Tag Archives: pain and suffering

$250,000 Payment to Passenger Injured in Truck Accident

Ruth Pianka, a 57-year-old bookkeeper, was a passenger in a truck when it was rear ended in a motor vehicle crash in the Washington Heights section of New York City. She sustained multiple injuries during the truck accident and was treated in the emergency room and then by several specialist doctors. The doctors diagnosed injuries of her shoulder, hip and knee. The crash victim also had neck and back injuries with significant pain. She underwent a shoulder surgery and endured therapy as well. The pain and injuries persisted and she developed emotional injuries in addition to the physical injuries.

Soon after the accident, Ms. Pianka spoke to friends in the neighborhood who recommended she contact the experienced car accident lawyers at Morrison & Wagner, LLP. They assisted the truck accident victim and filed a personal injury lawsuit in Kings County Supreme Court. The case named both the owner of the truck and the driver of the car that hit them as defendants. After negotiation, the defendants agreed to settle the case, paying Ms. Pianka $250,000 for her injuries, pain and suffering from the rear-end accident.

Photo by Werner Vermaak (originally posted to Flickr as Immobilized Patient) [CC-BY-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

$225,000 Jury Verdict – Queens Car Crash Causes Neck, Back and Shoulder Injuries

Queens County – John Doe was the driver of a car that was involved in a car collision with another vehicle in the Fall of 2010. The other vehicle made a left turn and slammed into the driver’s side of Doe’s car, causing damage to both vehicles as well as personal injuries. The car accident occurred only steps away from his house, so Mr. Doe went home, hoping that the pain would get better on its own.

Unfortunately, Doe’s accident injuries didn’t go away so he began treatment and regular visits with a doctor. His injuries included neck and back pain as well as a torn rotator cuff shoulder injury. Conservative treatment with physical therapy did not solve his pain and suffering, leading to the need for an arthroscopic surgery on his shoulder. Despite all of his medical care, the car crash victim was left with significant pain and unable to function normally at work.

Mr. Doe turned to a team of expert accident lawyers https://morrisonwagner.com/about-us/ who reviewed the case and helped Doe file a personal injury lawsuit against the driver of the other vehicle. They claimed that the defendant’s negligent driving caused the motor vehicle collision and Doe’s injuries. Following a jury verdict, Doe was awarded $225,000 for pain and suffering from the injuries. For more details on this case, read the expanded article below.

Illustrative photo by W. Robert Howell from Charlotte, NC, United States (still here.) [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons


Car Crash Caused Shoulder Woes, Restaurateur Claimed (VerdictSearch.com, by Priya Idiculla)

Verdict: $225,000
Net: $100,000

Facts & Allegations:
In September of 2010, plaintiff John Doe, 43, a restaurant’s owner, was driving in the Briarwood section of Queens. While Doe was proceeding through the intersection, his vehicle’s left side was struck by a vehicle that was being driven by Mr. Jack Smith, who was executing a left turn. Doe’s vehicle was propelled across the intersection. Doe claimed that he sustained injuries of his back, his neck and a shoulder. Doe sued Smith. Doe alleged that Smith was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Liability was decided via summary judgment. The matter proceeded to a summary jury trial that addressed damages.

neck; derangement, shoulder; rotator cuff, injury (tear); arthroscopy; physical therapy; soft tissue; back; massage therapy

Doe refused immediate medical attention, and he returned to his home, which was located some 50 feet from the scene of the accident. After some two hours had passed, he presented to a medical clinic. He claimed that he was suffering pain that stemmed from his back, his left, non-dominant arm’s shoulder and his neck. He underwent minor treatment.

Doe ultimately claimed that he sustained derangement of his left shoulder, two small tears of the same shoulder’s rotator cuff, and injuries of soft tissue of his back and neck. Photographs of his vehicle depicted damage in the area in which his left shoulder would have been situated. Doe immediately commenced a course of conservative treatment that included massages, physical therapy, and the application of cold and hot packs. The treatment lasted about six months. On Nov. 4, 2010, he underwent arthroscopic surgery that addressed his left shoulder.
Doe claimed that his injuries prevented his performance of about six months of work. He also claimed that his left shoulder remains painful, that the pain is permanent and that it limits his performance of his work duties. His restaurant is located in South Carolina. He claimed that he alternately spends 10 days in New York and 20 days working in South Carolina. He further claimed that he previously drove to and from work, but that his residual effects necessitate his use of air transportation, at a greater cost.

Doe sought recovery of $100,000 for past pain and suffering and $125,000 for future pain and suffering.

