admitted pending the results of                  specialists continued to tentatively diagnose the plaintiff as suffering
the testing.                                                            from gout, a form of arthritis. Five days later when the plaintiff be-
It was determined several days after admission that                     gan to show signs of problems with her eyes, such as unequal pupils
the plaintiff was suffering from a bacterial infection in               which were not reactive to light, she was diagnosed by the neurolo-
her eyes which had caused blindness. The plaintiff                      gist as possibly suffering from acute confusion as the result of ad-
was declared legally blind as a result of the                           ministration of morphine for the pain she was experiencing.
undiagnosed infection.                                                  Despite results being requested STAT, the laboratory tests for a bac-
                                                                        terial infection were not performed until the next day. The results
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant hospi-                 came back positive. It was later determined that the plaintiff suf-
tal alleging that the defendant physicians were negli-                  fered from a septic microemboli in her eyes which rendered her
gent in failing to timely diagnose and treat her                        blind. She spent approximately thirty days in a rehabilitation facility
bacterial infection before it caused her blindness. In                  on intravenous antibiotics and then another two months undergoing
addition, the plaintiff contended that the defendant’s                  rehabilitation.
laboratory failed to test the specimen in a timely

      $2,000,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – EMERGENCY
      DEPARTMENT – FAILURE TO TIMELY TREAT PLAINTIFF – FAILURE TO ADMINISTER
      PLATELETS – LEFT HEMISPHERE HEMORRHAGE – VISION DIFFICULTIES – COGNITIVE
      AND SPEECH DIFFICULTIES IN COLLEGE STUDENT.
Withheld County, MA                                                     both his arms and legs. He was taken by ambulance
In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff                       to the defendant’s emergency department. Blood
alleged that the defendant was negligent in                             work taken in the E.R. disclosed that the plaintiff was
failing to timely treat his condition and administer                    suffering from a bleeding disorder called ITP or idio-
platelets to the plaintiff suffering from idiopathic                    pathic thrombocytopenic purpura which causes the
thrombocytopenic purpura, a bleeding disorder                           body’s immune system to destroy blood platelets. The
which resulted in the plaintiff suffering brain                         blood test results disclosed undetectable blood plate-
damage. The defendant denied the allegations                            lets in the plaintiff’s system.
and disputed the nature and extent of the
plaintiff’s alleged damages.                                            No platelets were administered to the plaintiff despite
                                                                        the diagnosis. In addition, it took over 20 hours in the
The plaintiff college student presented to the college                  emergency department for the plaintiff to be admit-
infirmary with blood blisters around his mouth, a history               ted to the hospital. As he waited, he developed a
of recent nosebleeds and bleeding into his skin on                      headache and then he began vomiting. A CT-scan

                                                                                                      Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS                                                                                                 7

disclosed that the plaintiff had suffered a left hemi-     REFERENCE
sphere hemorrhage extending into the subarachnoid          Plaintiff Student vs. Defendant Emergency Room. 04-
space. An emergency left hemi-craniectomy and              29-11.
evacuation was performed on the plaintiff. Despite
the surgery, there was increasing pressure in his brain    Attorneys for plaintiff: Andrew C. Meyer and Robert
and second procedure was performed.                        M. Higgins of Lubin & Meyer in Boston, MA.

As a result of the incident, the student suffered brain    COMMENTARY
injury and resulting cognitive deficits including diffi-
culty with math and word finding. He also suffered sig-    After being discharged from the hospital the plaintiff was admitted
nificant vision problems in one eye. The plaintiff         to a rehabilitation hospital. He underwent significant therapy to
brought suit against the defendant emergency de-           overcome his diagnosed cognitive deficits of speech problems, basic
partment alleging negligence in failing to timely treat    mathematic difficulties and word finding difficulties. After a few
the plaintiff and provide him with platelets. The defen-   years, the plaintiff was able to return to college and finish his last
dant denied the allegations and disputed that there        year with a large amount of assistance. The plaintiff continues to ex-
was any deviation from acceptable standards of             perience cognitive deficiencies as a result of the incident.
care.                                                      The plaintiff and the defendant differed on whether or not it was
                                                           appropriate for the defendant to withhold administration of plate-
The matter was resolved at a mediation just one week       lets. The plaintiff contended that the defendant should have admin-
prior to the scheduled trial. The plaintiff and the de-    istered platelets when it was determined that he was suffering from
fendant agreed to a confidential $2,000,000 settle-        ITP. The defendant countered that the appropriate standard of care
ment of the plaintiff’s claims.                            was not to administer platelets unless a patient is experiencing a
                                                           brain bleed.


    $1,750,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – DERMATOLOGY –
    FAILURE TO FOLLOW-UP ON PATIENT WITH MELANOMA – CANCER PROGRESSED TO
    STAGE IV TWO YEARS FOLLOWING INITIAL MOLE REMOVAL – WRONGFUL DEATH OF
    26-YEAR-OLD.
Withheld County, MA                                        The parties agreed to a confidential settlement of
In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff          $1,750,000 following the conclusion of depositions.
alleged that the defendant dermatologist was
negligent in failing to follow-up on the plaintiff         REFERENCE
after removal of a melanoma, resulting in the              Patient Plaintiff vs. Defendant Dermatologist.
progression of cancer to a fatal end. The
defendant denied the allegations of negligence.            Attorneys for plaintiff: Robert A. Shuman and Risa
                                                           Schneider of Law Offices of Robert A. Shuman &
The 26-year-old male patient came under the care of        Associates in Sharon, MA.
the defendant dermatologist for the removal of a
mole on his back. The pathology report recom-
mended a continued follow-up. The plaintiff alleged
                                                           COMMENTARY
that while the patient came back for a couple visits in    The plaintiff contended that there was an affirmative duty on the
the six months immediately following the removal,          part of the defendant dermatologist to follow up with the patient,
there was no additional follow-up which would have         given the results of the original pathology report. The original pa-
been the appropriate standard of care.                     thology report findings were “melanoma, superficial spreading
                                                           type, invasive to a depth of 1.0 mm, anatomic Level IV; extending to
Within two years, the patient noticed what appeared        inked deep resection mark.” The plaintiff contended that the defen-
to be a cyst at the site where the mole had been re-       dant was aware that close monitoring of the excision site was imper-
moved. Diagnostic testing determined that the “cyst”       ative given the pathology results and the likelihood that the
was actually a metastatic melanoma. The patient’s          cancerous cells may spread. The defendant’s claim that the patient
cancer was determined to be at Stage III and his           got “lost” in follow-up was not acceptable.
chances of survival dropped to less than 5%. The pa-       The plaintiff was prepared to testify that the patient’s cancer was a
tient underwent an excision of the cancerous mela-         Stage pT-IB with a 94% percent survival with no nodal involvement
noma, as well as radiation therapy and high doses of       and 73% percent survival rate with nodal involvement. The plaintiff
Interferon and Interleukin II and chemotherapy. De-        contended that the delay in diagnosing the spreading of the cancer
spite the aggressive treatment, the patient died from      through the lack of follow-up caused that survival rate to fall to less
the cancer.                                                than 5%.
The plaintiff brought suit alleging negligence on the
part of the defendant dermatologist. The defendant
denied the deviation from acceptable standards of
care.



                                                           Subscribe Now                New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
8                                                                       SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS


      $1,250,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY – CONSTRUCTION SITE NEGLIGENCE – NON-
      PROFIT NEGLIGENCE – SERVICE OF ALCOHOL TO UNDERAGE PATRON AT FESTIVAL –
      FAILURE TO ALERT TRAFFIC AS TO CHANGED ROAD CONDITIONS – 19-YEAR-OLD
      DECEDENT IS THROWN FROM SCOOTER – WRONGFUL DEATH.
Withheld County, MA                                      was torn up and a dirt roadway existed. In addition,
In this negligence action, the plaintiff alleged that    the plaintiff alleged that the defendant non-profit was
the defendants, a construction company and a             negligent in serving underage patrons alcohol at a
non-profit entity, were the cause of the 19-year-        festival that it had held the evening before the inci-
old’s death when she was thrown from a scooter.          dent. As a result of partaking in alcohol, the driver was
The plaintiff alleged that the construction              intoxicated at the time of the incident.
company failed to properly mark the construction
site to warn drivers of the changed road                 The case was mediated and resulted in a confidential
conditions. The plaintiff also alleged that the          recovery of $1,250,000 for the plaintiff’s estate.
defendant non-profit served the driver of the
scooter, an underage patron at a festival it held        REFERENCE
the night before. The defendants denied the              Plaintiff’s forensic engineering expert: Michael F.
allegations and disputed liability for the plaintiff’s   Yawitch from Norwood, MA. Plaintiff’s human factors
damages.                                                 expert: Robert Kennedy from Orlando, FL.
The 19-year-old female decedent was a passenger          Plaintiff Estate vs. Defendant Contractor and Defen-
on a scooter operated by the 20-year-old driver. The     dant Non-Profit.
two were traveling through a roadway where there
                                                         Attorney for plaintiff: Brian P. Harris of Harris &
had been construction work in progress. The driver of
                                                         Associates in Boston, MA.
the scooter had been drinking at a festival sponsored
by the defendant non-profit the evening before and
was intoxicated at the time of the incident. The fe-     COMMENTARY
male passenger was thrown from the scooter when          The driver of the vehicle pleaded guilty to motor vehicle homicide
the condition of the roadway changed from asphalt        and driving while under the influence of alcohol. The plaintiff pre-
to dirt without any markings or warnings.                sented expert testimony in the form of a human factors expert to
                                                         substantiate the plaintiff’s claim that the condition of the roadway
The plaintiff also alleged that the elevation of the     was a significant cause of the decedent’s death. The expert opined
roadway changed significantly. These factors, com-       that the construction company deviated from accepted industry stan-
bined with the intoxication of the driver, caused the    dards in marking the construction site clearly for oncoming motor-
female decedent to be thrown from the scooter. She       ists and the lack of warning in the form of signage was an
sustained blunt head trauma from which she died a        important factor in the decedent being tossed from the vehicle. In
few hours after the incident.                            addition, the plaintiff’s expert stated that the wheel diameter of the
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant con-    scooter, combined with the road condition, would have caused even
struction company alleging negligence in failing to      non-impaired scooter drivers to lose control of the vehicle.
set up equipment and markers such as lights, barrels,    The settlement consisted of $1,215,000 from the defendant construc-
cones or signs to warn drivers that they were entering   tion company and $35,000 from the non-profit. The non-profit mod-
a construction zone where the roadway condition was      ified its festival procedures to attempt to prevent underage
elevated from the regular roadway and the asphalt        consumption of alcohol.




                                                                                      Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
                                                                                                                        9




                         Verdicts by Category
                           PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
                                   Hospital Negligence
    $700,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY
Medical Malpractice – Hospital Negligence –               decedent stopped breathing and exhibited no pulse.
Excessive administration of medication to                 She was resuscitated, but suffered from brain
decedent with medication sensitivity – Anoxic             damage and died two days later.
Encephalopathy – Wrongful death.
                                                          The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant doctor
                                                          and the defendant hospital alleging negligence in
Withheld County, MA
                                                          administering an excessive dosage of pain medica-
In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff         tion and anti-anxiety medication to the decedent de-
alleged that the defendant physician and the              spite having knowledge of her sensitivity and
defendant hospital were negligent in                      intolerance to the medication prescribed. The defen-
administering excessive medication to a woman
                                                          dants denied the allegations of negligence and
who exhibited symptoms of sensitivity to pain
                                                          maintained that there was no deviation from accept-
medication. The woman suffered brain damage
and died. The defendants denied the allegations           able standards of care. The defendants contended
of negligence and maintained they did nothing             that the administration of the medication was proper
inappropriate.                                            under the circumstances and necessary for the
                                                          procedure.
The 78-year-old female decedent was admitted to
the defendant hospital for back pain. She came un-        The parties agreed to a confidential settlement of
der the care of the defendant physician. The dece-        $700,000 for the plaintiff’s claims prior to the trial in
dent was required to undergo an MRI for her back.         this matter.
The defendant physician administered an increased
dose of pain medication and prescribed anti-anxiety       REFERENCE
medication for the decedent prior to the MRI despite      Plaintiff Estate vs. Defendant Hospital, et al. 03-31-11.
being aware that the plaintiff’s decedent had sensitiv-
ity to narcotic pain medication. During the MRI, the      Attorneys for plaintiff: Benjamin R. Zimmerman and
                                                          Stacey L. Pietrowicz of Sugarman and Sugarman in
                                                          Boston, MA.


