Blog Layout

Antonia Cruz v. Alhambra Day Treatment Center

Antonia Cruz v. Alhambra Day Treatment Center

Case Name

Antonia Cruz v. Alhambra Day Treatment Center

Type of Injury

BRAIN INJURY

Location

Kings, NY

Verdict

$5,412,500 (6/0). Breakdown: $1,250,000 for past pain and suffering; $4,162,500 for future pain and suffering (40 years).

Verdict Amount

$5,412,500.00

Case Details

XVIII/6-18 ASSAULT VISITOR STRUCK BY MENTALLY DISABLED PATIENT AT FACILITY FAILURE TO TAKE PROPER SECURITY MEASURES BRAIN INJURY LUMBAR RADICULOPATHY

Antonia Cruz v. Alhambra Day Treatment Center 6365/97 4- day liability trial Verdict 4/00 6-day damages trial Verdict 6/29/00 Kings Civil

Judge: Debra Silber

Verdict: $5,412,500 (6/0). Breakdown: $1,250,000 for past pain and suffering; $4,162,500 for future pain and suffering (40 years). Jury: 5 male, 1 female. A post-trial motion is pending.

Pltf. Atty: William Pagan of William Pagan & Associates, P.C., Manhattan

Deft. Atty: Jozef K. Goscilo of Murphy & Higgins, L.L.P., Manhattan

Facts: On 11/10/88, the 29-year-old Pltf. was in the lobby of 1129 Catherine St. in Brooklyn, where she had come to complete a job application. Deft. s treatment center occupied the first floor of the building. Pltf. was waiting for the elevator when a mentally handicapped female patient of the facility assaulted her, pulling her by the hair and causing her to fall backwards onto the ground. At the time of the assault, Deft. s employee was escorting the patient to the lobby restroom. Deft. did not permit its patients to use the facility s restroom.

The patient had a history of assaulting other patients, as well as Deft. employees. At trial, Pltf. subpoenaed the employee who had been present during the assault. The employee testified that she was not trained to supervise violent patients, and had been told only to call for help in the event of a violent act by a patient. There were no security guards in the lobby. The claims against the owner of the building were dismissed during trial. Deft. contended that it acted reasonably under the circumstances, and that it was constrained by the laws of the State of New York in the way that it supervised its patients. Note: Subsequent to the liability verdict, each juror volunteered to return for the damages trial.

Injuries: traumatic brain injury; lumbar radiculopathy at L5-S1 confirmed by EMG; possible fractures at L-5 and S-3; post-traumatic stress disorder. Pltf. was admitted to Harlem Hospital on two separate occasions for treatment, and treated at the psychiatric outpatient clinic there for approximately 10 years, during which time she was medicated with anti-psychotic drugs. She claimed that she underwent a tubal ligation because she could not bear the pain of another pregnancy. Pltf. presently takes Percocet for pain and continues to receive treatment at Harlem Hospital. Her experts testified that she was left totally disabled and could not return to work. Deft. contended that Pltf. was malingering. Deft. s expert vocational rehabilitation expert testified that Pltf. could hold other positions, such as cashier. Note: The jury was told that Pltf. receives disability from the Social Security Administration, but was not told that she was found totally disabled by SSI. Demonstrative evidence: photographs of Pltf. prior to the accident; anatomical model of the back.

Pltf. Experts: Dr. Joseph Waltz, neurosurgeon, Bronx; Dr. Edmond Provder, vocational rehabilitation, Manhattan; Dr. Thomas Abraham, physical medicine and rehabilitation, Westwood, New Jersey.

Deft. Experts: Dr. Ralph Olson, neurosurgeon, Manhattan; Dr. Irving Etkind, orth. surg., Manhattan; Dr. James I. Hannon, psychiatrist, Manhattan; Dr. James Pascuiti, vocational rehabilitation, Springfield, New Jersey.

Disclaimer: The information on this website and blog is for general informational purposes only and is not professional advice. We make no guarantees of accuracy or completeness. We disclaim all liability for errors, omissions, or reliance on this content. Always consult a qualified professional for specific guidance.

RECENT POSTS

Choose OAS as Your Vocational Expert for Social Security Cases
February 3, 2025
Searching for VA expert for SSD cases. We will explore why choosing OAS as your vocational expert is the best decision for your Social Security Disability case.
How OAS Vocational Supports Veterans with Disability Evaluations? - oasinc
January 20, 2025
OAS Vocational provides specialized support for veterans, ensuring they receive fair & accurate evaluations for their disabilities.Contact oas vocational expert
Common Motorcycle Crashes and How to Avoid Them - OAS
January 6, 2025
Learn about the most common types of motorcycle crashes and practical tips to avoid them, helping you stay safe and prevent accidents on the road.
How is OAS Vocational Assessment helpful in Medical Malpractice Cases?
December 23, 2024
This guide will explore why OAS should be your go-to legal partner for medical malpractice cases and how they can help you navigate the complex legal system
Why Choose OAS For Wrongful Death? - Oasinc
December 2, 2024
Choose OAS For Wrongful Death. Our vocational expert guides you through the legal process and helps you seek justice & compensation for a wrongful death.

CONTACT US

Share by: