Cindy Lee v. Urban Retail Properties, Inc. 02 L 000006
Feb 09, 2009OUTCOME: Noteworthy win for the defense !
Verdict: #232,030 ($35,000 [pain & suffering; $20,000 loss of normal life; $45,000 emotional distress; $75,00 disfigurement; $84,530 medical expenses; $40,000 LT). Judge: Randye A. Kogan (IL C ... ook-Law) Pltf Attys: Peter Tarpey and Richard J. Schroeder of Paul B. Episcope LLC Demand: $700,000 Asked: $3,000,000 Deft Atty: J. Michael West of Maisel & Associates (Travelers) Offer: $400,000 Pltf Medl: Dr. Fady Charbel (Neurosurgeon), Dr. James A. Goodwin (Neuro- ophthalmologist), Dr. Robert E. Eilers (Rehab/Physical Medicine), Dr. Steven Rothke, Ph.D. (Neuropsychologist), Dr. Mary Zemansky, Ph.D. (Neuropsychologist) and Dr. Lisa Fortman Family Practice) Deft Medl: Dr. Robert Kazan (Neurosurgeon), Dr. Arvind Kumar (Neurotologist) and Dr. Virgil DiBiase (Neurologist) Pltf Expert: Stanley V. Smith, Ph.D. (Economist) Plaintiff, Female, age 52, self-employed distributor of women's fashion apparrel, was hit on the head by a decending security gate. Defendant admitted liability, admitted that plaintiff received various injuries for which she should be compensated, but claimed that plaintiff was not brain damaged as alleged. Plaintiff claimed c5-6 Herniated cervical disc, with fusion surgery and hardware; memory problems; change in personality; dizziness; convergence disorder; cluster headaches; photosensitivity; depth poerception loss; blurred vision; depression; nausea; aphasia; loss of sense of smell; significant personality changes; loss of organizational skills; fainting; ringing in the ear; seizures; difficulty walking short distances, all of which caused her to lose her career and ability to work in her chosen profession. Plaintiff's Economist, Stan Smith, projected over $1,000,000 in lost future income alone. The lawsuit involved eleven retained experts and a multitude of treating physicians in Neurology; Oto-Neurology; Neurosurgery; Neuro-opthamology; and economics. The Verdict, after a 3-Week Jury Trial was a clear win for the defense, with the verdict being less than what the defense offered prior to trial to settle the dispute.