                                                 Surgery
    $500,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY
Medical Malpractice – Surgery – Failure to use            The 66-year-old female plaintiff presented at the hos-
proper bronchoscope during laser bronchoscopy –           pital with complaints of shortness of breath, coughing
Negligent exacerbation of injury by blowing down          and bloody sputum. It was determined that she was
the decedent’s throat to extinguish fire – Plaintiff’s    suffering from a tumor partially obstructing her right
throat is ignited during the procedure – Wrongful         upper lobe bronchus. She came under the care of
death due to extensive burns.                             the defendant surgeon for the purposes of performing
                                                          a laser bronchoscopy. When the defendant surgeon
Withheld County, MA                                       fired the laser, the plaintiff alleged that he placed the
In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff         tip of the laser too close to the bronchoscope and
alleged that the defendant surgeon was negligent          the endotracheal tube, setting them both on fire. This
in failing to properly perform a bronchoscopy             in turn ignited the decedent’s throat. The resident an-
resulting in the decedent’s throat igniting. The          esthesiologist failed to immediately turn off the gases
decedent ultimately died of the injuries she              and remove the endotracheal tube, further
suffered when her throat caught fire. The                 exacerbating the decedent’s injuries.
defendant denied the allegations and disputed
the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and
damages.

                                                          Subscribe Now
                                                                                   New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
10                                                                                   VERDICTS BY CATEGORY


The defendant then attempted to extinguish the fire        thesiologist was negligent in failing to follow proper
by blowing on it, which caused the fire to spread fur-     protocol for a fire during this type of laser procedure,
ther and cause more extensive damage. As a result,         which would have minimized the damages suffered.
the decedent sustained burns throughout her throat
                                                           The defendants denied the allegations and disputed
and into her lungs. She was kept ventilated and
                                                           the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s alleged dam-
moved to the intensive care unit, but died as a result
                                                           ages. The defendants contended that the decedent
of her injuries.
                                                           had terminal cancer and her life expectancy was
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant sur-      greatly reduced. The defendants contended that the
geon alleging negligence. The plaintiff alleged that       decedent did not have any conscious pain and suf-
the defendant surgeon failed to use the proper type        fering as a result of the incident.
of bronchoscope to perform the procedure which in-
                                                           The parties agreed to a confidential settlement of the
creased the risk of a fire and then caused the fire. The
                                                           plaintiff’s claim for the sum of $500,000 before a pre-
plaintiff also contended that the defendant was not
                                                           trial conference.
experienced in the procedure and should have re-
ferred the decedent to a nearby facility which was
better experienced to handle the decedent’s proce-         REFERENCE
dure. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the defen-   Plaintiff Doe vs. Defendant Surgeon.
dant exacerbated the burn damage by blowing                Attorneys for plaintiff: Jonathan A. Karon and John
down the decedent’s throat to attempt to extinguish        A. Dalimonte of Karon & Dalimonte in Boston, MA.
the fire. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant anes-

      $245,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY
Medical Malpractice – Surgery – Failure to assure          Two days later, the plaintiff experienced sudden
integrity of gastrojejunostomy during Roux-en-Y            tachycardia and complained of severe abdominal
gastric bypass surgery – Infection – Reversal of           discomfort which caused her to be taken back to the
bypass – Plaintiff undergoes extensive recovery            operating room. The defendant noted a small
following leaking of gastric contents into                 amount of discolored fluid, which he attributed to fat
abdominal wound.                                           necrosis. Three days later, the plaintiff developed an
                                                           infection demonstrating the leakage of gastric con-
Hampden County, MA                                         tents through her abdominal wound. She was again
In this surgical negligence matter, the plaintiff          returned to the emergency room where it was noted
alleged that the defendant surgeon was negligent           that the gastrojejunostomy had not held. The sur-
in failing to assure that there was no leak                geons essentially reversed the bypass to alleviate the
following gastric bypass surgery. The plaintiff            condition.
leaked gastric fluid into the abdominal wound
resulting in an infection which required surgery to        The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant sur-
reverse the bypass. The defendant denied the               geon alleging negligence in failing to assure the in-
allegations and disputed the nature and extent of          tegrity of the gastrojejunostomy and then in failing to
the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.                          determine that the area was leaking which required
                                                           the plaintiff to undergo yet a third surgery to correct
The female plaintiff underwent a gastric bypass Roux-      the problem. The defendant denied that there was a
en-Y on July 19, 2002 which was performed by the           deviation from acceptable standards of care and
defendant surgeon. The defendant experienced diffi-        maintained that the plaintiff made a full and
culty in establishing the appropriate length to con-       complete recovery.
nect the middle portion of the intestine to the gastric
pouch, and he performed a gastrojejunostomy,               The parties agreed to a confidential settlement of
which is when the opening of the stomach is created        $245,000 prior to the trial in this matter.
to connect it to the upper portion of the small bowel
or small intestine. The plaintiff contended that the de-   REFERENCE
fendant should have been aware that the connection         Plaintiff Bypass Patient vs. Defendant Surgeon.
was not properly secured.
                                                           Attorney for plaintiff: James E. Riley, Jr. of Riley &
                                                           Associates in Walpole, MA.




                                                                                   Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
VERDICTS BY CATEGORY                                                                                                  11



                                      PRODUCT LIABILITY
                                        Defective Design
     $1,340,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY
Product Liability – Defective design of lawnmower          The plaintiff alleged that the parking brake on the
– Plaintiff’s decedent is crushed to death when he         mower failed to work as it had corroded and broken.
attempts to stop runaway mower due to allegedly            The plaintiff alleged that the defendant manufacturer
defective parking brake – Wrongful death of 54-            failed to cover the entire brake cable in a protective
year-old.                                                  coating. The plaintiff brought suit against the defen-
                                                           dant parking brake manufacturer, the retail seller and
Withheld County, MA                                        the defendant manufacturer of the mower, alleging
In this product liability matter, the plaintiff alleged    negligence. The plaintiff contended that the defec-
that the defendant manufacturer was negligent in           tive design of the parking brake cable and lack of
failing to properly design the parking brake so            sheathing was the cause of the cable breaking and
that it did not corrode. The corrosion of the cable        the resulting death of the worker.
was alleged to be the reason for the failure of the
brake which caused the decedent’s death when               The plaintiff settled confidentially with the defendant
he was crushed while attempting to secure the              parking brake manufacturer and the defendant re-
runaway mower. The defendant manufacturer                  tailer. The matter proceeded to trial as to the defen-
denied liability and maintained that the parking           dant mower manufacturer who disputed liability and
brake cable had been cut.                                  maintained that the parking brake line had been in-
                                                           tentionally cut which was the cause of its failure and
The plaintiff’s decedent was employed as a munici-         the decedent’s resulting death.
pal worker and was using the defendant’s mower to
cut grass as part of his employment. The decedent          The defendant manufacturer and the plaintiff agreed
stopped the mower on a flat surface, set the parking       to a confidential settlement of $1,340,000 during the
brake and dismounted to have something to eat. The         jury deliberations.
mower began to roll away from the worker. The worker
and his co-worker attempted to catch the mower to          REFERENCE
prevent it from rolling into the road. The decedent lost   Plaintiff Worker vs. Defendant Manufacturer.
his footing and the mower ran over him, crushing him
to death.                                                  Attorneys for plaintiff: Ralph F. Sbrogna and Roger J.
                                                           Brunelle of Sbrogna & Brunelle in Worcester, MA.




                                      AGE DISCRIMINATION
     $7,650 VERDICT
Age Discrimination – 61-year-old hotel                     to get pay raises. Further, the plaintiff alleged that the
housekeeper alleges disparate treatment and                defendant’s general manager had made disparag-
discrimination by defendant as a result of her             ing remarks about the plaintiff’s age. In 2006 the
age.                                                       plaintiff was terminated.
                                                           The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleg-
U.S. District Court, District of MA
                                                           ing age discrimination. The defendant denied the al-
In this age discrimination matter, the plaintiff           legations. The defendant contended that the
alleged that she was discriminated against by the          plaintiff’s pay was frozen solely for the defendant’s
defendant due to her age, singled out for a pay            economic reasons since she was the highest paid
freeze for three years, and then terminated. The
                                                           housekeeper on the staff. Further, the defendant de-
defendant denied that the pay freeze had
                                                           nied the allegations of age discrimination and
anything to do with the plaintiff’s age and
maintained it was as a result of economic issues.          disparate treatment.
The defendant further denied any instances of              The matter was tried and at the conclusion of the trial,
age discrimination against the plaintiff.                  the jury deliberated for three hours and returned its
The 61-year-old female plaintiff was employed by the       verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defen-
defendant for a period of nine years as a hotel            dant. The jury awarded the plaintiff the total sum of
housekeeper. The plaintiff maintained that for three       $7,650 for age discrimination.
years she was singled out and subjected to a pay
freeze, while other, younger housekeepers continued

                                                           Subscribe Now
                                                                                   New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
12                                                                                    VERDICTS BY CATEGORY


REFERENCE                                                  Attorney for plaintiff: Lynn A. Leonard in Melrose,
Carmen Llerena Diaz vs. Jiten Hotel Management,            MA. Attorneys for defendant: Ryan C. Siden of Siden
Inc. Case no. 1:08-CV-10143; Judge William G.              & Associates in Boston, MA, and Evan Fray-Witzer of
Young, 04-05-11.                                           Law Offices of Evan Fray-Witzer in Boston, MA.




                                     CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
      $7,775 VERDICT
Construction Contract – Breach of contract –               The defendant denied the allegations. The defendant
Section 93A violation – Defendant fails to make            denied any breach of the parties’ agreement. The
renovations and construct pergola in a competent           defendant brought a counterclaim against the plain-
and professional manner.                                   tiff for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The
                                                           defendant also brought a third party action against
Barnstable County, MA                                      the defendant builder and lumber supplier alleging
In this breach of construction matter, the plaintiff       that the third party defendant was negligent in failing
alleged that the defendant contractor failed to            to provide the defendant with the proper building
abide by the parties’ contract, and failed to              materials for the construction of the pergola. The de-
renovate her home and build the pergola agreed             fendant also alleged breach of warranty and unfair
upon in a proper fashion. The plaintiff alleged            business practices against the third party defendant.
that the defendant committed fraud in violation of
Section 93A of Massachusetts Law. The defendant            The matter was tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the
denied the allegations and alleged that the                jury returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury
plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. The                  determined that the defendant did breach its con-
defendant counterclaimed against the plaintiff for         tract with the plaintiff. The jury awarded the plaintiff
monies due under the contract. The defendant               the sum of $7,775 in damages. The jury determined
also filed a third party complaint against the             that there was no violation of Section 93A by either
defendant builder/lumber company for falsely               the defendant or the third party defendant and there
advising the defendant about materials necessary           was no liability on the part of the third party
to complete the construction job as required.              defendant.
The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defen-
dant builder. The plaintiff agreed to pay the defen-       REFERENCE
dant the sum of $253,860 in April 2006 in exchange         Plaintiff’s general contractor expert: Michael Kearney
for remodeling of the plaintiff’s home, construction of    from Upton, MA.
an addition and construction of a pergola over the         Mary Rogers vs. Greg A. Springer d/b/a Springer
plaintiff’s front door.                                    Builder. Case no. CV2009-00096; Judge Gary A.
                                                           Nickerson, 04-29-11.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent
in failing to properly perform the construction work.      Attorney for plaintiff: L. Timothy Nealon of Nealon &
The plaintiff alleged that there were serious defects      Nealon in Mashpee, MA. Attorneys for defendant
with the roof work and the pergola that the defendant      Springer: Bruce A. Bierhans and Olivier Kozlowski of
was to construct. The plaintiff alleged that she brought   Law Offices of Bruce A. Bierhans in Stoughton, MA.
the defects to the attention of the defendant who re-      Attorneys for defendant Nickerson Lumber (Third
fused to make the necessary corrections of the             Party Defendant): Duane P. Landreth and Kristen S.
defects.                                                   Rufo of La Tanzi Spaulding & Ladreth in Orleans, MA.
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleg-
ing breach of contract and fraud in accordance with
Section 93A for his failure to correct the defects and
replace the pergola. The plaintiff sought treble
damages.




                                                                                    Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
VERDICTS BY CATEGORY                                                                                                    13

                               DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
     $40,000 RECOVERY
Disability Discrimination – Failure to                      The employee filed a discrimination complaint with
accommodate employee by granting additional                 the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought suit against the de-
month of medical leave as approved by                       fendant alleging violation of the Americans with Dis-
employee’s physician – Termination of                       abilities Act for its failure to accommodate the
employment.                                                 employee’s request for additional medical leave.

