Verdicts and Settlements

At the Law Offices of Paul Levin, we understand how devastating it can be for injury victims to try to cope with the consequences of another person’s irresponsible, reckless choices. Unfortunately, nothing can truly compensate injury victims for the pain and suffering they must endure; under the law, the best justice injury victims can receive is a financial award for their damages. That’s why we are committed to helping our clients pursue the largest awards possible, in order to ensure that they have the resources they need to deal with the consequences of their injury and to hold the responsible party accountable. While we cannot guarantee results in future cases as each case has unique facts and circumstances, the following are representative examples of successes we have had in the past. Similar or better results cannot be guaranteed.

As a serious personal injury practice in Connecticut, the verdicts and settlements are as you might expect quite varied. As a result, the available resources needed to undertake the analysis and handle similar cases for you is made much easier. The following represents only a sampling of case types sucessfully handled in Connecticut courts by Attorney Levin.

Trucking Accidents

Cary v Eitel – Mr. Carey was rear ended by a pickup truck driven by Mr. Eitel who was employed by O & G industries, the same company behind the Clean energy explosion that killed and injured workers in middletown, CT. Traveler’s insurance insured the risk. The injuries claimed were principally lower back and a mild traumatic brain injury from the accident resulting from the concussion sustained. Last offer was $70,000 though there was likely a willingness to raise that into the low six figures. Trial took place on various days over a two week period of time before the jury rendered its verdict. $526,000. Hartford Superior Court (May 10, 2012)

 

Shopey v Heil Co. et al – Department of Transportation worker who lost part of her leg in the back of a dump truck while getting it ready for winter snow operations received a 3.6 million dollar verdict in Waterbury Superior Court on November 1, 2011. Her boot was entrained in the moving conveyor chain during a maintenance operation. The defense was primarily that she disregarded a “Danger” decal affixed to the side of the truck advising her not to stand in the body of the dump because of the moving chain which could cause injury. While that was true, the decal had been serially disregarded as the back of the dump bed was often used to store tools and for various other purposes and ther was a ladder affixed to the side of the dump body placed there by the Manufacturer and Dealer to enable access. The dealer who sold and assembled the dump body knew that and in fact their own mechanics would inspect the chain’s operation on occasion from inside the dump body as well while the chain was in motion. The State of Connecticut’s contract with the DOT required mandatory training on the proper operation and maintenance of the dump body which implicitly included how to clean and maintain the unit in a safe and recommended manner.It also required compliance with OSHA regulations and Industry safety standards. The Dealer maintained that it did so comply and that physical guarding of the chain during operation was implausible as any such guard would necessarily tend to interfere with its intended purpose. Accordingly, administrative controls which included proper training and clear operating instructions were essential and the Dealer maintained that it provided proper training and that the DOT which had operated a fleet of hundreds of similar trucks before the instant purchase should have known how to train their own employees in the first place. After the incident, Conn OSHA did cite the DOT which employed the injured worker for allowing exposure to unguarded nip points and in consequence thereof the DOT implemented a series of heightened administrative controls.

The case was brought under Connecticut’s Product Liability Act and was plead under legal theories including Strict liability for Defective design, Breach of the Statutory Duty to provide warnings and instructions, Breach of warranty and negligence. The manufacturer of the Dump bed had settled with the Plaintiff weeks before Trial and was a settled and released party whose fault was considered by the jury for purposes of allocating fault between the Plaintiff, the manufacturer and the remaining Defendant which was the dealer who sold the dump beds to the State under a procurement contract. The Jury allocated slightly less fault to the Manufacturer than to the Dealer who had the contract and primary relationship with the DOT and assigned 38% fault to the injured DOT worker as well resulting in a net verdict of slightly more than 1.3 million dollars to the worker in addition to a confidential sum obtained from the manufacturer shortly before Trial.

 

Sarah Thorton v Trucking Co. – This case involved a disputed liability claim where the truck driver claimed that the highway accident occured because of our client’s driving error. Deposition testimony of the Trucker established a number of helpful admissions which led to the resolution of the claim short of Trial. Reliance on certain unique aspects of truck driver training, operation and related regulations were generously used during mediation efforts. Case resolved in the vicinity of $200,000( 2006).

