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

Importance of a Vocational Expert in TDIU Cases
June 2, 2025
Learn how oasinc vocational experts play a crucial role in TDIU cases and how their testimony can strengthen disability claims for veterans seeking benefits
When and Why to Call a Vocational Expert for Evaluations - Oasinc
May 19, 2025
Exploring what vocational evaluations are, how a vocational expert helps, and when is the right time to call oasinc vocation expert for evaluations. Learn More!
The Role of Vocational Experts in SSD Hearings - Oasinc
May 5, 2025
Learn how the role of a vocational experts enhances your SSD hearing and impact disability benefits. Learn how Oasinc Vocational Assessment Helpful in SSD Cases
What is the Role of the Vocational Expert? - OAS
April 21, 2025
What is the Role of the Vocational Expert? Explore what a Vocational Expert does, why they matter, and how Oasinc Vocational Expert services can help.
Why Are Vocational Experts Necessary in Personal Injury Cases?
April 7, 2025
Vocational Experts in Personal Injury Cases as they assess how an injury affects a person's ability to work and determine the impact on earning capacity.

CONTACT US