Grant M. Meisels Secures Favorable Verdict In Queens Damages Only Trial

On July 31, 2024 and after more than three weeks on trial and three days of jury deliberations before Judge Maldonado Cruz in Queens Supreme, Grant M. Meisels secured a $262,000 plaintiff’s verdict in a damages only motor vehicle case where the plaintiff’s pre-trial demand was $3,000,000 and asked the jury for more than $8,500,000.  There was $6,000,000 of primary and excess insurance coverage to the insured truck driver and the company that owned the truck and summary judgment was already awarded against the defendants. The defendant truck driver hit the plaintiff in the rear while she was completely stopped but instinctively took post accident photos at the scene of both vehicles to show minimal damages to both the plaintiff’s vehicle and the defendant’s truck.

The 52 year old plaintiff, employed as a sterile technician at a local hospital, alleged a host of injuries that included bilateral knee surgical procedures, two bulging discs in the lumbar spine, a tear in the shoulder and an economic claim of more than $4,500,000 based on past and future loss of wages that included a claim she could never work again in any capacity and past and future medical expenses.  Her argument at trial was that all of the injuries were causally related to the accident.  The defense argued that all of the injuries were pre-existing and degenerative based on MRI films and she could return to work.

Plaintiff’s suggestion to the jury of an award of more than $8,500,000 was based on the testimony of her experts. Her suggestion included a claim of $2,000,000 for past pain and $2,000,000 for future pain. Her suggestions also included her life care planner calculations for $3,500,00 for the medicals and her economic calculations of $1,000,000 for loss of wages. The defense suggested $150,000 but only for past pain, past medical expenses and past loss of wages.

The verdict was significant for the defense as the jury award did not include any future money components and simply awarded $165,000 for 4 years of pain and suffering, $40,000 for medical expenses and $57,000 for past wages for 4 years.

Plaintiff called her treating orthopedist and her treating chiropractor and a life care planner and an economist.

The defense called an orthopedist, neuro-radiologist, vocational rehabilitation consultant and an economist.