U.S. District Court , District of MA                        The defendant denied the allegations of discrimina-
                                                            tion and maintained that the employee was termi-
In this disability discrimination matter, the plaintiff
argued that the defendant discriminated against             nated for her failure to provide required
the employee by failing to approve her request for          documentation regarding her medical leave to the
an additional month of medical leave as certified           defendant. Further, the defendant contended that
to by her physician. The plaintiff alleged that the         holding the employee’s position open for an ex-
employee was then terminated by the defendant.              tended period of time created an undue hardship on
The defendant denied the allegations and                    the employer.
maintained that the plaintiff was terminated for            The parties agreed to settle the employee’s claims for
her failure to comply with documentation
                                                            the sum of $40,000 prior to the trial in this matter.
requirement.
The female employee who had been a long-standing            REFERENCE
employee was injured as a result of a severe motor          Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. ACT
vehicle collision in February 2009 while she was en         Teleconferencing Inc., et al. Case no. 1:11-CV-10941;
route to her job. The plaintiff was on medical leave for    Judge Rya W. Zobel, 05-25-11.
a period of six months. The plaintiff required an addi-
tional month of leave as certified to by her physician.     Attorneys for plaintiff: Markus L. Penzel of EEOC
The defendant refused to grant the additional month         Office in Boston, MA, and Ariel D. Cudkowicz and
of leave and terminated the plaintiff’s employment.         Jean M. Wilson of Seyfarth Shaw LLP in Boston, MA.


     DEFENDANT’S VERDICT
Disability Discrimination – Plaintiff veterinarian          the plaintiff’s position in 2004. The plaintiff brought suit
with multiple sclerosis alleges she was                     against the defendant and alleged that she was dis-
discriminated against by the defendant hospital –           criminated against by the defendant due to her dis-
Failure to accommodate.                                     ability and the defendant failed to accommodate
                                                            her as provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
U. S. District Court, District of MA                        The plaintiff also alleged wrongful termination.
In this disability discrimination matter, the plaintiff
                                                            The defendant denied the allegations. Initially, the de-
alleged that the defendant hospital failed to
accommodate her disability, thereby                         fendant maintained that due to the size of the veteri-
discriminating against her. The defendant denied            nary hospital, it was not subject to the requirements of
the allegation maintaining that it was not                  the Americans with Disabilities Act. The defendant
subjected to the Americans with Disabilities Act            contended that it did try to accommodate the plain-
because of its size.                                        tiff by permitting her to work part-time. The defendant
                                                            further maintained that the plaintiff was terminated to
The female plaintiff, a veterinarian, suffers from multi-   permit the defendant to hire a full time veterinarian.
ple sclerosis. She was employed by the defendant            Another part-time veterinarian was also terminated at
veterinary hospital from May 1997 on a part-time ba-        that same time.
sis. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to
accommodate her medical condition. The plaintiff            The matter was tried and at the conclusion of the trial,
alleged that getting overheated or fatigued are trig-       the jury returned its verdict in favor of the defendant
gers for her multiple sclerosis and the defendant was       and against the plaintiff.
well aware of this. Despite knowing that the plaintiff
was unable to work in exam rooms which were not air         REFERENCE
conditioned in the summer, and the plaintiff’s re-          Sally Mahoney vs. Morgan & Brewster Veterinary Hospi-
peated requests for an air conditioned examination          tal. Case no. 1:08-cv-10879; Judge Marianne B.
room, the defendant failed to accommodate the               Bowler, 01-19-11.
plaintiff.
                                                            Attorneys for defendant: Thomas A. Reed and
Further, the plaintiff maintained that the defendant re-    Eugene J. Sullivan of Holtz & Reed in Boston, MA.
fused to limit her work day to just six hours so she did
not experience fatigue. The defendant terminated



                                                            Subscribe Now            New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
14                                                                                    VERDICTS BY CATEGORY



                                               DRAM SHOP
      DEFENDANT’S VERDICT
Dram Shop – Passenger plaintiff is severely                 The plaintiff alleged that the driver had consumed al-
injured when the intoxicated driver strikes                 cohol at the defendant’s bar immediately prior to the
highway barrier – Closed head injury – Bilateral            collision. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was
mandibulofacial fractures – Fractured nose –                liable under a theory of dram shop liability for serving
Complex tear of left medial meniscus and ACL –              a visibly intoxicated driver.
28% permanent partial disability to left knee.
                                                            The plaintiff brought suit alleging that the defendant
Hartford County, CT                                         was liable under the Dram Shop law for serving the
                                                            driver who was visibly intoxicated. The defendant de-
In this Dram Shop matter, the plaintiff alleged             nied the allegations. The defendant maintained that
that the defendant bar owner was negligent in
                                                            the driver was only served one round of drinks and
serving the visibly intoxicated driver who then
                                                            had been drinking alcohol in the parking lot prior to
collided into the highway barrier, killing himself
and severely injuring the plaintiff passenger. The          driving the vehicle.
plaintiff sustained severe head trauma, including           The matter was tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the
multiple fractures and a knee injury that left him          jury deliberated for approximately four and a-half
partially disabled. The defendant denied the                hours and returned its verdict in favor of the defen-
allegations of liability.                                   dant and against the plaintiff.
The 27-year-old male plaintiff was a passenger in the
vehicle driven by the defendant driver on August 9,         REFERENCE
2008. The driver of the vehicle consumed alcohol at         Plaintiff’s orthopedics expert: Kevin Shea, M.D. from
the defendant’s bar and then proceeded to drive his         Farmington, CT. Plaintiff’s toxicology experts: James
vehicle at speeds upward of 140 miles per hour on In-       O’Brien, M.D., Ph.D. from Farmington, CT, and Joel
terstate 84. He lost control of the vehicle and struck      Milzoff, Ph.D. from Hartford, CT.
the highway divider, killing himself.
                                                            Cunha vs. James DeRienzo, Jr. d/b/a Sin City. Case
The plaintiff passenger sustained serious injuries as a     no. CV-09-4044940; Judge Robert Stengel, 05-25-11.
result of the collision. The plaintiff was diagnosed with   Attorney for plaintiff: Georgia Ann Sullivan of
a closed head injury, bilateral mandibulofacial frac-       Polinsky Law Group in Hartford, CT. Attorney for
tures which required surgical repair, as well as a frac-    defendant: Jan C. Trendowski of Trendowski & Allen
tured nose and facial scarring. He also sustained a         in Centerbrook, CT.
complex tear of his medial meniscus on the left knee
and an ACL injury in the same knee. He was diag-
nosed as having sustained a 28% permanent partial
disability of his left knee as a result of the collision.



                                     GENDER DISCRIMINATION
      $50,000 VERDICT
Gender Discrimination – Female plaintiff                    natory acts which included being forced to share an
researcher is subject to gender discrimination at           office while a similarly situated male colleague not
defendant cancer facility.                                  only had his own office, but also two separate addi-
                                                            tional offices, one for his documents and one for his
Suffolk County, MA                                          technicians. The plaintiff alleged that she was never
In this discrimination matter, the plaintiff alleged        put on a committee despite the fact that her male
that she was discriminated against by male                  colleagues were routinely asked to sit on various
colleagues and terminated. The defendant denied             committees.
the allegations and maintained that the plaintiff           Despite complaining, no changes were ever made
was terminated for cause.
                                                            and the discriminatory practices continued. When the
The female plaintiff was an associate professor at Har-     leadership in her department changed, she was ter-
vard Medical School and a researcher in radiation           minated because the new leader needed additional
oncology at the defendant facility. The plaintiff al-       lab space. The plaintiff was told that her research in-
leged that she was the only female researcher at the        terests did not align with the “new research focus of
defendant facility for a period of 17 years. She al-        the division” despite the fact that the plaintiff had
leged that she was subjected to a variety of discrimi-      published more research on the “new research focus

                                                                                    Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
VERDICTS BY CATEGORY                                                                                                    15

of the division” than any of her male colleagues. In         There was a report commissioned by the defendant’s
addition, during the one-year period that she was            president after the plaintiff’s termination on the treat-
given to find a new position, she obtained grants for        ment of women at the defendant’s facility. The study
the department totaling more than $13 million, which         demonstrated the disparity between the treatment of
equaled more than all the males in the department            women and men at the facility. The plaintiff sought to
combined.                                                    have the report admitted in its entirety. The defendant
                                                             objected. The court ruled that portions of the report
She complained that she was being discriminated
                                                             would be admitted.
against based upon her gender; however, no action
was taken. She filed for injunctive relief which was de-     The matter was tried over a period of three weeks. The
nied and on the same day, her office was locked.             jury deliberated for four days and returned its verdict
She was denied access to gather her research from            in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The
17 years and was told she could take her personal            jury awarded the plaintiff the sum of $50,000 in
belongings which the male department chair told her          damages.
was “her lipstick”. Although the plaintiff was able to
obtain new employment at an increased pay level,             REFERENCE
her research studies were severely hampered by the           Plaintiff’s psychiatry expert: Daniel Schuman, M.D.
termination and the defendant staff’s refusal to allow       from Washington, DC. Plaintiff’s radiation oncology
her to take any of her research documentation with           expert: Ian Straford, Ph.D. from Manchester England.
her.
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleg-      Lynn Hlatky vs. Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Case no.
ing gender discrimination. The defendant denied the          05-0197B; Judge John Cratsley, 06-01-11.
allegations of gender discrimination. The defendant
maintained that the plaintiff was terminated solely be-      Attorneys for plaintiff: Lisa Arrowood, Kevin Peter
cause her research interests did not align with the new      and Alexis D’Arcy of Todd & Weld in Boston, MA.
focus of her division.



                                  INSURANCE OBLIGATION
     $180,000 VERDICT
Insurance Obligation – Underinsured Motorist                 The defendant disputed the nature and extent of the
claim – Motor Vehicle Negligence – Liability                 plaintiff’s injuries and the causal relationship between
admitted – Severe knee and chest bruising –                  the injuries and the collision. The defendant argued
Surgery required in the future.                              that the plaintiff had preexisting knee injuries and a
                                                             degenerative condition which was unrelated to the
New London County, CT                                        collision.
In this underinsured motorist claim, the plaintiff           The plaintiff settled with the defendant driver for
alleged that she was entitled to payment from her            $50,000.
insurance carrier for injuries sustained in a motor
vehicle collision where the defendant had                    The matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of
admitted liability. As a result of the collision, the        the trial, the jury returned its verdict in favor of the
plaintiff sustained severe bruising to her knees             plaintiff and against the defendant. The jury awarded
and chest. She alleged that she will require future          the plaintiff the sum of $145,000 for non-economic
knee surgery. The defendant denied the nature                damages and $35,000 for past and future medical
and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages           expenses. The verdict was reduced by the amount of
claiming that the plaintiff had preexisting injuries         the plaintiff’s settlement of $50,000 with the
which were degenerative in nature and as                     defendant driver.
causally related to the motor vehicle collision.
The 72-year-old female plaintiff was involved in a mo-       REFERENCE
tor vehicle collision where the defendant driver pulled      Plaintiff’s orthopedics expert: Mark H. Blechner, M.D.
out a parking lot and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. As a   from Waterford, CT. Defendant’s orthopedics expert:
result of the collision, the plaintiff sustained severe      Dennis M. Ogiela, M.D. from Danbury, CT.
bruising to her knees and chest. She maintained that
                                                             Dorothy Anselmo vs. Anthony D’Erocle and Allstate In-
the knee injuries would require her to undergo future
                                                             surance Co. Case no. CV-09-6001527-S; Judge Rob-
knee surgery. The plaintiff brought suit against the de-
                                                             ert A. Martin, 06-09-11.
fendant driver and her motor vehicle insurance under
the underinsured motorist coverage in her policy.            Attorney for plaintiff: Kelly E. Reardon of The
                                                             Reardon Law Firm in New London, CT. Attorney for
                                                             defendant: Elizabeth A. Fitzsimmons of Law Offices
                                                             of Mark Gilcreast in Hartford, CT.