 

Lambert v Hammer – This case involved an intersection accident with a small truck. Liability was fairly apparent though the extent of client’s physical injuries and their relationship to existing health issues became the battleground during litigation. Ultimately, a good result was achieved by utilizing the generous assistance of a former complex litigation Superior Court Judge who mediated the matter shortly before Trial. Case settled for $275,000 ( 2004).

 

Cochran v Interstate – Not all Tractor Trailer operators are careless. In this matter, my Firm represented a driver who in an effort to avoid a collision with a much smaller passenger car, wound up losing control of his vehicle while taking emergency evasive action on the highway. Cochran took a substantial loss on his trailer damage, lost wages while out of work and unpaid medical bills. Demand for settlement exceeded $200,000 and the case ultimately settled at pretrial.(1999, New London superior Court).

 

Ane v Hammer et al – This case involved a truck accident which had a significant impact upon an elderly person. In the absence of fractures or other injuries which resulted in early hospitalization attempting to get fair and adequate compensation was what led to considerable litigation before resolution. The Plaintiff focused upon not only the operation of the truck in question but on inadequate training and supervision of the refuse company’s truck operators. The prospect of punitive damages perhaps contributed to the Defendant’s recognition that the exposure at Trial was not worth the risk of excessive stinginess. The matter eventually resolved before former Federal Court Judge Magistrate Eagan in the vicinity of $200,000. Waterbury Superior Court(2009).

 

Santana v Delgrasse – This serious accident involving a garbage truck and its employed operator gave rise both a court action and proceedings before the Workers Compensation Commission. There was inadequate liability coverage so the Plaintiff insisted that the negligent party financially participate in the settlement by paying monies over and above the amount of his automobile coverage which is not easy to accomplish. This was achieved and in combination with workers compensation benefits resolved for a sum in excess of $300,000.New London Superior Court,Middletown Workers Compensation Commission(2010).

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Car & Automobile Accidents

Cary v Eitel – Mr. Carey was rear ended by a pickup truck driven by Mr. Eitel who was employed by O & G industries, the same company behind the Clean energy explosion that killed and injured workers in middletown, CT. Traveler’s insurance insured the risk. The injuries claimed were principally lower back and a mild traumatic brain injury from the accident resulting from the concussion sustained. Last offer was $70,000 though there was likely a willingness to raise that into the low six figures. Trial took place on various days over a two week period of time before the jury rendered its verdict. $526,000. Hartford Superior Court (May 10, 2012)

 

Zuffery v Pierce – While traveling on I-84 eastbound in the town of southington on June 22, 2010, a vehicle being driven by Joel Pierce was traveling in the other direction when it crossed over the median and struck Ms. Zuffery in a head on collision. Given the forces involved at highway speeds death or paralysis was a serious risk and thankfully did not occur. Though Ms. Zuffery has returned to a normal life, including her work, the resultant injuries were substantial. A thorough investigation was undertaken to ascertain if Pierce was intoxicated or sold alcoholic beverages by a bar or restaurant which would have explained the conduct. Insurance policy proceeds covering the automobile that Pierce was operating were somewhat limited and the entire policy was obtained.( June, 2011- New Britain Superior Court)

 

Veil V Chicione – This case involved a pedestrian versus motor vehicle collision. As is usually the case, the automobile operator won. While not an extremely large impact, it was enough to cause Ms. Veil the need to have surgery and undergo rehab before regaining her ability to walk once again.Issues of fault remained disputed and legal liability not crystal clear but in the end a healthy settlement was obtained for our client.$300,000 (2011- Hartford).

 

Coman v Hedges – A motor vehicle accident which was disputed by the other driver for two years until a few months before jury selection was set to commence was then settled for their policy limit of $50,000. Thereafter, the client’s own insurance company who had also been sued for the excess policy benefits which she had purchased beyond the limited liability policy available from the person who caused the accident(known as underinsured motorist insurance coverage) refused to tender that coverage benefit. Instead this company, Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., took the position that their insured had been paid nearly enough and made miserly offers which they kept increasing even during jury selection. Finally, at the conclusion of jury selection Defense Counsel asked if the Plaintiff would shave even a little off the policy benefit demanded which In our view was likely to be awarded by a jury in any event. The Plaintiff resisted and the insurance company tendered the balance of the full $50,000 remaining more that quadrupuling their inital offer made just weeks before and the case settled prior to the start of Trial. Total recovery was the policy limit for both coverages of $100,000. New Britain CT (2010).

 

Ankrah v Zielinski – Court Judgement arising out of alcohol related motor vehicle accidnt in which Mr. Ankrah was a passenger. Settlement was reached with the Bar which sold alcohol to the driver to the point of intoxication seperately. The balance of the Court judgement which was not immediately collectible was obtained by obtainiing an injunction/lien against any proceeds to be derived from Mr. Zielinski’s own personal injury case. $210,000. Hartford Superior Court(2006).

 

Bezilla v Cloutier – Settlement shortly before trial arising out a motor vehicle collission. It was learned that the defendant motor vehicle operator had a depth perception impairment and her Opthamologist’s testimony was preserved for use at trial. $875,000. Hartford Superior Court(2005).

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Motorcycle Accidents

Estate of Donald Loosemore v Dalida – Clent riding a motorcycle killed on route 9 and the only witness was the operator of the vehicle which struck him. She claimed that he had no headlights/tail lights and had been driving erratically. There was evidence that the motorcycle might have malfunctioned and caused my client to have pulled off the highway to adjust th equipment. The operator had come from a location where she had ingested alcohol and it appeared from the evidence of the collision that she had barely slowed before impact. Ultimately, the liability insurer was convinced that the negligent operation of the vehicle by its insured and the possible alcohol impairment that accompanied was a substantial contributing factor to the accident. Motorcycles have the same rights to the road as autos and the assumption that Bikers are not safe is an ingrained prejudice which the carrier had to be disuaded of through the litigation process. Case settled before trial for only a fraction below the full liability policy available.( New Britain Superior Court 2009).

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Product Liability

Shopey v Heil Co. et al – Department of Transportation worker who lost part of her leg in the back of a dump truck while getting it ready for winter snow operations received a 3.6 million dollar verdict in Waterbury Superior Court on November 1, 2011. Her boot was entrained in the moving conveyor chain during a maintenance operation. The defense was primarily that she disregarded a “Danger” decal affixed to the side of the truck advising her not to stand in the body of the dump because of the moving chain which could cause injury. While that was true, the decal had been serially disregarded as the back of the dump bed was often used to store tools and for various other purposes and ther was a ladder affixed to the side of the dump body placed there by the Manufacturer and Dealer to enable access. The dealer who sold and assembled the dump body knew that and in fact their own mechanics would inspect the chain’s operation on occasion from inside the dump body as well while the chain was in motion. The State of Connecticut’s contract with the DOT required mandatory training on the proper operation and maintenance of the dump body which implicitly included how to clean and maintain the unit in a safe and recommended manner.It also required compliance with OSHA regulations and Industry safety standards. The Dealer maintained that it did so comply and that physical guarding of the chain during operation was implausible as any such guard would necessarily tend to interfere with its intended purpose. Accordingly, administrative controls which included proper training and clear operating instructions were essential and the Dealer maintained that it provided proper training and that the DOT which had operated a fleet of hundreds of similar trucks before the instant purchase should have known how to train their own employees in the first place. After the incident, Conn OSHA did cite the DOT which employed the injured worker for allowing exposure to unguarded nip points and in consequence thereof the DOT implemented a series of heightened administrative controls.

The case was brought under Connecticut’s Product Liability Act and was plead under legal theories including Strict liability for Defective design, Breach of the Statutory Duty to provide warnings and instructions, Breach of warranty and negligence. The manufacturer of the Dump bed had settled with the Plaintiff weeks before Trial and was a settled and released party whose fault was considered by the jury for purposes of allocating fault between the Plaintiff, the manufacturer and the remaining Defendant which was the dealer who sold the dump beds to the State under a procurement contract. The Jury allocated slightly less fault to the Manufacturer than to the Dealer who had the contract and primary relationship with the DOT and assigned 38% fault to the injured DOT worker as well resulting in a net verdict of slightly more than 1.3 million dollars to the worker in addition to a confidential sum obtained from the manufacturer shortly before Trial.

