|
|
|
|
 |
|
Verdict: $425,000
Offer by defendant: $10,000
Injury: Seaman suffered lower back injury and surgery |
|
|
|
|
|
1999 WL 1697795 (FJVR) Copyright (C) 2003 by Florida Legal Periodicals, Inc. TITLE: JAMES XXXXX vs. COASTAL TUG & BARGE, INC. DOCKET-NUMBER: 97-5938 CA 32 VENUE: Court: Florida Circuit Courts COUNTY: Dade STATE: Florida YEAR: December 10, 1999 (Verdict/Settlement Date)
TOPIC: Maritime Accident/Vessel. SUMMARY: Nature of Injury: Herniated lumbar disc requiring fusion.
Verdict: $425,000 for Plaintiff on December 10, 1999
Defendant offered $10,000;
Plaintiff asked for $300,000
$10,000 - maintenance; $65,000 - cure;
$350,000 - damages and pain and suffering.
Plaintiff Information: Age: 25 Sex: M Occupation: Deck Hand
RANGE AMOUNT: $200,000-$499,999
ATTORNEY(S):
Plaintiff's: > David Gorewitz, Melbourne Defendant's: >
David J. Horr of Horr, Linfors, Skipp & Novak, P.A., Miami
JUDGE: > Fredricka Smith
EXPERT-WITNESSES: Plaintiff's: >
Marcelle Kinney, Ph.D., Economist, Melbourne (video depo) >
Richard Hynes, M.D., Orthopedic Surgery, Melbourne (video depo) >
Frank Alvarez, M.D., Neurology, Daytona Beach >
John Russell, Vocational Rehabilitation, Melbourne >
David Cole, Maritime Issues, New Orleans, LA
Defendant's: >
Christopher Brown, M.D., Orthopedic Surgery, W. Palm Beach >
Paul M. Keller, M.D., Orthopedic Surgery, Melbourne >
Mark A. Beckner, M.D., Orthopedic Surgery, Orlando >
Dina Murphy, R.P.T., Physical Therapy, Melbourne
TEXT: Cause of Injury: On February 27, 1997, Plaintiff was working aboard the vessel M/V Coastal Dade, which was owned and operated by Defendant. Plaintiff alleged that, as he was pulling on a mooring line, he felt a pain in his back. Plaintiff did not tell anyone about the injury, but visited his personal physician. Upon returning to work two weeks later, Plaintiff informed his supervisor that he was on medication prescribed by his doctor. Plaintiff was instructed to go home. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff was not injured at work because he did not report the injury. Plaintiff contended that he told the Captain the next evening that his back was hurting. The Captain denied this allegation. Defendant claimed that three witnesses asked Plaintiff if he was injured at work, and he responded "No" to all three.
NOTES: Editor's Note: The jury found that: (1) Plaintiff was injured while in the service of the tugboat Coastal Dade; (2) there was no negligence on the part of Defendant which was a legal cause of injury to Plaintiff; (3) the Tugboat Coastal Dade was seaworthy; (4) the unreasonable failure to pay maintenance and cure aggravated Plaintiff's physical injury; and (5) Defendant did not act arbitrarily or with callous disregard in failing to pay maintenance and cure.
Defendant's Attorney's Comments: The jury returned defense verdicts on the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims. Plaintiff testified at trial to a specific accident at a specific time. This was negated by circumstantial evidence. On the maintenance and cure claim there was significant discrepancy between Plaintiff's testimony and that of Defendant's witnesses. While the jury apparently resolved these in Plaintiff's favor, there is concern the jury misapprehended the instructions on the law and awarded an excessive amount to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's post trial motions have already been denied. Defendant's Motion for Remittitur, Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment in Accordance with Motion for Directed Verdict are still pending. In fact, Plaintiff's counsel was recently directed by the Court to submit a memorandum of law in response to Defendant's post trial motions. A hearing by special appointment on the post-trial motions is scheduled in April. Plaintiff Attorney's subsequent comments: The trial judge ordered a reduction in the amount of the verdict below $300,000.00, Plaintiff had the option of either accepting the reduced Judgment, or appealing and/or demanding a new trial. Plaintiff elected to appeal and the defendant cross-appealed. The appellate court affirmed all orders of the trial judge without opinion, which meant a new trial was mandatory. With an affirmation by the appellate court that the jury properly determined plaintiff's condition was made worse by failure to pay maintenance and cure benefits, the defendant elected to avoid another trial and settled the case for a total recovery to the Plaintiff of $515,000.00. |
|
|
|