                                                             Subscribe Now           New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
16                                                                                      VERDICTS BY CATEGORY



                                      LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE
      PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT
Landlord’s Negligence – Failure to install safety            ing for the child to discover that the child had pushed
measures in second story window – Plaintiff’s 18-            out a screen in an open and unguarded window and
month-old child falls through second floor screen            fell two stories. As a result of the incident, the child
– Closed head injury.                                        sustained a closed head injury.
                                                             The plaintiff brought suit against the property owner al-
Essex County, MA
                                                             leging negligent maintenance and failure to provide
In this negligence matter, the plaintiff alleged that        proper window guards. The defendant denied the
the defendant landlord was negligent in                      allegations.
permitting second floor screens to exist without a
safety feature to prevent the screen from being              The parties agreed to settle the plaintiff’s complaint
pushed out. The plaintiff’s toddler fell through an          prior to trial for $1,000,000 - the total of the available
open screened window and suffered a closed                   insurance coverage.
head injury. The defendant denied the allegations
of negligence.                                               REFERENCE
The 18-month-old child resided with her mother in a          Paulino vs. Manchester Heights, LLC, et al. Case no.
second story apartment in the defendant’s three story        10-1108, 12-08-10.
apartment building. On the night of the incident, the
                                                             Attorney for plaintiff: James A. Swartz of Swartz &
mother was in the other room and called to the tod-
                                                             Swartz in Boston, MA.
dler. When she received no response, she came look-



                                     MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE
                                       Auto/Bicycle Collision
      DEFENDANT’S VERDICT
Motor Vehicle Negligence – Auto/Bicycle Collision            As a result of the incident, the plaintiff sustained a
– Minor plaintiff is struck by the defendant’s               crush injury to his leg which resulted in permanent
vehicle as he is riding his bicycle – Crush injury to        scarring and disfigurement. The plaintiff brought suit
leg – Scarring.                                              alleging negligence on the part of the defendant
                                                             driver in the operation of the defendant’s vehicle.
Middlesex County, MA
                                                             The defendant denied the plaintiff’s version of the inci-
In this motor vehicle negligence action, the minor           dent. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff was
plaintiff alleged that the defendant driver was              riding his bicycle the wrong way on a one way street
negligent in striking him as he was riding his               when he was struck. The defendant contended that
bicycle. The defendant denied the allegations and
                                                             the plaintiff’s own negligence was the primary cause
maintained that the minor’s own negligence
                                                             of his injuries and alleged damages.
caused any injuries he sustained. The defendant
also disputed the nature and extent of the                   The matter was tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the
plaintiff’s injuries and damages.                            jury returned its verdict in favor of the defendant and
The 12-year-old male plaintiff was riding his bicycle on     against the plaintiff. The jury declined to find any neg-
May 17, 2008 on the street where the incident oc-            ligence on the part of the defendant.
curred. The defendant driver was operating his vehi-
cle on the same street in the opposite direction of          REFERENCE
travel from the plaintiff’s bicycle. The plaintiff alleged   Christina Amaral, as mother, next friend and guardian
that he was riding his bicycle off the road and was          of minor Victor Latella vs. Eric Souza. Case no.
struck by the defendant’s vehicle.                           CV2008-03659; Judge Thomas R. Murtagh, 05-05-11.
                                                             Attorney for defendant: George E. Clancy of Fuller
                                                             Rosenberg Palmer & Beliveau in Worcester, MA.




                                                                                     Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
VERDICTS BY CATEGORY                                                                                                     17



                                Auto/Pedestrian Collision
     $3,500,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY
Motor Vehicle Negligence – Auto/Pedestrian                   plaintiff was required to undergo multiple surgeries.
Collision – Plaintiff pedestrian is struck by the            The defendant driver was apprehended by campus
defendant drunk driver who flees the scene –                 police following the incident. He was intoxicated and
Multiple facial fractures – Facial scarring –                pled guilty to driving under the influence, leaving the
Cerebellar hemorrhage.                                       scene of an accident and reckless driving.

Withheld County, MA                                          The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleg-
                                                             ing negligence in the operation of his vehicle which
In this motor vehicle negligence matter, the                 caused the collision and the plaintiff’s resulting dam-
plaintiff alleged that the defendant driver was              ages. The defendant disputed the nature and extent
negligent in striking her and causing her to
                                                             of the plaintiff’s injuries.
sustain serious head injuries including facial
fractures and a cerebellar hemorrhage. The                   The parties agreed to a confidential recovery of
defendant denied the nature and extent of the                $3,500,000 to resolve the plaintiff’s claims prior to trial.
plaintiff’s injuries and damages.                            The defendant’s automobile insurance and parents’
The 23-year-old female plaintiff pedestrian was a col-       personal liability insurance paid for the settlement.
lege student who was struck on campus by the de-
fendant driver, who fled the scene. As a result of the       REFERENCE
incident, the plaintiff sustained severe facial injuries     Plaintiff Pedestrian vs. Defendant Driver. 03-03-11.
and head trauma. She sustained multiple facial frac-
                                                             Attorney for plaintiff: Neil Sugarman of Sugarman &
tures. She sustained a cerebellar hemorrhage and a
                                                             Sugarman in Boston, MA.
facial scar running from her forehead to her chin. The


                                     Intersection Collision
     DEFENDANT’S VERDICT
Motor Vehicle Negligence – Intersection Collision            The plaintiff alleged that she incurred approximately
– Multiple fractures – Left lung injuries – Chest            $300,000 in medical expenses. Her husband alleged
complications – Back pain.                                   loss of his wife’s companionship. The plaintiff brought
                                                             suit against the defendant driver and his employer al-
Bristol County, MA                                           leging negligence. The plaintiff alleged that the driver
In this motor vehicle negligence action, the                 failed to keep a proper lookout and was operating his
plaintiff alleged that her vehicle was struck by the         vehicle at an excessive rate of speed. The plaintiff al-
defendant’s tow truck vehicle at the intersection,           leged that the defendant’s employer was liable under
causing her to sustain multiple fractures as well            a theory of respondeat superior.
as other injuries. The defendant maintained that
                                                             The defendants denied the allegations. The defen-
he had the right-of-way and the collision was the
                                                             dants contended that the plaintiff’s direction of travel
fault of the plaintiff. The defendant also disputed
the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and        was controlled by a stop sign. The defendants con-
damages.                                                     tended that the plaintiff’s injuries and damages were
                                                             as a result of her own negligence.
On May 25, 2007, the female plaintiff was operating
her vehicle at the intersection where the collision oc-      The matter was tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the
curred. The plaintiff’s direction of travel was controlled   jury determined that the defendant was not negli-
by a stop sign. The plaintiff alleged that she stopped       gent. A verdict in favor of the defendants was
and then proceeded through the intersection when             entered.
her vehicle was struck by the defendant’s tow truck
which was traveling at a high rate of speed. As a re-        REFERENCE
sult of the collision, the plaintiff’s vehicle was           Plaintiff’s materials and mechanical engineering
propelled into a telephone pole.                             expert: Wilson G. Dobson, P.E. from Spencer, MA.
                                                             Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgery expert: R. Malcolm
The plaintiff’s driver’s side struck the telephone pole,
                                                             Smith, M.D. from Boston, MA. Defendant’s
severely injuring the plaintiff. She was diagnosed with
                                                             engineering expert: Jerold Baird, P.E. from
a fractured right leg and hip, fractured left thigh, frac-
                                                             Framingham, MA.
tured left arm, lung injuries and complications to a
preexisting chest problem, as well as back injuries.




                                                             Subscribe Now
                                                                                      New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
18                                                                                      VERDICTS BY CATEGORY

Kenneth St. Don, individually and as executor of the         Attorney for plaintiff: Susan Jacobs of Volterra
Estate of Kathleen St. Don vs. Peter Cloutier and            Goldberg & Jacobs in Attleboro, MA. Attorney for
Achins Garage, Inc. Case no. CV2008-00475; Judge             defendant Cloutier: Mark Hickey of Law Offices of
Richard T. Moses, 05-31-11.                                  James F. Clark, Jr. in Providence, RI. Attorney for
                                                             defendant Achins Garage: Gary S. Avratin of Law
                                                             Offices of Gary S. Avratin in Dedham, MA.


                                     Multiple Vehicle Collision
      $4,325 VERDICT
Motor Vehicle Negligence – Multiple Vehicle                  The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant driver,
Collision – Plaintiff’s vehicle is struck by a third         alleging that she was negligent and failed to yield the
vehicle propelled into her when the defendant                right-of-way which caused the collision that ultimately
fails to yield the right-of-way exiting a parking lot        impacted the plaintiff’s vehicle and caused her
– Back and neck injuries alleged.                            injuries.

New Britain County, CT                                       The defendant denied the allegations. The defendant
                                                             also disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s
In this motor vehicle negligence matter, the                 alleged injuries and damages.
plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent
in failing to yield the right-of-way as she was              The matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of
exiting a parking lot and collided into another              the trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and
vehicle, causing the other vehicle to collide into           against the defendant. The jury awarded the plaintiff
the plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of the collision,       a total of $4,325 consisting of $1,265 for past medi-
the plaintiff sustained back and neck injuries.              cal costs, $560 for past lost wages and $2,500 for
On January 29, 2010 the female plaintiff was operat-         non-economic damages.
ing her vehicle when the defendant’s vehicle failed to
yield the right-of-way as it was exiting a parking lot. As   REFERENCE
a result, the defendant’s vehicle struck a third vehicle     Tashima Carr vs. Christina Serravalle. Case no. CV-10-
which caused the third vehicle to collide into the           6004828-S; Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman, 03-16-11.
plaintiff’s vehicle which was traveling on the opposite
                                                             Attorney for plaintiff: Jeffrey R. Martin of O’Connell
side of the roadway. As a result of the collision, the
                                                             Flaherty & Attmore in Hartford, CT.
plaintiff was injured. She alleged that she sustained
soft tissue neck and back injuries as a result of the
collision.


                                         Reverse Collision
      DEFENDANT’S VERDICT
Motor Vehicle Negligence – Reverse Collision –               vehicle. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff alleged
Plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s vehicle               injuries to his neck, back and shoulder. He was diag-
stopped and reversed into the front of his vehicle           nosed with soft tissue injuries.
– Soft tissue injuries alleged.
                                                             The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleg-
                                                             ing negligence in the operation of his vehicle. The de-
Providence County, RI
                                                             fendant denied liability. The defendant maintained
In this motor vehicle negligence action, the                 that he did slowly back his vehicle up and struck the
plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s vehicle               plaintiff’s vehicle at a very slow speed, but denied
backed up into the front of the plaintiff’s vehicle,         causality and the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s
causing the collision. The plaintiff sustained soft
                                                             injuries and damages.
tissue injuries to his neck and back as a result of
the incident. The defendant denied the allegations           The matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of
and disputed the causal relationship and nature              the trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant and
and extent of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.              against the plaintiff.
The 60-year-old male plaintiff was operating his vehi-
cle on the date of the collision. He maintained that         REFERENCE
he brought his vehicle to a full stop behind the defen-      John Celona vs. Terrence Tulisiak. Case no. PC2005-
dant’s truck. The plaintiff alleged that the truck then      2789; Judge Francis Darigan, Jr., 01-25-11.
began to back up and struck the front of the plaintiff’s
                                                             Attorney for defendant: John A. McQueeney in
                                                             Providence, RI.

                                                                                      Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
VERDICTS BY CATEGORY                                                                                                     19

                                      PERSONAL NEGLIGENCE
     DEFENDANT’S VERDICT
Personal Negligence – Plaintiff alleges that the              The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant tattoo
defendant tattoo artist placed the tattoo                     parlor owner and his employee alleging negligence.
backwards and upside down on the plaintiff’s rib              The defendant denied liability, but offered to settle
cage – Emotional Distress.                                    the plaintiff’s claim for $100,000 which the plaintiff
                                                              refused.
Windham County, MA
                                                              The matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of
In this negligence action, the plaintiff alleged that         the trial, the jury returned its verdict in favor of the
the defendant tattoo artist placed the tattoo on the          defendant.
plaintiff’s rib cage, both backwards and upside
down, causing him to suffer embarrassment and
emotional distress. The defendant denied the                  REFERENCE
allegations and made an offer to settle prior to              Christopher Magrey vs. Peter Franks d/b/a Sacred Ink
trial which the plaintiff refused.                            Tattoo and Body Piercing and Kenneth Silver. Case
                                                              no. CV-09-5004034-S; Judge Robert Vacchelli, 03-23-
The male plaintiff designed a very large tattoo of his
                                                              11.
last name which he presented to the defendant to
have tattooed on his right rib cage. The defendant’s          Attorney for plaintiff: Steven H. St. Clair of Weiss &
employee created a stencil of the tattoo and applied          St. Clair in Putnam, CT. Attorney for defendant: Pro
it to the plaintiff’s right rib cage. The plaintiff alleged   Se.
that the defendant’s employee applied the tattoo
both upside down and backward, causing the plain-
tiff to suffer permanent disfigurement and emotional
distress as well as embarrassment.


                                           POLICE LIABILITY
     DEFENDANT’S VERDICT
Police Liability – Excessive Use of Force – Malicious         The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the physical ac-
Prosecution – Plaintiff alleges that he was falsely           tions of the police officers, a preexisting shoulder injury
arrested and assaulted by the defendant police                was exacerbated. The plaintiff brought suit against the
officers – Exacerbation of preexisting shoulder               defendants alleging use of excessive force, assault
pain alleged.                                                 and battery, false arrest and malicious prosecution.

