 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sutch v. Yarinsky3/14/2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Calendar Date: January 11, 2002
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Nolan Jr., J.), entered December 22, 2000 in Saratoga County, which, inter alia, partially denied defendant's motion to set aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff.
A jury determined that defendant, a plastic surgeon who performed a bilateral breast reduction on plaintiff, committed malpractice in the course of this treatment and also awarded her (*2)damages. The sole issue on appeal concerns two aspects of the jury's damage award, namely, whether the awards of $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering are excessive and materially deviate from reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 ). Supreme Court, having the distinct advantage of presiding over the trial and observing the testimony and demeanor of the parties and their respective expert witnesses, concluded that the trial evidence and comparable medical malpractice cases supported the awards. We now turn to that evidence.
The record reveals that plaintiff underwent bilateral breast reduction surgery on March 9, 1995, at the age of 26, to eliminate various physical ailments associated with the large size of her breasts.
Suffice it to say, plaintiff developed complications in her left breast immediately following surgery. The condition of this breast became progressively worse in the ensuing weeks and ultimately led to the loss of her entire left nipple areola complex, leaving in its place a large scar. Photographs of this grievous transformation of plaintiff's breast are contained in the record. Plaintiff's current treating physician opined that any reconstruction of the left nipple areola complex would require two additional surgeries. To be sure, these procedures could not actually replace her left nipple; rather, they would serve only to improve the appearance of the left breast, apparently by constructing a nipple and tattooing color onto it.
Contrary to defendant's contentions, plaintiff presented compelling evidence concerning the short and long-term physical and emotional consequences of his malpractice (cf., Gunder v Murthy, 185 AD2d 915, 916 [evidence of injured plaintiff's future pain and suffering following botched vasectomy "far from compelling"]). Plaintiff described the physical trauma associated with the loss of her left nipple areola complex, testifying how it ultimately turned into "a very dark brown scab" and separated from the rest of her breast. She described how her breast "oozed" a thick, yellow drainage which had a significant unpleasant odor. In her own words, she "smelled like rotting, decaying meat". She further described the various debriding procedures performed to remove the dead tissue from her breast, (*3)the cauterization of the area with silvadene, a procedure she testified smelled like "burning flesh", and the resulting two-inch hole in her breast. Indeed, according to a clinical psychologist who has treated plaintiff, she experienced "major emotional shock" and "acute anxiety" when the condition of her left breast was first revealed to her in late March 1995.
Plaintiff's evidence further established that she is no longer the happy and confident person she was prior to surgery. According to plaintiff, in addition to losing her confidence as a result of the condition of her breast, she lost her once "wonderful" and "loving" sexual relationship with her husband. Before his untimely death on March 30, 2000, she refused to disrobe in front of him and never fully disrobed during their sexual relations.
Page 1 2 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|