The defense’s expert orthopedist submitted a report in which he opined that Doe’s injuries were degenerative conditions that predated the accident. The expert reviewed the results of a post-accident MRI scan of Doe’s left shoulder, and he opined that the test revealed minor bursitis and minor tenosynovitis, which involves restrictive inflammation of the sheath of a tendon. The defense’s expert radiologist submitted a report in which he opined that the test did not reveal an abnormality. Defense counsel noted that Doe refused immediate medical treatment, did not present to a hospital and immediately resumed work.
The defense’s expert orthopedist also opined that Doe’s surgery was unnecessary. He contended that an additional month of physical therapy could have averted the need for surgery.

The parties stipulated that Doe’s damages could not exceed $100,000.

The jury found that Doe’s damages totaled $225,000, but Doe recovered the stipulated limit: $100,000.

Editor’s Note:
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel. Additional information was gleaned from court documents. Defense counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.

$ 3.4 Million Dollar - Medical Malpractice - Failure to Diagnose

Failure to diagnose an infection in a child’s hips resulted in orthopedic injury with permanent disability. Top Injury Attorneys at Morrison & Wagner helped the injured party receive rightful compensation in the amount of $3,425,000. How common is a failure to diagnose? Approximately 40% of all medical malpractice claims involve a failure to diagnose some kind of condition (data). If you or a loved one experience medical malpractice, contact an experienced injury attorney right away. Read more about other cases of medical malpractice and physician error.

Illustrative Photo Credit: Elisa Self [License]

— — —

Unspotted infection claimed child’s hips, mother alleged (VerdictSearch)

Settlement Amount: $3,425,000

— — —

Court: Kings Supreme, Kings County, New York

Case Type: Medical Malpractice – Childbirth, Failure to Diagnose

Date: July 26, 2006

Plaintiff Attorney(s):
Stuart Wagner; Morrison & Wagner; New York, NY, for Plaintiff, and daughter
Eric H. Morrison; Morrison & Wagner; New York, NY, for Plaintiff, and daughter

— — —


On Nov. 24, 2002, the Plaintiff, a pregnant woman in her first trimester of gestation, presented to Maimonides Medical Center, in Brooklyn, experiencing contractions. Several hours later she gave birth to premature twin daughters. The first baby was born with Apgar scores of 9, and 9. (Editor’s note: The Apgar system scores an infant’s physical condition during the first minutes of life. The infant’s heart rate, respiration, muscle tone, stimulated responses, and color are graded zero, one or two. Thus, the maximum total score is 10. A low score indicates that the infant requires immediate, lifesaving attention.)

As a result of her premature birth, the baby was admitted into the hospital’s neonatology unit and was diagnosed with sepsis, growth retardation and prematurity. After more than 30 days in the neonatal intensive-care unit, she was released with a clean bill of health. Thereafter, the baby’s parents noticed that she was not turning like her twin sister was. The baby girl’s pediatrician noticed problems with her hips, and she was referred to a pediatric orthopedist. Upon examination, the orthopedist determined that the baby had no hip joints on both the left and right sides.

The Plaintiff, acting individually and on her daughter’s behalf, sued the hospital and the attending physicians. She alleged that the defendants failed to diagnose the condition and that their failures constituted medical malpractice.

The plaintiff’s expert pediatric orthopedist determined that the internist who examined the baby on her fourth day made the correct diagnosis and noted that the area was “swollen and painful.” They contended that this constituted an orthopedic emergency and warranted an immediate orthopedic consultation. Plaintiffs’ counsel also determined that the consultation would have resulted in a hip aspiration and removal of the bacteria that caused the infection. He further opined that the septic arthritis or osteomyelitis, an inflammation of the bone caused by a pathogenic organism, was not diagnosed and also demonstrated the defendants’ failure to appreciate the infant’s symptoms.

The defendants claimed that they did not depart from the standard of care. Defense counsel argued that the infant was provided timely and directed hip examinations following the intern’s note and that no symptoms justified an orthopedic consultation.


Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed that the delayed diagnosis led to an infection that caused the complete deterioration of the little girl’s hip joints, resulting in a permanent disability. The girl, now 4, walks with an altered gait. Although she does not wear a brace, she requires fusion surgery on both hips. The surgery can not be performed until after she reaches puberty, and she also requires revision surgery over the course of her lifetime.

The victim’s vocational life-planning expert determined that she will have profound vocational and occupational consequences and will have difficulty finding meaningful employment.

Plaintiffs’ counsel sought recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for past and future medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

The defense claimed the girl does not need revision surgeries and will be able to lead a normal productive life.


The parties agreed to a $3,425,000 pretrial settlement. The hospital’s insurer will contribute the entire amount. The attending doctors were stipulated out.

— — —

Judge: Gerard H. Rosenberg