U.S. District Court, District of RI                           The defendants denied the allegations. The defen-
                                                              dants contended that the plaintiff was uncooperative
In this police liability matter, the plaintiff alleged        despite repeated requests by the officers. In addition,
that the defendant officers used excessive force,             the defendants contended that any injuries allegedly
injuring the plaintiff and subjecting him to false
                                                              sustained by the plaintiff were as a result of the plain-
arrest following the motor vehicle stop of another
                                                              tiff’s own actions. The defendants contended that the
vehicle. The defendants contended that the
plaintiff was obstructing justice and failed to               plaintiff refused to cooperate and obstructed the offi-
comply with the police officer’s instructions,                cers in the performance of their duties.
facilitating his own arrest.                                  The matter was tried and at the conclusion of the trial,
The male plaintiff and a friend came upon a motor-            a verdict was entered in favor of the defendants and
cycle driver and passenger that had been issued a             against the plaintiff.
summons by the defendant police officer. The plaintiff
walked over and started talking to the passenger of           REFERENCE
the vehicle despite the police officers advising the ve-      James Kenney vs. Officer Jason T. Head, et al. Case
hicle to leave the area. A verbal altercation ensued          no. 1:09-cv-00349; Judge Mary M. Lisi, 03-16-11.
which resulted in the plaintiff being grabbed by the
arm by one of the officers and arrested for obstruct-         Attorney for defendant: Marc DeSisto in Providence,
ing the police officers. The plaintiff was held in the po-    RI.
lice station for approximately nine hours before being
released.




                                                              Subscribe Now
                                                                                      New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
20                                                                                         VERDICTS BY CATEGORY



                                         PREMISES LIABILITY
                                                   Fall Down
      DEFENDANT’S VERDICT
Premises Liability – Fall Down – Plaintiff slips and            The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant restau-
falls on liquid on floor of pizzeria – Knee injury              rant alleging negligence and permitting a hazardous
requiring surgery.                                              condition to exist. The plaintiff also alleged that the
                                                                defendant failed to properly warn patrons of the dan-
Norfolk County, MA                                              gerous condition of the floor.
In this premises liability matter, the plaintiff                The defendant denied the allegations. The defendant
alleged that the defendant was negligent in                     maintained that its employee had mopped the wet
allowing liquid to accumulate on the floor and                  area with a dry mop and a sign, alerting patrons of
failing to properly warn patrons of the slick                   the potentially slippery floor had been in place all
conditions. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff
                                                                day. The defendant also disputed the nature and ex-
suffered a knee injury which required surgery.
                                                                tent of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. The defen-
The defendant denied the allegations of
negligence and maintained that a sign was placed                dant contended that the plaintiff had a preexisting
to warn customers of the wet area, which the                    knee injury which caused him to be a surgical candi-
defendant attempted to clean.                                   date before the alleged fall.

The male plaintiff went to the defendant’s pizzeria to          The matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of
pick up a takeout order. As he was leaving, he turned           the trial, the jury returned its verdict in favor of the de-
around to make an additional purchase of bever-                 fendant and against the plaintiff.
ages. As the plaintiff re-entered the restaurant, he
slipped and fell on a wet substance on the floor by             REFERENCE
the entry way. The plaintiff alleged that he did not see        Linroy Morgan vs. Sophia’s Restaurant II, Inc. d/b/a
any warning about the floor prior to his fall. As a result      Harry’s Pizza and Seafoods. Case no. CV2008-01833;
of the fall, the plaintiff sustained injuries to his knee. He   Judge Elizabeth Donovan, 04-20-11.
was required to undergo knee surgery to repair the
damage.                                                         Attorney for defendant: Bernard W. Schranze of Masi
                                                                & Bruno in Plymouth, MA.


      DEFENDANT’S VERDICT
Premises Liability – Fall Down – Plaintiff alleges              The defendant denied the allegations. The defendant
she was injured when she slipped on a liquid on                 contended that it had no notice of any liquid on the
store floor – Fractured arm.                                    floor in the area where the plaintiff had allegedly
                                                                fallen and it was not liable to the plaintiff for her inju-
Middlesex County, CT                                            ries. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was liable
In this slip and fall matter, the plaintiff alleged             for her own injuries and damages.
that she slipped on a liquid accumulated on the                 The matter was tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the
floor of the defendant department store and fell,               jury returned its verdict in favor of the defendant and
fracturing her arm. The defendant denied the                    against the plaintiff.
allegations and disputed its liability and the
plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
                                                                REFERENCE
The female plaintiff was a patron at the defendant              Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgery expert: Joseph Sohn,
department store on July 10, 2008. The plaintiff al-            M.D. from Middletown, CT. Plaintiff’s physical
leged as she was shopping, she slipped on a liquid              therapy expert: Jonathan Glenney, P.T. from
substance that had accumulated on the tile floor and            Middlesex, CT. Defendant’s internal medicine expert:
fell. The plaintiff was diagnosed with a fracture of the        Margaret O’Donoghue, M.D. from Middletown, CT.
left distal radius. She also sustained injuries to her left     Defendant’s ophthalmology expert: Thomas Beggins,
hand, wrist and head.                                           M.D. from Middletown, CT.
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleg-         Elsa Santos vs. Marshalls of MA Inc. Case no. CV-09-
ing that it was negligent in failing to remove the liquid       5007020-S; Judge Peter Wiese, 03-18-11.
that was on the floor, in failing to give notice to cus-
tomers of the dangerous condition of the floor and in           Attorney for plaintiff: Thomas P. Cella of Howard
failing to properly maintain the floor in the area where        Kohn Sprague & Fitzgerald in Hartford, CT. Attorney
the customers shopped.                                          for defendant: Michael J. Smith of Bonner Kiernan
                                                                Trebach & Crociata in Boston, MA.


                                                                                         Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
VERDICTS BY CATEGORY                                                                                                  21


    DEFENDANT’S VERDICT
Premises Liability – Fall Down – Plaintiff allegedly        ing that it was negligent in permitting the floor to ac-
slips and falls as a result of liquid on the dance          cumulate liquid and in failing to keep the dance floor
floor of the defendant’s cafe – Bimalleolar fracture        dry and free from hazards.
– Dislocation of left ankle – Multiple surgeries
required – Open reduction and internal fixation.            The defendant owner denied the plaintiff’s allega-
                                                            tions. The defendant contended that the incident did
Fairfield County, CT                                        not occur. The defendant maintained that no one re-
                                                            called seeing the plaintiff in the cafe that evening,
In this premises liability matter, the plaintiff            which was slow. Further, the defendant contended
alleged that the defendant cafe was negligent in            that if the plaintiff was injured and fractured his ankle
allowing liquid to accumulate and exist on the
                                                            as alleged, someone, including the stationed security
dance floor, which resulted in the plaintiff’s slip
                                                            personnel in charge of the dance floor, would have
and fall. The plaintiff sustained an ankle fracture
and dislocation which required open reduction               noticed the plaintiff with a broken ankle.
and internal fixation surgeries. The defendant              The matter was tried and at the conclusion of the trial,
denied that the incident ever occurred at its               the jury returned its verdict in favor of the defendant
premises.                                                   and against the plaintiff.
The male plaintiff alleged that he was a patron at the
defendant’s cafe on New Year’s Eve 2009. While on           REFERENCE
the dance floor, the plaintiff alleged that he slipped      Dasilva vs. Ives St. Corporation d/b/a Tuxedo Junction
on a liquid and fell, fracturing his ankle. The plaintiff   Cafe. Case no. CV-09-6001534; Judge Michael
was diagnosed with a bimalleolar fracture with dislo-       Maronich, 04-06-11.
cation of his left ankle. The fracture required open re-
duction and internal fixation surgeries. The plaintiff      Attorney for defendant: Jan C. Trendowski of
brought suit against the defendant cafe owner alleg-        Trendowski & Allen in Centerbrook, CT.


                                     Hazardous Premises
    $100,000 AWARD
Premises Liability – Hazardous Premises – Plaintiff         dren and needs household assistance as a result of
slips and falls on loose mat down the stairs of             the injury to her foot, which continued to cause her
apartment building – Fractured foot – Internal              pain and discomfort.
fixation surgery.
                                                            The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant prop-
                                                            erty owner alleging negligence in failing to secure the
New Haven County, CT
                                                            rubber mat on which she slipped and in failing to
In this premises liability matter, the plaintiff            have stairwell properly lit. The defendant did not re-
alleged that she was injured when she slipped               spond to the plaintiff’s complaint and a default was
and fell down the stairs in her apartment building          entered.
due to the improper maintenance and lighting.
The plaintiff fractured her foot and required               The matter proceeded to a bench trial on the issue of
surgery for the placement and later removal of a            damages. At the conclusion of the trial, the court en-
screw. The defendant defaulted.                             tered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against
The female plaintiff was a tenant at the defendant’s        the defendant in the amount of $100,000.
apartment building. in August 2004, the plaintiff was
descending the stairway, which was unlit, and fell af-      REFERENCE
ter slipping on a rubber mat that was improperly se-        DePaulo vs. Frasier. Case no. CV-05-5000592-S;
cured. The plaintiff fell down seven stairs.                Judge Thomas J. Corradino, 04-01-11.
She was diagnosed with a fracture of her foot. Con-         Attorney for plaintiff: George H. Charlesworth, Jr. of
servative care did not resolve the fracture and surgery     Law Office of George H. Charlesworth in New
was required to place and later remove a screw. The         Haven, CT.
plaintiff alleged she was unable to care for her chil-

    $55,500 VERDICT
Premises Liability – Hazardous Premises – Plaintiff         Middlesex County, MA
trips on a mat entering the defendant’s store and           In this premises liability matter, the plaintiff
falls – Various soft tissue injuries alleged.               alleged that the defendant was negligent in
                                                            placing a mat with holes in it near the

                                                            Subscribe Now
                                                                                   New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
22                                                                                   VERDICTS BY CATEGORY

entranceway to the defendant’s donut shop. As a            The defendant denied the allegations and disputed li-
result, the plaintiff tripped on the holes in the mat      ability, causality and damages. The defendant con-
and fell, causing her to sustain injuries. The             tended that the plaintiff’s fall was caused solely as a
defendant denied the allegations and maintained            result of her own negligence and not as a result of
that the plaintiff’s own negligence was the sole           any negligence on the defendant’s part.
cause of any injuries she alleged.
                                                           The matter was tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the
The 76-year-old female plaintiff was a patron of the       jury returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff and
defendant donut shop on the morning of the inci-           against the defendant. The jury awarded the plaintiff
dent, January 24, 2008 with her husband. As the            the sum of $55,500 in damages. No liability was as-
plaintiff entered the entryway to the store, she tripped   sessed as to the plaintiff in this matter.
on a raised mat that had been placed there by the
defendant’s employees. As a result of the fall the         REFERENCE
plaintiff sustained injuries which were soft tissue in
nature.                                                    Plaintiff’s safety consultant expert: David Dodge,
                                                           C.S.P. from Standish, ME. Defendant’s insurance
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleg-    claims expert: Lisa Tomaszczuk from Chelmsford,
ing negligence. The plaintiff contended that the mat       MA.
placed in the entryway was not a proper type of mat        Marjorie Goshdigian vs. AdieConway Inc. d/b/a
for use by customers and was instead a mat used be-        Dunkin Donuts. Case no. CV-2009-00439; Judge
hind the counter which was raised to allow debris to       Douglas Wilkins, 03-17-11.
fall to the fall through holes in the matting.
                                                           Attorney for plaintiff: Laurence N. Aiello of Offices of
                                                           Alan H. King in Revere, MA. Attorney for defendant:
                                                           David R. Cain of Law Offices of Brown & Black in
                                                           Boston, MA.


                                     Negligent Maintenance
      $1,450,000 RECOVERY
Premises Liability – Negligent Maintenance –               The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant park-
Failure to maintain surface and lighting in                ing garage owners and maintenance company. The
parking garage – Plaintiff trips and falls on              plaintiff alleged that the parking garage was negli-
broken concrete – Herniated disc requiring fusion          gently maintained, creating a dangerous condition
surgery.                                                   with more than 100 lights not working and improperly
                                                           patched surfaces.
Hartford County, CT
                                                           The defendant property owners denied liability and
In this premises liability matter, the plaintiff           filed a counterclaim against the defendant mainte-
alleged that the defendant property owners and             nance company. The defendant maintenance com-
maintenance company permitted dangerous
                                                           pany denied liability maintaining that the parking
conditions to exist at the parking garage where
                                                           garage owner was responsible for any surface main-
the plaintiff fell, including numerous non-working
lights and surface cracks. As a result of his fall,        tenance. The defendant parking garage mainte-
the plaintiff injured his back requiring him to            nance company counterclaimed against the owner.
undergo surgery. The defendants denied the                 The parties agreed to a settlement of the plaintiff’s
allegations and disputed the nature and extent of          claim, for the total sum of $1,450,000 prior to trial.
the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. The
defendants blamed the plaintiff for his injuries.
                                                           REFERENCE
The 48-year-old male plaintiff was the lead building       Darryl Camp vs. Hartford Downtown Revival LLC, New
and grounds patrol officer for the state and was as-       Talcott Plaza, LLC, et al. Case no. CV-08-5021623-S;
signed to patrol the parking garage where in the inci-     Judge Michael Riley, 05-01-11.
dent occurred. On June 27, 2007 as the defendant
was patrolling the four story parking garage, he was       Attorney for plaintiff: John J. Pavano in New London,
walking on one of the ramps and tripped and fell on        CT.
patched and broken concrete. As a result of the fall,
the plaintiff landed on his back. He was diagnosed
with a herniated disc in his lower back and had to un-
dergo lower back fusion surgery. He was also diag-
nosed with nerve root impingement.




