Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Appellate court slashes pain and suffering verdict in


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Appellate court slashes pain and suffering verdict in

  1. 1. Appellate Court Slashes Pain andSuffering Verdict in Ankle Injury Case
  2. 2. By John Hochfelder on September 24, 2012 Posted in Ankle InjuriesOn December 27, 2002, Massoud Micky, then 47 years old, was walking tothe subway in the Bronx, on his way to work, when he fell stepping onto asidewalk sustaining a severe ankle fracture that he ultimately claimed wascaused when his foot was caught in a large gap that created anuneven, misaligned and broken sidewalk curb. In his ensuing lawsuit against the City of New York, Micky had to prove thatthe city had prior notice of the sidewalk defect. He showed the jury a mapcreated by the Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Committee thatidentified as defective the area where Mr. Micky fell. Since the map hadbeen provided to the city long before the accident, the jurors found the cityliable.Micky was awarded pain and suffering damages in the sum of $750,000($250,000 past – 8 years, $500,000 future – 21 years).The city appealed, arguing both that there was no liability (plaintiff hadoriginally stated he fell due to snow and ice, not because of any defect) andthat the damages award was excessive.
  3. 3. In Micky v. City of New York (1st Dept. 2012), the liability verdict againstthe city was affirmed but the damages award was reduced to $250,000($100,000 past, $150,000 future).
  4. 4. Here are the details of plaintiff’s injuries: comminuted bimalleolar ankle fracture open reduction internal fixation surgery with insertion of metal plate and screw three day hospitalization, casted one month, physical therapy for five weeks (after which plaintiff never had any more medical treatment for this injury) unable to return to work (machine operator) for three months (working as security guard at time of trial) post-traumatic arthritis (that plaintiff’s expert said is progressive, permanent and will likely require future surgery) continuing pain, significant range of motion loss, antalgic gait (limp) and inability to resume previously very active recreational soccer
  5. 5. The appellate court judges based their very significant damage awardreduction on case precedent. Without discussion, the decision merelymentions four prior cases, each dealing with ankle fractures.POSTED BY ATTORNEY RENE G. GARCIA:For more information:- Some of our clients have suffered this kind of injuries due toa serious accident. The Garcia Law Firm, P.C. was able to successfully handle thesetypes of cases. For a free consultation please call us at 1-866- SCAFFOLD or 212-725-1313.