Monday, April 9, 2007

Medical Malpractice Award Reduced from 200K to 20K

Just because you read about that verdict in the papers doesn't mean the plaintiff will actually get the money. This is another example of how verdicts get reduced by the courts.

In this case, a New York trial court reduced the award for future pain and suffering from 200K to 20K, because the plaintiff did an insufficient job of justifying the damages. The appellate court affirmed that reduction:

The result of plaintiff's nasal reconstructive surgery was cosmetically not to her satisfaction. The court found no medical support for future pain or difficulty in breathing. Reduction of damages for future pain and suffering was thus warranted because the amount awarded by the jury deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances (CPLR 5501[c]).

As I had discussed earlier in How New York Caps Personal Injury Damages, one should never accept the verdict in a newspaper as the amount the person will get. Because there is a good chance they will not see that amount.

The case can be found here: Nardella v. Gerut

Labels: Medical Malpractice

posted by Eric Turkewitz
Permanent Link

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.