                                                                                   Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
VERDICTS BY CATEGORY                                                                                                      23


     $500,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY
Premises Liability – Negligent Maintenance –                   that the defendant was aware of the water dripping
Failure to correct dripping roof – Accumulation of             off the roof of the canopy yet failed to take any ac-
ice – Plaintiff police officer slips and falls on ice          tion to rectify the cause of the drippage.
formed from water dripping off canopy roof –
Subscapularis tear – Bicep dislocation – Achilles              The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleg-
Tendon tear.                                                   ing negligence in failing to maintain the canopy to
                                                               prevent water from dripping off of it and accumulat-
Withheld County, MA                                            ing as ice on the surface of the gas station pumping
                                                               area and in failing to warn the plaintiff and others or
In this premises liability matter, the plaintiff               take measures to prevent the accumulation of black
alleged that the defendant property owner failed
                                                               ice.
to take corrective action to prevent water from
dripping from the roof of a gas station canopy,                The defendant denied the allegations and disputed
which developed into black ice. The plaintiff                  the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. The de-
tripped on the ice and injured his shoulder, biceps            fendant denied the plaintiff’s version of the incident.
and Achilles tendon. The defendant denied                      The defendant contended that its manager had in-
liability and disputed the nature and extent of the            spected the area and it was free from dripping water
plaintiff’s injuries and damages.                              on the date of the incident. Further, the defendant al-
The male plaintiff, a police officer, stopped at the de-       leged that the area had been sanded during the
fendant’s gas station and convenience store in order           morning hours in the area where the plaintiff alleged
to make a purchase. The gas pumps were covered                 to have fallen.
by a canopy. The plaintiff alleged that as he was              The parties mediated the plaintiff’s claim and agreed
walking from his vehicle to the convenience store, he          to a confidential settlement of $500,000 following the
slipped and fell on black ice which had accumulated            mediation.
as a result of water dripping off the edge of the
canopy.
                                                               REFERENCE
As a result of the fall, the plaintiff sustained injuries to   Plaintiff Police Officer vs. Defendant Property Owner.
his shoulder and arms, as well as his Achilles tendon.         01-25-11.
He was diagnosed with a subscapularis tear, biceps
tear and Achilles tendon tear. The plaintiff contended         Attorneys for plaintiff: Neil Sugarman and Allison M.
                                                               Ciullo of Sugarman & Sugarman in Boston, MA.

     $120,000 VERDICT
Premises Liability – Negligent Maintenance – Fire              comfort, he was unable to return to his job as a win-
escape collapses during plaintiff’s use – Plaintiff            dow tinter. He was later diagnosed as suffering from
falls 15 feet to the ground – Myofascial Pain                  myofascial pain syndrome.
Syndrome alleged – Inability to work.
                                                               The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant con-
                                                               dominium association alleging negligence in failing
Bristol County, MA
                                                               to properly maintain the fire escapes on the building.
In this premises liability matter, the plaintiff               The plaintiff alleged that the welds holding the steps
alleged that the defendant was negligent in                    on the staircases had rusted through and caused the
failing to properly maintain the fire escape in a              stairs to collapse while the plaintiff was using them.
good condition and in compliance with building
                                                               The plaintiff further contended that the defendant
codes. As a result of the deficient fire escape
                                                               failed to take steps necessary to repair and maintain
which collapsed, the plaintiff fell to the ground
and sustained injuries which prevented him from                the fire escapes as it had been directed to do
returning to work. The defendant denied the                    following a state inspection.
allegations and disputed the nature and extent of              The defendant denied the allegations of negligence.
the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.                              The defendant further disputed the nature and extent
On October 9, 2007, the 42-year-old male plaintiff             of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries. The defendant main-
was using the fire escape as the secondary means of            tained that the plaintiff’s injuries were minor and he
ingress and egress to his condominium at the defen-            was being a malingerer.
dant’s building. As he was traversing the fire escape,         The matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of
the top two stairs of the fire escape, which were rusty,       the trial, the jury deliberated and returned its verdict in
collapsed. The plaintiff plunged 15 feet to the ground.        favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The
He sustained injuries to his neck, back and legs. He           jury awarded the plaintiff the sum of $120,000 in
claimed that as a result of unyielding pain and dis-           damages.



                                                               Subscribe Now
                                                                                       New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
24                                                                                        VERDICTS BY CATEGORY


REFERENCE
Barboza vs. Lord Philip Condominium Trust. Case no.
CV-2009-01006, 04-29-11.
Attorneys for plaintiff: Brian R. Cunha, Nelia M.
DeStefano and Karen A. Alegria of Law Offices of
Brian R. Cunha in Fall River, MA.

      $12,000 VERDICT, WITH PLAINTIFF MORE THAN 50% AT FAULT
Premises Liability – Negligent Maintenance –                   The defendant denied the allegations. The defendant
Plaintiff trips on pothole in parking lot and falls –          contended that the plaintiff’s own negligence was the
Various injuries alleged including injuries to ribs            sole cause of her fall and resulting injuries. The defen-
and right eye.                                                 dant maintained that there wasn’t any pothole in the
                                                               area where the plaintiff alleged she had fallen, rather
Middlesex County, MA                                           there was only a minor depression in the pavement
In this negligent maintenance matter, the plaintiff            which did not constitute a pothole. Further, the defen-
alleged that the defendant was negligent in                    dant argued that if the plaintiff had exercised due
failing to properly maintain the surface of the                care and watched her step she would not have
parking lot where the plaintiff tripped on a                   fallen.
pothole and fell, injuring herself. The plaintiff
                                                               The matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of
alleged injuries to her ribs, eye and neck. The
defendant denied the allegations and maintained                the trial, the jury determined that the defendant was
that the plaintiff’s negligence caused her injuries.           negligent and awarded $12,000 in damages. The jury
                                                               determined, however, that the plaintiff was also negli-
The female plaintiff parked her vehicle in the parking         gent and assessed liability at 47% to the defendant
lot owned by the defendant on January 10, 2008. As             and 53% to the plaintiff. As a result of jury’s assess-
the plaintiff walked around her vehicle to make sure           ment of liability, the plaintiff took nothing.
that it was parked within the markings of the parking
space, she alleged that she tripped in a pothole and           REFERENCE
fell injuring herself. The plaintiff alleged injuries to her
                                                               Susan DeCaprio vs. National Amusements, Inc. Case
rib, eye and neck as a result of the incident.
                                                               no. CV2009-03140; Judge Kimberly Budd, 04-13-11.
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleg-
                                                               Attorney for plaintiff: Richard P. Silvani of Macaronis
ing negligence in the defendant’s maintenance of
                                                               Law Firm in Lowell, MA. Attorney for defendant: H.
the parking lot. The plaintiff alleged that due to faulty
                                                               Charles Hambelton of Behman Hambelton in
maintenance, she injured herself.
                                                               Woburn, MA.




      The following digest is a composite of additional significant verdicts reported in full detail in our companion
      publications. Copies of the full summary with analysis can be obtained by contacting our Publication Office.


                                                                                        Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
                                                                                                                         25




              Supplemental Verdict Digest
                                    MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
     $21,600,000 VERDICT - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - OB/GYN - NURSING - FAILURE TO
     MONITOR BOTH HEART RATES OF TWINS DURING DELIVERY - BRAIN DAMAGE TO A
     NEWBORN CHILD - CEREBRAL PALSY.
Erie County, PA                                               The parties reached an agreement pre-trial on a
In this medical malpractice case, a family sued on            high/low. No pre-trial settlement offer was made by
behalf an infant who suffered cerebral palsy after            the defense. The high in this case was $33 million,
a botched delivery. The jury delivered a                      comprised of Hamot Medical’s $31 million policy lim-
subsequent landmark $21.6 million verdict                     its and Dr. Townsend’s $2 million limits. The low was
against the hospital. The delivery occurred on                $5.75 million. The jury deliberated for four hours be-
November 13, 2006, when the plaintiff, 26,                    fore returning with a verdict for the plaintiff. They found
presented at the Hamot Medical Center in Erie,                Hamot, now UPMC Hamot, 100% negligent by way of
Pennsylvania, for the scheduled induction of                  the nursing staff’s failure to monitor the infant’s fetal
labor. The plaintiff was pregnant with twins, a girl          heart rate and other vital signs. No negligence was
and a boy. The nurse midwife administered                     attributed to the co-defendants Dr. Townsend, M.D.,
Cervidil to induce labor. The midwife, defendant              and the midwife nurse.
obstetrician and the nursing staff proceeded with
the labor. However, for reasons that formed the
                                                              REFERENCE
center of the dispute, the staff did not continually
monitor both of the fetal heart rates. A nurse                Graham vs. Hamot, et al. Case no. 12229-2008;
delivered the first twin, a girl, while the ob/gyn            Judge Ernest J. DiSantis, Jr., 04-20-11.
was getting into position. During the delivery of             Attorney for plaintiff: Shanin Specter of Kline Specter
the second child, the fetus shifted into a breech             in Philadelphia, PA. Attorney for defendant Hamot
position. The birth of the boy was delayed by
                                                              Medical Center: David R. Johnson of Thomson
twenty minutes until the obstetrician and midwife
                                                              Rhodes & Cowie in Pittsburgh, PA. Attorney for
performed an emergency C-section. Thereafter,
the ob/gyn noticed signs of metabolic acidosis in             defendant Dr. Mark E. Townsend: Shannon Poliziani
the infant boy and placed him in the neonatal                 of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
ICU, where he suffered a seizure approximately                in Pittsburgh, PA. Attorney for defendant Christine
two hours later. He was later diagnosed with                  Hornstein: Steven J. Forry of Marshall, Dennehey,
cerebral palsy brought on by oxygen deprivation.              Warner, Coleman & Goggin in Pittsburgh, PA.


     $10,500,000 VERDICT - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - ANESTHESIOLOGY - IMPROPER USE
     OF LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY RESULTING IN AN UNPROTECTED AIRWAY -
     ASPIRATION OF STOMACH CONTENTS LEADING TO ACUTE RESPIRATORY DISTRESS -
     COMA IN 44-YEAR-OLD FEMALE - NERVE DAMAGE.
New London County, CT                                         REFERENCE
In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff             Karla Rosa vs. Anesthesia Associates of New London.
alleged that the defendant anesthesiologist was               Case no. KNL-CV-08-5006331-S; Judge Emmet
negligent in failing to use due care during the               Cosgrove, 05-13-11.
administration of anesthesia to the plaintiff which
resulted in the plaintiff suffering acute respiratory         Attorney for plaintiff: Sean K. McElligott of Koskoff
distress syndrome and becoming comatose. The                  Koskoff & Bieder, P.C. in Bridgeport, CT. Attorney for
defendant denied that there was any deviation                 defendant: Robert Cooney of Williams Cooney &
from acceptable standards of care.                            Sheehy in Trumbull, CT.

The matter was tried and at the conclusion of the trial,
the jury returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant. The plaintiff was awarded the
sum of $10,500,000 in damages.



