Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 11, 1998; New York; State Appellate Court
Cross appeals arise from a Supreme Court order in Chemung County dated March 31, 1997, which partially granted defendant Lawrence Dolkart’s motion to set aside a verdict, and another order from the same date that set aside a portion of the verdict against Arnot-Ogden Memorial Hospital. Additionally, an April 29, 1997, order dismissed the complaint against the Hospital.
The case involves Sheila Karney, who was admitted to the Hospital at 28 weeks of pregnancy due to vaginal bleeding. After a sonogram, she was placed on bed rest. Although the hospital record shows that labor began at 8:00 p.m., nurse Joan Pirozollo did not inform Dolkart of Karney's condition until 10:30 p.m. Dolkart arrived at 11:45 p.m., performed a vaginal examination, and administered medication to manage the labor. Despite interventions, Karney delivered her son, who weighed two pounds, six ounces and had a low Apgar score. The child was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, resulting in significant disabilities, although he has normal intelligence.
The jury found Dolkart negligent for not timely diagnosing preterm labor and found Pirozollo negligent for failing to promptly notify Dolkart of Karney's deteriorating condition. Liability was apportioned 70% to Dolkart and 30% to the Hospital, with a jury award of $13,629,000 to the plaintiff. In response to motions by the defendants, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against the Hospital, finding no reasonable basis for the jury's conclusion, and granted Dolkart a new trial unless a reduced verdict of $4,529,000 was agreed upon. The appeals from the plaintiff and Dolkart contend with the court’s dismissals and verdict adjustments, referencing evidence of Karney’s worsening condition leading up to the delivery.
The court evaluated the evidence favorably towards the plaintiff and found it reasonable for the jury to conclude that Pirozollo was aware of Karney’s status change before 10:30 p.m. and should have informed Dolkart, leading to the decision not to dismiss the complaint against the hospital. The determination of damages is primarily a factual question for the jury, but their verdict can be overturned if it significantly deviates from reasonable compensation. Recent comparable personal injury awards suggest a range of $6 to $9 million. The court deemed the original $1.7 million award for past pain and suffering excessive, reducing it to $600,000, and ultimately set the total for past and future pain and suffering at $2 million. The jury's awards for home adaptations, transportation, and therapies were found duplicative since these services would be covered by a group home after the plaintiff's 21st birthday. Consequently, the court reduced these awards to $300,000 and $200,000, respectively. The estimated lifetime cost for a group home was noted to be $3,784,928 without inflation and $8,435,450 with a 2.6% inflation rate. The court disagreed with the Supreme Court’s assessment that a $4 million award was excessive, citing the plaintiff's need for assisted living and supporting quantitative evidence.
Plaintiff informed defendants that an economist would testify about his diminished earning power, relying on statistical data from government sources regarding the earnings of high school and college graduates. However, the economist’s report provided to defendants lacked specific information on this diminished earning power. Despite defendants' objections, the Supreme Court allowed the economist to testify on the matter during trial. Following posttrial motions, the court reversed its earlier stance, setting aside the jury’s $2 million award for impairment of earning ability, agreeing that the plaintiff's disclosure was insufficient. The court noted the plaintiff failed to provide detailed facts and opinions expected from the economist or a summary of the grounds for his opinion, justifying the court's decision, particularly in medical malpractice cases.
The remaining elements of the jury's award were deemed reasonable, but the overall verdict was found excessive and reduced to $6,929,000. The court ordered the reversal of previous orders and denied the motion to set aside the verdict against Arnot-Ogden Memorial Hospital. The itemized jury verdict included various damages, with a significant portion allocated to future pain and suffering. The court concluded that the complaint against the hospital could be dismissed due to insufficient evidence supporting the jury's conclusion, citing the lack of valid reasoning that could lead rational people to the jury’s verdict based on the presented evidence.
The jury's conclusion that Pirozollo was aware of a change in Karney’s status before 10:30 p.m. was not irrational, warranting the reinstatement of the complaint against the hospital. The determination of damages is primarily a factual question for the jury, which is given deference but can be overturned if it deviates materially from reasonable compensation. Personal injury awards, particularly for pain and suffering, lack precise quantification; thus, comparable cases are referenced to assess reasonableness. Recent cases have yielded verdicts between $6 to $9 million, indicating that the original verdict was excessive. The Supreme Court’s reduction of a $1.7 million award for past pain and suffering to $600,000 was found excessive, with the maximum reasonable award for past and future pain and suffering identified as $2 million. Consequently, the total award for pain and suffering was adjusted to $2 million, with future pain and suffering reduced to $1.4 million. Additionally, the jury's awards for home adaptations ($1.5 million) and therapies ($2 million) were deemed duplicative, as these services would be provided by a group home after the plaintiff's 21st birthday. The Supreme Court appropriately reduced these to $300,000 and $200,000, aligning with economic assessments of costs. Over the plaintiff's lifetime, the projected cost of a group home is calculated at approximately $3.78 million without inflation, and $8.43 million accounting for a 2.6% inflation rate.
The Supreme Court's conclusion that the jury’s $4 million award is excessive is contested, considering the quantitative evidence and the plaintiff's need for assisted living. In response to the defendants' request for expert witness details, the plaintiff indicated that an economist would testify regarding diminished earning power, based on statistical data from credible sources. However, the economist's report lacked specific information about this diminished earning capacity. Despite the defendants' objections, the trial court allowed the economist to testify on this matter. Subsequently, the court reevaluated its stance and annulled the $2 million award for impairment of earning ability, agreeing that the plaintiff's notice was inadequate in detailing the economist's expected testimony. The court exercised its discretion, particularly broad in medical malpractice cases, to support this reversal. Upon reviewing the other components of the award, they were deemed reasonable. Ultimately, the verdict was considered excessive and was reduced to $6,929,000. The appellate court reversed prior orders and denied the defendant hospital's motion to set aside the verdict. The jury's itemized award included various categories, totaling $13,629,000, which the court amended to stipulate the reduced amount for the plaintiff to avoid a new trial.
