Vincent Micalizzi v. Stanford Superior Drug, Inc. and Barry Smith

Vincent Micalizzi v. Stanford Superior Drug, Inc. and Barry Smith

Case Name

Vincent Micalizzi v. Stanford Superior Drug, Inc. and Barry Smith

Type of Injury

BILATERAL CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME

Occupation

mover

Location

Bronx, NY

Verdict

$400,000 (6/0).

Verdict Amount

$400,000.00

Case Details

XI/2-6 MOTOR VEHICLE REAR END NO-FAULT QUESTION ON RADICULOPATHY AND BILATERAL CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME

Vincent Micalizzi v. Stanford Superior Drug, Inc. and Barry Smith 16145/91 2-week trial Verdict 6/16/93 Judge Gerald Crispino, Bronx Supreme

VERDICT: $400,000 (6/0). Breakdown: $25,000 for past pain and suffering; $10,000 for future pain and suffering; $115,000 for past lost earnings; $250,000 for future lost earnings. Post-trial motions were denied. Jury: 2 male, 4 female.

Pltf. Atty: Jeff S. Korek of Gersowitz, Libo & Korek, Manhattan

Deft. Atty: Paul Bibuld of Armienti, Brooks, Lubowitz, DeBellis & Dunphy, Manhattan

Facts: Pltf., a 47-year-old mover, claimed that on 1/29/91 his vehicle was struck in the rear by Deft.’s vehicle on the Bruckner Expwy. in the Bronx. Pltf. testified that he was traveling in the middle lane and that he slowed down as he passed a disabled car in the left lane. Deft. contended that Pltf. stopped short to avoid another vehicle in the left lane that had cut him off to avoid the disabled car. Pltf. denied that he was cut off by another car.

Injuries: cervical radiculopathy. Pltf. claimed that he developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome 3 months after the accident. He underwent surgery to both wrists. Pltf. also testified that he was unable to return to his previous employment and can only work at a sedentary job. He received Workers’ Compensation. Deft. denied that Pltf. sustained a serious cervical injury under the No-Fault Law, Insurance Law ? 5102(d), arguing that the carpal tunnel syndrome was related to Pltf.’s 25-year employment as a mover. Demonstrative evidence: diagram of median nerve; photographs of accident site; model of spine; economic chart. Offer: $150, 000; demand: $300,000; amount asked of jury: $900,000. Jury deliberation: 1? days. Carrier: Liberty Mutual. Pltf. Experts: Dr. Howard Finelli, orth. surg., Bronx; Dr. Jay Rosenbloom, examining neurosurgeon, Bronx (for Workers’ Compensation claim); Albert Levenson, economist, Woodmere; Edmond Provder, vocational rehabilitation, Manhattan. There was no expert testimony for Deft.

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

Attorney reviewing a plaintiff's future care report
October 5, 2026
Learn which reporting mistakes can weaken serious injury cases, from unsupported care needs to poor cost research, outdated records, and unclear expert opinions.
Attorney reviewing a serious injury case
September 21, 2026
Learn what attorneys should look for when choosing a future care expert, including credentials, clinical experience, report quality, and litigation readiness.
Injury case documents and medical records
September 7, 2026
Learn which actions can damage a personal injury case, from delayed treatment to poor documentation. Discover practical ways to protect evidence and support future damages.
Expert reviewing medical records
August 24, 2026
Learn how a medical needs assessment helps identify future care, daily living needs, and functional limits in serious injury cases. Discover what makes the process reliable.
Expert comparing future medical cost reports
August 3, 2026
Learn how a medical cost projection differs from a life care plan. See which report may better document future medical needs in a complex injury claim.

CONTACT US