                                                              Subscribe Now
                                                                                      New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
26                                                                     SUPPLEMENTAL VERDICT DIGEST



                                     PRODUCTS LIABILITY
      $1,570,000 GROSS VERDICT - PRODUCT LIABILITY - DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF LADDER -
      LADDER RETRACTS DURING USE - FALL TO GROUND - HEAD INJURY - TEN-DAY
      COMA - WRONGFUL DEATH - 80% COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE FOUND.
Miami-Dade County, FL                                    ufacturer 20% negligent and the decedent 80%
This was a products liability action against the         comparatively negligent. The plaintiff was awarded
manufacturer of a ladder from which the                  $1,570,000 in damages, which was reduced to a net
decedent fell and sustained a fatal head injury.         award of $314,000. Post-trial motions are currently
The plaintiff alleged that the ladder was                pending.
defectively designed in that the side pins did not
lock properly, thereby causing it to retract under       REFERENCE
the decedent’s weight. The plaintiff also alleged        Coba vs. Tricam Industries, Inc. Case no. 07-29041
that the defendant manufacturer was negligent in
                                                         CA 21; Judge William Thomas, 08-26-10.
the manner in which it manufactured the ladder.
The defendants in the case also included Home            Attorneys for plaintiff: Orlando D. Cabeza and Peter
Depot where the ladder had been purchased. The           L. DeMahy of DeMahy, Labrador, Drake, Payne &
defendants maintained that the accident was              Cabeza in Coral Gables, FL. Attorneys for defendant:
caused by the decedent’s own negligence in               Jeffrey A. Mowers of Pyszka, Blackmon, Levy,
failing to properly lock the ladder before climbing      Mowers & Kelley in Miami Lakes, FL, and Paul Kaulus
it.                                                      (pro hac vice) in Chicago, IL.
The jury found that the ladder in question was not de-
fective, but found that the defendant manufacturer
was negligent. The jury assessed the defendant man-

      $1,500,000 VERDICT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY - FAILURE TO WARN - PLAINTIFF
      SNOWMOBILE REVS ENGINE TO CLEAN SPARK PLUGS WHILE LIFTING END OF
      VEHICLE - TRACK BREAKS AND STRIKES PLAINTIFF IN LEG - ABOVE-THE-KNEE
      AMPUTATION - CASE PREVIOUSLY TRIED AND RESULTED IN AWARDS - DEFENDANT
      REJECTS $900,000 ADDITUR AND CASE RETRIED ON ISSUE OF PAIN AND SUFFERING
      ONLY.
Morris County, NJ                                        revved the engine with the throttle, the track
This case involved a 61-year-old plaintiff who was       broke and was propelled out of the rear and
visiting a friend in upstate New York for a              through the plaintiff’s right leg.
weekend of snowmobiling. The plaintiff                   The jury awarded $1,500,000 for pain and suffering.
contended that the snowmobile was defective for
the failure to warn against the common practice
of cleaning carbon build up on the spark plugs
                                                         REFERENCE
while revving the engine as the back end of the          Mohr vs. Yamaha Motor Co. Docket no. MRS-L-2068-
snowmobile was held up. The plaintiff contended          07; Judge Robert Brennan, 04-14-11.
that as he and another individual were holding up        Attorney for plaintiff: Herbert M. Korn of Law Offices
the back end of the vehicle while the owner
                                                         of Herbert M. Korn in Morristown, NJ.




                                                                               Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
SUPPLEMENTAL VERDICT DIGEST                                                                                        27

                          MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE
    $6,000,000 RECOVERY - BUS/PEDESTRIAN COLLISION - PEDESTRIAN STRUCK IN
    MIDDLE OF CROSSWALK BY SCHOOL BUS TURNING LEFT FROM BEHIND - PLAINTIFF
    DRAGGED 20 FEET BEFORE BUS STOPS WITH WHEEL ON PLAINTIFF - INTENSE
    CONSCIOUS PAIN FOR ONE HOUR BEFORE EXTRICATION - BURST THORACIC
    FRACTURE - LUMBAR, THORACIC COMPRESSION FRACTURES - THORACIC FUSION -
    SEVERE DEGLOVING INJURY TO LOWER LEG.
Bergen County, NJ                                       including a fusion in the thoracic area, and the
In this action, the femal plaintiff in her mid-20s,     insertion of a V.A.C. therapy unit to the lower leg,
contended that after she had crossed more than          and contended that she may well require
half of the roadway containing one travel lane in       additional surgery in the future.
each direction, she was struck by the left side view    The case settled prior to trial for $6,000,000.
mirror of the bus and pulled under the left front
wheel of the bus. The plaintiff contended that as a
result, she suffered a burst fracture in the thoracic
                                                        REFERENCE
spine, thoracic and lumbar compression fractures,       Poplawski vs. Phipps, et al. Docket no. BER-L-3516-09,
a severe degloving injury to the lower left leg,        02-21-11.
bowel and bladder incontinence that resolved            Attorney for plaintiff: Eric D. Katz of Mazie Slater Katz
after some months, and PTSD. The plaintiff has
                                                        & Freeman, LLC in Roseland, NJ.
already undergone some eight major surgeries,

    $4,900,000 RECOVERY - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - AUTO/BICYCLE COLLISION -
    TRACTOR-TRAILER STRIKES BICYCLIST - CATASTROPHIC BRAIN INJURY TO 19-YEAR-
    OLD - LIFELONG SUPERVISION REQUIRED.
Miami-Dade County, FL                                   The case was settled for a structured settlement val-
The plaintiff was a 19-year-old male who was            ued at $4,900,000 prior to trial.
riding a bicycle across a Perrine, Florida
intersection at 3:19 a.m. in 2006 when he was           REFERENCE
struck by a tractor trailer driven by the defendant     Tiger vs. Defendants. Case no. 09-07908; Judge Peter
truck driver and owned by the defendant trucking        R. Lopez, 04-01-11.
company. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant
truck driver negligently operated the truck and         Attorney for plaintiff: Joseph Slama of Krupnick,
could have avoided impacting the plaintiff’s            Campbell, Malone, Buser, Slama, Hancock, Liberman
bicycle. The defendants argued that the tractor-        & McKee in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Attorney for plaintiff:
trailer was proceeding with a green light, within       Frank Toral of Toral & Associate in Fort Lauderdale,
the legal speed limit, and that the plaintiff           FL.
suddenly rode his bicycle into the path of the
oncoming truck. The defendants maintained that
the truck driver was not negligent and could not
have avoided the collision.

    $1,100,000 RECOVERY - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - AUTO/PEDESTRIAN
    COLLISION - PLAINTIFF STANDING AT CENTER LINE WAITING FOR RIGHT-SIDE
    TRAFFIC TO PASS IS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT FROM LEFT - LEFT KNEE FRACTURE -
    SURGERY - LARGE SCARRING BELOW KNEE - KNEE SWELLING AND CALF ATROPHY
    NOTED SHORTLY BEFORE TRIAL - SPLEEN LACERATION - RIB FRACTURE.
Queens County, NY                                       proximal fibular shaft and required an open
The plaintiff pedestrian, age 25, contended that        reduction and internal fixation. The plaintiff
after she had walked halfway across the                 contended that the large scar below the knee is
uncontrolled intersection, and near the area            permanent. The plaintiff also suffered a lacerated
where the crosswalk would have been present, if         spleen, fractured ribs, bilateral occipital condyle
painted, and as she was standing on the double          fractures and an avulsion injury at the left alar
yellow line waiting for vehicles traveling from her     ligament. These injuries resolved without surgery.
right to pass, she was struck by the defendant
who was approached from her left. The plaintiff         The case settled prior to trial for $1,100,000.
suffered fractures to the left tibial plateau and

                                                        Subscribe Now
                                                                                New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
28                                                                    SUPPLEMENTAL VERDICT DIGEST


REFERENCE
Steward vs. Levy. Index no. 27669/10; Howard Beldock
(mediator), 06-11-11.
Attorney for plaintiff: Ann Ball of A Ball PC in
Commack, NY.

      $900,000 VERDICT - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - SIDESWIPE COLLISION -
      NEGLIGENT LANE CHANGE - ROLL-OFF TRUCK/TRACTOR-TRAILER COLLISION -
      CERVICAL DISC HERNIATIONS WITH FUSION SURGERY - LUMBAR HERNIATION -
      LUMBAR LAMINECTOMY PERFORMED - TOTAL DISABILITY FROM EMPLOYMENT
      CLAIMED.
Philadelphia County, PA                                After a six-day trial, the jury found the defendant
The male plaintiff in his late 30s was driving a       100% negligent and awarded the plaintiff $900,000 in
roll-off truck (used to transport dumpsters) on the    damages. The case is currently on appeal.
Blue Route when the collision giving rise to his
action occurred. The plaintiff alleged that a          REFERENCE
tractor-trailer, driven by the defendant truck         Thompson vs. Lau, et al. Case no. 09-03-03522;
driver and owned by the defendant transportation       Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro, 12-10-10.
company, negligently changed lanes and collided
with his truck. The defendants took the position       Attorney for plaintiff: Bruce L. Neff of Neff &
that it was the plaintiff who negligently changed      Associates in Philadelphia, PA.
lanes and caused the accident. The defense also
contended that the impact did not cause the
injuries alleged by the plaintiff.



                                        PREMISES LIABILITY
      $2,000,000 TOTAL RECOVERY - PREMISES LIABILITY - FALL DOWN - FAILURE OF
      DEFENDANTS TO ADEQUATELY REMOVE SNOW AND ICE - DECEDENT WITH CARDIAC
      CONDITION SLIPS AND FALLS - SUBDURAL HEMATOMA - ALLEGEDLY SUFFERS
      “LOCKED IN SYNDROME” UNTIL DEATH TWO YEARS LATER - PORTEE CLAIM.
U.S. District Court, Newark District of NJ             The case settled in 2010 for $1,500,000 from the
In this case, the plaintiff contended that the         Postal Service and $500,000 from the co-defendant.
defendant Postal Service negligently failed to         Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz approved the alloca-
adequately attend to icy conditions stemming           tion of the proceeds in February 2011 as follows:
from alternate melting and freezing temperatures       $1,064,546 to the estate, $25,000 each to the dece-
that occurred in the three-day period since the        dent’s three children, and $25,000 on the Portee
last snow event. The plaintiff also contended that     claim. Plaintiff’s counsel relates that another $260,581
the co-defendant automobile dealership, situated       was used to satisfy liens that were reduced from ap-
next to and uphill from the post office, negligently   proximately $1,000,000.
failed to clear snow and ice from and around of
vehicles it kept parked on the sidewalk. The           REFERENCE
plaintiff maintained that the 78-year-old
decedent, who was taking Coumadin, slipped and         Fogelson vs. U.S.A., et al. Docket no. 2:07-CV-01016-
fell, suffering a closed head trauma and subdural      ksh-ps; Judge Pamela Nadell, Esq. (mediator), 02-10-
hematoma. The plaintiffs also included the             11.
decedent’s son, approximately 40, who was sitting      Attorney for plaintiff: Francis M. Smith of FM Smith,
in his father’s car and saw the incident, and who      PC in Mountainside, NJ.
made an emotional distress claim under Portee vs.
Jafee.




                                                                              Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
SUPPLEMENTAL VERDICT DIGEST                                                                                      29


    $1,480,000 VERDICT - PREMISES LIABILITY - FALL DOWN - PLAINTIFF EXITS
    PASSENGER SIDE OF CAR IN CAR WASH - SLIP AND FALL ON SOAPY WATER -
    CLOSED HEAD TRAUMA - MILD TBI - COGNITIVE DEFICITS - TEAR OF DOMINANT
    ROTATOR CUFF - ARTHROSCOPIC SURGERY - CERVICAL HERNIATION - INDICATION
    FOR SURGERY.
Kings County, NY                                        headaches and extensive difficulties with memory
This case involved a plaintiff, in her mid 50s, who     and concentration. The plaintiff further contended
was a passenger in a car that was brought to the        that she suffered a rotator cuff tear to the right,
defendant’s car wash and who slipped and fell as        dominant shoulder that required arthroscopic
she was exiting the car. The plaintiff contended        surgery and a cervical herniation for which
that although the defendant should be required to       surgery is indicated.
have the area for individuals exiting vehicles          The jury found the defendant 100% negligent and
delineated as behind the “zipper drain” that is         awarded $1,480,000.
required to separate solvents from water before it
enters the water system, it did not do so because
of lack of space and that it should have placed         REFERENCE
safeguards, such as rubber mats and/or warning          Rogers vs. Hi-Tek United Corp. Index no. 014717/08;
signs, immediately outside of the point patrons         Judge Kenneth P. Sherman, 02-04-11.
would be exiting vehicles. The plaintiff maintained
                                                        Attorney for plaintiff: Herbert Rodriguez, Jr. of
that as she exited, she slipped and fell. The
                                                        Schwartz Goldstone & Campisi, LLP in New York, NY.
plaintiff contended that she suffered a closed
head injury that caused a mild TBI manifesting in

    $1,276,000 RECOVERY - PREMISES LIABILITY - HAZARDOUS PREMISES - ONE TON
    LOAD OF PIPE FALLS ON PLAINTIFF FROM FORKLIFT - SEVERE CRUSH INJURIES -
    AMPUTATION.
Bexar County, TX                                        Attorneys for plaintiff Edward Schmidtka: Rudy A.
In this action for active negligence and premises       Garza and Stephen F. Lazor of Garza & Lazor, P.C. in
liability, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants’   San Antonio, TX. Attorneys for defendant Greatwide
combined negligence caused him to incur severe          Cheetah Transportation, LLC and Michael McCurry:
crush injuries necessitating amputation. The            Michael B. Langford (Pro Hac Vice) of Scopelitis,
defendants generally denied the allegations and         Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C. in Indianapolis,
claimed that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory   IN, and Darrell F. Smith of Ball & Weed in San
negligence.                                             Antonio, TX. Attorney for defendant DPT
                                                        Laboratories, Ltd., Defendant and Third-Party
Ultimately, this matter settled at mediation with a
                                                        Plaintiff: Jennifer Gibbons-Durbin of Allen, Stein &
$1,276,000 recovery for the plaintiff.
                                                        Durbin, P.C. in San Antonio, TX. Attorney for
                                                        defendant DCI, Inc. (Third-Party Defendant): Mark S.
REFERENCE                                               Strandmo of Brock Person Guerra Reyna P.C. in San
Edward Schmidtka vs. DPT Laboratories, Ltd.,            Antonio, TX. Attorney for defendant Gilbert
Greatwide Cheetah Transportation, LLC and Michael       Industries, Inc. d/b/a GS Stainless (Third Party
McCurry. Case no. 2009-CI-13588; Judge Karen            Defendant): Sean M. Crowley of Thompson Coe
Pozza, 01-28-11.                                        Cousins & Irons LLP in Austin, TX.