 

Dawson v New York Lighter Company – Settlement following a Plaintiff’s Verdict arising out of an injury to a child when a lighter which had an inadequate child proof safety mechanism was lit by a four year old. The exclusive U.S. Importer/Distributor was sued as they brought in millions of these chinese manfactured lighters every year. For the burn injuries a post verdict settlement of $200,000 was reached.New london Superior Court(2004).

 

Gregory v Royal Tire – Settlement following tire explosion which appeared the result of a malfunctioning tire inflation pressure gage where the needle did not move as air pressure increased to dangerous levels. The Defense hired a tire explosion expert who defended Firestone often in tire burst rollover litigation involving Ford SUV’s. The case settled following that expert’s deposition which was taken in Ohio for the sum of $225,000.New Britain Superior Court(2006).

 

G v GCS Services – A products liability case involving a dough mixer that had not been fitted with a screen guard protecting the operator from accidental contact with the rotating beater. The industry had standardized the bowl guard multiple years before the sale of the machine and the company had not considered the machine sufficiently dangerous to have standardized the screen at the time of sale. A hartford Jury disagreed and found that the manufacturer’s conduct warranted an award of punitive damages. Compensatory damages for having undergone multiple surgeries and substantial lost function of our client’s hand was just under 1.4 million dollars(2008).
“My Dough Mixer machine injury ended my career as a chef after several surgeries to try and correct the problem. I had spent time in Jail earlier in life and my Name was of non American origin so the defense offered me very little and treated me with what i considered to be contempt even though i had a family and was a very patriotic American. A Hartford Jury not only awarded over a million dollars but gave me back my dignity and ability to send my Son to College.”

 

Phillips v Clement Industries – Products liability settlement arising out of a work related injury. Mr. Phillips was injured when struck in the head by a load binder which had been placed on the dump trailer’s rear at the height of a six foot man’s head. Since the load binder mechanism was known to snap back under force, placing it in the swing path of a man’s head was a defective design. The manufacturer’s CEO admitted at deposition that the dump trailer in question ought to have had a newer design on it where the steel bar handle would no longer have presented that risk.Settlement was $425,000. New London Superior Court(2006).

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Wrongful Death

Estate of Donald Loosemore v Dalida – Clent riding a motorcycle killed on route 9 and the only witness was the operator of the vehicle which struck him. She claimed that he had no headlights/tail lights and had been driving erratically. There was evidence that the motorcycle might have malfunctioned and caused my client to have pulled off the highway to adjust th equipment. The operator had come from a location where she had ingested alcohol and it appeared from the evidence of the collision that she had barely slowed before impact. Ultimately, the liability insurer was convinced that the negligent operation of the vehicle by its insured and the possible alcohol impairment that accompanied was a substantial contributing factor to the accident. Motorcycles have the same rights to the road as autos and the assumption that Bikers are not safe is an ingrained prejudice which the carrier had to be disuaded of through the litigation process. Case settled before trial for only a fraction below the full liability policy available.( New Britain Superior Court 2009).

 

Estate of Oliver Myers v Spector – This accident brought on behalf of an elderly man who was killed crossing the street in his wheelchair when struck by a large SUV that apparently had not seen him was challenging because there was inadequate auto liability coverage available for a wrongful death claim. The family of the decedent who authorized my firm to initiate suit walked a fine line between trying not to irreperably harm the finances of the young operator involved nor force them into bankruptcy versus obtaining something resembling a fair compensatory award. The Defendant operator ultimately paid twice as much as the coverage which they had purchased to resolve the matter in an unusual result considering the circumstances. Meriden Superior Court (2008).

