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

Demonstrative Evidence in Vocational Assessments
September 1, 2025
In this article, we’ll explore what demonstrative evidence is, why it matters in vocational assessments, and how it can make complex information easier.
Wrongful Death Case
August 18, 2025
Learn how a vocational evaluation for wrongful death cases can help calculate financial loss, strengthen your claim, and secure fair compensation. Call us Today
Vocational Evaluations Impact Personal Injury Settlements
August 4, 2025
In this blog post, we’ll explain what a vocational evaluation is, how it helps in personal injury settlements. Contact our Vocational expert for evaluation today
Life Care Plan Evaluation For Documenting Damages - Oasinc
July 21, 2025
Learn about what a life care plan is, when it is necessary, and why it’s such an important part of documenting damages after a serious injury. Call Oasinc today
Vocational Assessment Helpful in Employment Cases
July 7, 2025
Discover how OAS Vocational Assessments support employment cases, resolving disputes and strengthening legal claims. Gain key insights with expert analysis!

CONTACT US