                                                        Subscribe Now         New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
30                                                                         SUPPLEMENTAL VERDICT DIGEST

                          ADDITIONAL VERDICTS OF INTEREST
                                        Employment Law
      $506,000 VERDICT - GENDER DISCRIMINATION - RETALIATORY DISCHARGE -
      PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT DEFENDANT SUPERVISOR AND EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATED
      AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS AND RETALIATED AGAINST THEM FOR COMPLAINING
      ABOUT THE DISCRIMINATION - FAILURE TO PROMOTE QUALIFIED PLAINTIFF OVER
      LESS QUALIFIED MALE CANDIDATE - DEMOTION - ASSIGNMENT OF DUTIES LESS
      THAN THOSE ASSIGNED TO MALE EMPLOYEES - FAILURE TO GIVE SUPERVISORY
      RESPONSIBILITIES.
Suffolk County, MA                                         The jury found no discrimination against the first plain-
The plaintiffs, who worked for the defendant               tiff, but did find retaliation against her and awarded
district court probation office, one as an assistant       her $6,000 in damages, as well as $500,000 in puni-
chief probation officer and the other as a                 tive damages. No discrimination or retaliation was
probation officer, contended that the defendants,          found against the second plaintiff and the jury
a chief probation officer and the court for which          awarded her no damages.
he worked, discriminated against the plaintiffs on
the basis of gender and race. The plaintiffs and           REFERENCE
three other female employees had previously filed
                                                           Brown, et al. vs. O’Brien, et al. Case no. SUCV2007-
a written complaint against the defendant chief
                                                           03552, 02-09-11.
and the probation office for racial and gender
discrimination and retaliation. A six month                Attorney for plaintiff: Beth R. Myers of Rogers,
investigation into the charges by the trial court’s        Powers & Schwartz LLP in Boston, MA.
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Office
resulted in a draft report substantially admitting
the allegations made by the plaintiffs.


                                                    Fraud
      $7,120,000 VERDICT - FRAUD - SHIPPING COMPANY IS SUED BY SHIPPING PARTNER
      FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT.
Dallas County, TX                                          use for. Worldwide Express further accused DHL of
This multi-million dollar case saw the successful          theft of trade secrets, specifically through solicitation
suit of a global shipping firm by one of its               the plaintiff’s international customers.
resellers. The reseller received over $7 million in        On June 2, 2011, after nine trial days and a day and
a verdict for fraudulent inducement and theft of
                                                           a-half of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for
trade secrets. The jury additionally rejected the
                                                           the plaintiff, finding that Worldwide Express had been
defendant’s $28 million in counterclaims.
Worldwide Express Operations is a domestic                 induced to amend their contract by way of fraud. The
reseller of shipping services based in Dallas.             jury awarded $5.1 million for past and future lost prof-
Worldwide Express, the plaintiff in this case, had         its, as well as $2.02 million in damages for DHL’s mis-
been in a nine-year contract since 1999 with the           appropriation of trade secrets. The jury further
defendant, DHL Express, acting as a sales force            rejected DHL’s request for $28 million in damages for
for the defendant shipping company. The contract           breach of payment guarantee.
was amended in the fall of 2008 to add an
additional two years to that contract. However,            REFERENCE
the contract also involved the addition of a               Worldwide Express Operations LLC, et al. vs. DHL Ex-
termination clause. Said clause would allow DHL            press (USA) Inc. Case no. DC-08-15314; Judge Craig
to terminate the contract with only 90 days notice.        Smith, 06-02-11.
On November 10, 2008, less than 30 days after
the signing, DHL announced that it was                     Attorney for plaintiff: Geoffrey S. Harper, Steve
terminating its domestic shipping service and its          Stodghill, Timothy Devlin, Scott C. Thomas, and John
contract with Worldwide Express.                           C.C. Sanders of Fish & Richardson in Dallas, TX.
Worldwide Express filed suit in the 192nd District Court   Attorney for plaintiff DHL Express (USA) Inc.: Michael
of Dallas County for fraudulent inducement, naming         H. Collins of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP in
DHL as the defendant. DHL was accused of defraud-          Dallas, TX. Attorney for defendant Worldwide
ing Worldwide Express by way of inducing them to           Express Operations LLC: Tom Melsheimer of Fish &
sign a contract for services they would have no further    Richardson in Dallas, TX.

                                                                                   Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
SUPPLEMENTAL VERDICT DIGEST                                                                                            31


     $500,000 COMBINED VERDICT - FRAUD - INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
     CONTRACT BY INSURANCE COMPANY - BREACH OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR
     DEALING - PRODUCTION OF BACK-DATED UM/UIM WAIVER FORMS - LOSS OF USE
     OF INSURANCE FUNDS - EMOTIONAL DISTRESS TO TWO POLICE OFFICERS.
Philadelphia County, PA                                      After a trial of almost three weeks, the jury found
This case involved allegations that fraud was                fraud, intentional interference with contractual rela-
committed by the defendants, Bristol Township, its           tions and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
insurance broker and several individual insurance            dealing against the insurance broker and two of its
agents, involved in issuing the township’s                   employees. The jury awarded $250,000 to each
automobile insurance coverage. The plaintiffs                plaintiff for a total combined verdict of $500,000. The
were two Bristol Township police officers who                award included $55,000 in economic damages and
were injured in the line of duty by an uninsured             $195,000 in emotional distress damages to each
driver. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants            plaintiff. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for
committed fraud, as well as intentional                      punitive damages. Post-trial motions are pending.
interference with contract and breach of their duty
of good faith and fair dealing by back-dating the            REFERENCE
township’s UM/UIM waiver forms in an attempt to
prevent the plaintiffs from recovering uninsured             Egan vs. USI MidAtlantic, Inc. Case no. 060703444;
motorist benefits. The plaintiffs’ uninsured                 Judge Gregory E. Smith, 03-16-11.
motorist claims were settled after it was                    Attorneys for plaintiff: Mark W. Tanner and Peter M.
discovered that the waiver forms had been back-              Newman of Feldman Shepherd, Wohlgelernter,
dated and were, therefore, invalid. The plaintiffs           Tanner, Weinstock & Dodig, LLP, in Philadelphia, PA.
sought economic damages for an 11 month delay                Attorneys for plaintiff: Gerald A. McHugh, Jr. and
allegedly caused by the defendants’ fraud. The
                                                             Daniel Bencivenga of Raynes McCarty in
plaintiff also sought compensatory damages for
                                                             Philadelphia, PA.
emotional distress and punitive damages based
on the defendants’ actions. The defendants
argued that Bristol Township did not want UM/
UIM coverage and did not pay for such coverage.


                                                  Jones Act
     $1,650,000 VERDICT - JONES ACT - ADMIRALTY - FAILURE TO MAINTAIN FISHING
     VESSEL IN A SEAWORTHY CONDITION - TRIP AND FALL ON OIL - TORN ROTATOR
     CUFF - RUPTURED LEFT BICEP TENDON.
U.S. District Court, District of MA                          REFERENCE
In this admiralty matter, the plaintiff brought suit         James B. Crook vs. Warren Alexander d/b/a Hawk
under the Jones Act for injuries he sustained                Scallop Company, Inc. Case no. 1:09-CV-10682;
when he slipped and fell as a result of oil on the           Judge Rya W. Zobel, 01-28-11.
deck of the defendant’s boat. The defendant
denied the incident and disputed any liability to            Attorneys for plaintiff: Carolyn Latti and David
the plaintiff.                                               Anderson of Latti & Anderson in Boston, MA.

The matter was tried and the jury deliberated for a lit-
tle over three hours before returning its verdict in favor
of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The jury
awarded the plaintiff the sum of $1,650,000 in
damages.




                                                             Subscribe Now          New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
32                                                                          SUPPLEMENTAL VERDICT DIGEST



                                                       Libel
      $1,100,000 VERDICT - DEFAMATION - LIBEL - SON OF A TEXAS DEPUTY SUES
      NEWSPAPER AFTER ARTICLE ACCUSES HIM OF BENEFITING FROM CORRUPTION -
      DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF’S REPUTATION.
Fort Bend County, TX                                         tion, $20,000 in mental anguish damages, and
In this case, the plaintiff, 27, the son of a Chief          $1,030,000 in punitive damages ($30,000 against the
Deputy of the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office,             reporter, and $1,000,000 against the West Fort Bend
sued a local newspaper and one of its reporters              Star on a theory of “imputed malice”).
for defamation. The defendants denied that the
article was false and defamatory; they contended             REFERENCE
that the article concentrated on public figures              Wade Brady vs. LeaAnne Klentzman and Carter Publi-
rather than the plaintiff, and therefore did not             cations d/b/a The West Fort Bend Star. Case no. 03-
damage his reputation.
                                                             CV-129531; Judge Thomas R. Culver III, 05-06-11.
After eight days of trial, the jury returned a verdict for
                                                             Attorney for plaintiff Wade Brady: Kinan H. Romman
the plaintiff, finding the article as a whole to be false
                                                             of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos, PC in Houston,
and defamatory as to the plaintiff, as well as certain
                                                             TX. Attorney for defendant: John K. Edwards of
individual (but unspecified) statements within the arti-
                                                             Jackson Walker LLP in Houston, TX.
cle. The jury awarded $30,000 in damages to reputa-


                                     Negligent Supervision
      $1,750,000 RECOVERY - NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION - NEGLIGENT RETENTION OF
      CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX EMPLOYEES - PLAINTIFF ATTACKED WITH ACID - FACIAL
      BURNS AND DISFIGUREMENT - BLINDNESS IN ONE EYE.
Broward County, FL                                           There was an issue as to whether the plaintiff’s former
This case involved a horrific and hateful acid               husband would have been listed as a Fabre defen-
attack which left the female plaintiff disfigured            dant on the verdict form, as the husband was the de-
and blinded in one eye. The attacker was                     fendant’s employee. In the end, the case was of such
sentenced to ten years in prison for aggravated              a volatile nature and the plaintiff’s injuries so grue-
battery and was not a party to the civil action. The         some, that a $1.75 million settlement was reached
plaintiff’s case hinged on the culpability of the            with a minimum of publicity in order to avoid trial.
defendant homeowner association and property
management company for alleged negligent                     REFERENCE
supervision and retention of its employees. There
                                                             Lambert vs. Defendants. Case no. 04-009433; Judge
was alarming evidence that the plaintiff’s
husband, her assailant and their supervisor                  David Krathen, 10-20-10.
routinely engaged in drinking sessions at work               Attorneys for plaintiff: Lou Battista and Yeemee Chan
and that extramarital sexual activity occurring at           of Toral, Garcia & Battista in Fort Lauderdale, FL.
the workplace was accepted, if not facilitated. The
defendants maintained that the attack upon the
plaintiff was not foreseeable and that it had acted
appropriately in terminating the attacker prior to
the incident.




                                                                                    Subscribe Now
Volume 27, Issue 2, September 2011
                                                                                                              33




                           ATTENTION VALUED SUBSCRIBER
Jury Verdict Review Publications is now offering our subscriptions in two formats,
hardcopy only or hardcopy with electronic PDF edition including an online search
article discount along with a client invoice generator for all search articles purchased
from our website. All annual subscriptions purchased online include 15 free online search
articles along with an annual expert index.
The cost of the electronic PDF and online search article discount package depends on the
number of litigators in your firm as each litigator will be able to download their own per-
sonal PDF edition and generate client invoices for all online search article purchases.
Please go to our website at www.jvra.com to register, click on the
"Subscribe Now" tag and select the number of litigators in your firm to get started.
Online subscription benefits include:
- 15 free search article credits along with an expert witness index with your paid
annual subscription!
- PDF pricing includes monthly electronic editions for all litigators in the firm as well as on-
line search article discounts.
- Client invoice generator for all article purchases
- For your convenience, we also have available monthly billing by credit card for subscrip-
tions to any of our publications (monthly billing does not include the 15 search article cred-
its or the annual expert witness index).
Questions? Call Gary at 973-376-9002 or email garyz@jvra.com.
Discounts and credits subject to change.




                                                       Subscribe Now
                                                                        New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:37
posted:6/26/2012
language:Latin
pages:33
jolinmilioncherie jolinmilioncherie http://
About