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Construction Accidents

Mcqueeney v DiGiorgi Corp. – This case involved the improper use of scaffolds and the lack of fall protection systems on a roofing job. The immediate employer of Mr. Mcqueeney was immune from a suit in negligence due to the fact that it paid workers compensation benefits related to the injury he suffered from a 27 foot fall off the scaffold. The general contractor was not immune and was sued for its failure to enforce reasonable work site safety standards and for their delegating to Mcqueeney’s employer hazardous work when they quite evidently lacked even the basic knowledge and equipment necessary to avoid such predictable fall hazards. The case took a tortured route towards resolution and a global resolution was deferred and unobtainable due to the lack of applicable liability insurance in force on the part of Digiogi Corp. covering Mr. Mcqueeney’s injury. Ultimately, Mcqueeney accepted the sum of $280,000 and retaines ongoing benefits under workers compensation laws that still pertain. Hartford Superior Court ( October , 2010).

 

Occonor v Tulip Homes – A construction site injury involving the improper use of a ladder and failure to monitor the construction site. The defendant was the general contractor who claimed no knowledge or legal responsibility of the dangerous work site conditions which contributed to Mr. Occonor’s fall through an open hole in the floor while tumbling off a ladder suffering serious and permanent injuries. Plaintiff was able to demonstrate that the close relationship between the general and sub contractor for which Mr. Occonor worked suggested that the general both knew and had an opportunity to intervene yet failed to do so. Settlement of 1.6 million(2008).

 

Salinas vs. Sal War Inc. – This case involved and exploding battery on a construction site which injured the eye of a worker as a result. The issues included product liability for a defective battery and the failure to train and properly supervise machine operational procedures all of which contributed to this injury event. There was an element of comparative negligence plead by the Defendant involving the Plaintiff’s role in the outcome and completely opposite expert opinions produced by each party. The case went to Judical annexed Mediation where it settled for $235,000. Meriden Superior Court( 2010).

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Sexual Abuse

M. W. v Backus Hospital et al – Client was a mental health patient at hospital and cared for by phsychptherapist who engaged her in a sexual relationship. Though consensual in the sense that she was an adult and was not forced, the imbalance of the power relationship between the two and the prohibition against doctor patient relationships, particularly during active treatment prevailed. The patitent was married at the time and she wound up divorced and estranged from her family for a time. Her depression was also worsened and she unsuccessfully attempted suicide as a result of the fallout from the events. Bottom line was she went to a partial hospitalization program for help and stability and was harmed for the personal gratification of the involved doctor. The hospital’s insurer paid a settlement as did the Doctor’s carrier. As a condition of settlement it was insisted that the doctor contribute towards the settlement amount out of his own pocket. He also surrendered his license to practice.( New London Superior Court 2008).

 

Poteat v State of Connecticut – This case involved suing the State of Connecticut for placing and maintaining foster children in an environment where they were subject to physical and sexual abuse. The extent of such abuse was hotly contested and there were governmental immunity issues which were challenging to overcome. The case eventually settled for the sum of $700,000 and was concluded to the satisfaction of my clients. Middletown Superior Court(2008).

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Medical Malpractice

Medical negligence case against Chief of general surgery, Lauren Rubino MD and the Hospital where surgery was performed, Eastern Connecticut Health Network Inc. which runs Manchester and Rockville Memorial hospitals. The negligence alleged was that Dr. Rubino operated on the wrong area of Mrs. Rea’s breast and failed to remove the intended lump for biopsy which was the purpose of the operation. Additionally, negligence was alleged against the Hospital on the basis that its nursing staff failed to properly mark the operative site properly and have procedures in place for verifying the correct site of surgery. The jury found negligence against both Dr. Rubino and the Hospital on this basis. The jury also found that Mrs. Rea had not given her informed consent for the operation at any alternative surgical site.

The jury also found that Dr. Rubino acted in an untruthful manner with her patient in regards to her post surgical conduct and found for Mrs. Rea on the basis that she negligently inflicted emotional distress in so doing. More significantly, however, is was the Jury’s conclusion that Dr. Rubino had breached her fiduciary duty to her patient by altering the content of the original operative report in an untruthful manner . An original operative report had been dictated shortly after the surgery before the patient regained full consciousness and was electronically signed that same day. Mrs. Rea refused to return to Dr. Rubino’s care for followup and had complained to the Hospital about the wrong site surgery. In the weeks following the surgery , Dr. Rubino had enlisted the assistance of the Hospital’s transcription department to alter the signed operative report by bringing the document back to draft status and thereupon editing in a substantial alterations that reflected a different set of events during surgery than were contained in the original operative report. The original version of the operative report no longer appeared in the hospital chart of the patient after the alterations had been completed. Dr. Rubino maintained at Trial that she had merely edited the original report to reflect events which did occur during surgery and had not been included in the original dictation and which provided justification for the procedure she performed at a different operative site than originally intended. The Judge’s Jury charge made clear that a breach of fiduciary duty had to be based on their finding of untruthfulness, disloyalty rather than an innocent explanation for the altered document as provided by Dr. Rubino. The claims that both Dr. Rubino and the Hospital’s conduct as it related to post surgical conduct , principally the alteration and removal of the original operative report constituted a violation of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices act was not proven in the Jury’s view so no damages were awarded on that basis.

Compensatory Damages: The jury awarded compensatory damages only. The hospital was apportioned 60% and Dr. Rubino 40% of the total award.

 

Kellie St. Jean v Uconn Hospital – Client went in for routine medical procedure involving a high resolution CT Scan with dye. During the administration the dye extravasated from the intended vein where a catheter had been placed and was pumped into forearm resulting in caustic reaction, swelling and compartment syndrome requiring emergent surgery to spare her limb. This was accomplished and residual scarring and some reduced function resulted. Case was defended on the basis that a known complication occured which was not the result of negligence. Ultimately, it became clear through multiple depositions taken that the radiology department at Uconn hospital recognized that additional precautions and staffing during the procedures could minimize such complications. There was also an apparent procedure rule deviation all of which contributed to the desire to settle the case pretrial. The State of Connecticut on behalf of the hospital paid a substantial confidential sum to resolve the claim( Hartford Superior Court 2009).

 

M. W. v Backus Hospital et al – Client was a mental health patient at hospital and cared for by phsychptherapist who engaged her in a sexual relationship. Though consensual in the sense that she was an adult and was not forced, the imbalance of the power relationship between the two and the prohibition against doctor patient relationships, particularly during active treatment prevailed. The patitent was married at the time and she wound up divorced and estranged from her family for a time. Her depression was also worsened and she unsuccessfully attempted suicide as a result of the fallout from the events. Bottom line was she went to a partial hospitalization program for help and stability and was harmed for the personal gratification of the involved doctor. The hospital’s insurer paid a settlement as did the Doctor’s carrier. As a condition of settlement it was insisted that the doctor contribute towards the settlement amount out of his own pocket. He also surrendered his license to practice.( New London Superior Court 2008).

 

Proctor v St. Francis Hospital et al – Malpractice settlements against several of the six named defendants arising out of a delay in diagnosis and treatment of a benign condition which resulted in legal blindness. Defense claims varied but a common theme was that Ms. Proctor would likely have lost her sight regardless of the claimed departures from the standard of care due to the rapidity of the onset of this illness. The exact amount of settlements and on whose behalf remain confidential but gross recovery well exceeded $2,000,000.Hartford Superior Court (2007).

“I had almost given up trying to sue for medical malpractice before speaking with Attorney Paul Levin because my case had already been rejected by another large firm. I was told that I did not have a viable case even though I went totally blind and it seemed that none of my Doctors tried to do anything about it while it was happening until it was too late. Because of Attorney Levin’s efforts, I am financially independent and can properly take care of my Son and make sure that he gets a good education. I moved out of the inner city and relocated out of State where it is better for us both. Attorney Levin believed in my case and succeeded and though I never did get an apology from my health care providers, I at least understand what they did wrong and they paid money to compensate me for the harm caused.”

 

Simone Jackson v Orthopaedic Associates – A medical malpractice settlement arising from wrist surgery in which the patient’s ulnar nerve was inadvertantly lacerated. The surgeon initially claimed abberant anatomy as the reason that the nerve was injured. It was also maintained that this type of injury was a known complication and not necessarily an indication of negligence.Following grueling deposition and disclosure of expert opinions settlement was achieved at approximately $800,000.(2007).

 

Sorano v Colon and Rectal Surgeons – Malpractice settlement arising out of a colon surgery that left the plaintiff with significant symptoms which he did not have before the surgery. The hospital could not produce the pre-operative film supporting the diagnosis and indication for surgery and the surgical technique chosen was challenged by Mr. Sarano as that operation was more commonly done for cancer which he did not have. Case settled following jury selection for a confidential six figure sum.Hartford Superior Court(2006).

 

Tornaquindici v John Keggi M.D. – Malpractice verdict against an orthopaedic surgeon resulting from hip surgery in which the patients femoral nerve was injured and surgeon defended on the basis that the injury inflicted was a complication not the result of surgical negligence. The jury did not accept that explanation and rendered a verdict in the amount of $557,000 in Waterbury Superior Connecticut(2004).
“Attorney Levin obtained a jury verdict against a Doctor who injured me during a surgery. He swore to me that nothing happened during the surgery which could have accounted for the terrible pain and functional issues i had since. This doctor had trained at Yale and had won one of only several National orthopedic surgery awards for excellence and so was nearly untouchable. Well a Waterbury, Connecticut Jury agreed with us and Attorney Levin completed the trial even though he was in the middle of personal tragedy involving the loss of a close family relative.”

 

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Bus Accidents

Twana Johnson v Ernest Jopp, Peter Pan Bus Lines – Client involved in an early morning collision with a Peter Pan Bus in New London CT. There were no reliable witnesses besides the bus driver and Ms Johnson who each disagreed what had occured. Client not sure if her headlights were on or not nor whether her brakes were completely functional. Bus driver claimed he did not see our client’s vehicle at the time when he made the turn and the accident reconstructionist which we retained could not conclusively establish through a time and stopping distance analysis that client would not have had adequate time to stop if she had been traveling the speed limit. Nonetheless, through agressive and hard fought discovery efforts both before and after taking the Bus driver’s depostion, we learned that he was involved in several prio accidents and had in fact been disciplined by his employer following our accident for not yielding the right of way. Accident scene photographs which were supposedly taken by the Bus Driver’s supervisor were never produced so an element of spoliation of evidence pervaded as well. Case settled six weeks before trial for $225,000 which reflected the value of the knee and back injury sustained in the accident.( New London Superior Court , 2010).

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Workers’ Compensation

Youmans v Pated Spring Co. – Client was a temporary worker injured in a fall down in a warehouse machine factory. As it was job related, he pursued both a workers compensation claim against his employer, The temporary agency that assigned him, and a direct tort claim against the machine shop where he was based. The primary cause of the omcodemt was excessive clutter, including a hand truck that became a trip hazard left in the aisles by another temporary worker. None of the temporary workers which the Defendant employed to work second shift had been trained or advised in proper safety procedures to follow and supervision by any management level person on that shift was non existent. Multiple knee operations and a persistent limp merited a settlement of $275,000 after significant litigation and only weeks before jury selection was scheduled to begin. New Britain, CT (2010).

 

Hill v Pest Control – A worker for a pest control company fell from a roof and suffered a broken leg and wrist. Both heeled but surgery was necessary. Some permanant restrictions of activity remain and the worker sought retraining and had all his weekly wages covered in the meantime. Case settled for the sum of $160,000 which allowed the worker to obtain a degree of financial security while seeking alternative employment. Hartford (2009).

 

Machinski v Newspaper Co. – A worker slipped on ice while delivering newspapers. She eventually underwent back surgery and did not return to that sort of work given some residual issues from the surgery and fear of falling again as delivery often occured during inclement weather. Despite the struggle of living week to week on workers compensation benefits and falling behind on rent more than once a settlement was achieved in the amount of $182,000. Worker was able to secure more permanent housing and gain a degree of financial security while transitioning to another type of employment. Hartford (2010).

“I only met Paul once and from that day on, he has helped me with money, my van and my case with workman’s compensation. I was waiting for a back operation for almost a year now, Paul went to a hearing on my behalf and now the surgery is approved. Thanks to Paul Levin I can get back on with my life.”
J. Macinski

 

Barry Johnson vs. Stair Builders LLC – This Injured worker was allowed to operate a bandsaw which the Employer had removed the factory installed guard in order to speed up the work process. Mr. Johnson suffered a partial amputation of several fingers on his dominant hand. Despite the workers compensation exlusivity bar which makes it extremely difficult to sue one’s own employer we did just that. Settlement with both his employer and the workers compensation carrier totalled $480,000.( 2007, Rockville Superior Court).

 

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Dog Bites

King v Anonymous – Interestingly, this matter involved a dog bite that almost occurred. While reacting to the perceived threat of a dog jumping in the direction of an elderly person, the Plaintiff fell down while attempting to avoid the dog as it lurched towards her. This resulted in a serious fracture to her wrist which had already been impacted by ongoing arthritic issues. The reason that this matter likely needed to be litigated and almost went to Trial is the Defense’s position that in the absence of an actual dog bite, which did not occur in this instance, no strict liability standard should attach. That legal analysis was dubious and ultimately the Defendant’s insurance company was persuaded to pay a fair settlement. Result was $225,000( Hartford Superior Court, 2007)

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Brain Injuries

Cary v Eitel – Mr. Carey was rear ended by a pickup truck driven by Mr. Eitel who was employed by O & G industries, the same company behind the Clean energy explosion that killed and injured workers in middletown, CT. Traveler’s insurance insured the risk. The injuries claimed were principally lower back and a mild traumatic brain injury from the accident resulting from the concussion sustained. Last offer was $70,000 though there was likely a willingness to raise that into the low six figures. Trial took place on various days over a two week period of time before the jury rendered its verdict. $526,000. Hartford Superior Court (May 10, 2012)

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Back Injuries

Cary v Eitel – Mr. Carey was rear ended by a pickup truck driven by Mr. Eitel who was employed by O & G industries, the same company behind the Clean energy explosion that killed and injured workers in middletown, CT. Traveler’s insurance insured the risk. The injuries claimed were principally lower back and a mild traumatic brain injury from the accident resulting from the concussion sustained. Last offer was $70,000 though there was likely a willingness to raise that into the low six figures. Trial took place on various days over a two week period of time before the jury rendered its verdict. $526,000. Hartford Superior Court (May 10, 2012)

See other firm verdicts and settlements


Premises Liability

Oseni v Georgia Inc. d/b/a Pappas Pizza – A lawsuit was brought by the Mother of a young Man who was shot and killed while ordering a pizza along with several other injured victims also present at the time of the shooting. The incident happened on June 6, 2009, at Pappas Pizza, located in Hartford, Connecticut, Pappas had for years been the scene of repeated instances of violence after hours controversies, when the Downtown Hartford Night clubs empty out Pappas Pizza became venue to hoodlums and misfits and provided no resident security personnel despite having been warned by the Hartford Police department of the need for it to provide for on premises security and not completely rely on the visible police presence in the area. As would be expected, most of the disturbances including a prior shooting in the restaurant years earlier happened in the hours after midnight and with greater frequency on weekends and event nights. The parties entered into a substantial high six figure settlement, the terms of which remain confidential (Formerly pending at Hartford Superior Court, resolved 2013).

Hicks v Anstro – Ms. Hicks was injured when an factory crane which she was operating became unstable and dropped its load which entrapped her leg. She was assigned to a factory in Waterbury, CT by her employer and the factory which owned the crane and ran the facility denied any legal responsibility for the crane’s alleged malfunction nor for the lack of guidance in how to use the crane in a way less likely to result in such an injury. After multiple years of litigation, the matter resolved short of Trial for a substantial six figure settlement, the terms of which remain confidential (Formerly pending in Waterbury Superior Court, resolved 2013).

See other firm verdicts and settlements

Connecticut Courts have also seen on a much less frequent basis extremely large personal injury awards. Two noteworthy areas where this has occured is in the realm of medical malpractice and construction injury cases,which are also handled by this office. It should be pointed out that the actual resolution of cases depends upon many factors involving variations of facts and state law.