Verdicts
Jane Doe v John Smith*
Federal District Court 2nd Circuit District of Connecticut
Plaintiffs Attorney: James G. Williams Esq.
Due to confidentiality of settlement no personal identifiable information has been disclosed however factual allegations and terms of negotiated settlement are as set forth.
Jane Doe was a 45 year old resident of CT who was a citizen of the Philippines. She came to the U.S. on a temporary Visa and attempted to find employment on a more permanent basis. John Smith owned and operated a hotel and assisted her in the application for a specialized Visa known as Class H1B. The plaintiff contended that the defendant represented that Jane Doe would be involved in highly technical accounting work in order to obtain approval for her application to work in the U.S. The plaintiff contended that defendant had no intention for Jane Doe to engage in accounting work but rather perform remedial tasks consistent with that of a housekeeper. The plaintiff maintained that she was forced to work unreasonable hours for unreasonable pay and subjected to numerous Human Rights violations. Plaintiff asserted that John Smith was aware that a co-employee of Jane Doe was physically assaulting and abusing her, but took no action to protect her despite demands of co-employees that if he did not intervene that the employee would kill her. On June 30, 2006 Jane Doe was murdered by the subject co-employee. The undersigned attorneys were successful in obtaining Workers' Compensation under Connecticut's Workers' Compensation Act for the surviving spouse/children. Thereafter Williams, Walsh & O'Connor, LLC, pursued Federal Claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and Alien Tort Claims Act, as well as violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The claim was brought against the employer despite the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation which was asserted as a defense. Through a private mediation a settlement was reached. Due to confidentiality of settlement the amount of settlement cannot be revealed.
Michael Cozzolino vs. Allstate Insurance Company
NNH-CV-95-0376915-S
Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven
Plaintiff's Attorney: James G. Williams, Esquire
Tried to a verdict in the Judicial District of New Haven
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $80,811. In addition, the plaintiff collected prejudgment interest in the amount of $31,500 plus $2,100 in taxable costs for a total return of $114,411.
Pretrial negotiations: Plaintiff's Demand $40,000 Defendant's Offer $17,500
The plaintiff, Michael Cozzolino, a thirty eight year old male operator of a Buick Rivera, was rear-ended by an uninsured motor vehicle while stopped in backed up traffic on Interstate 95 in West Haven, Connecticut. In light of the fact that the responsible party was uninsured, a claim was made against the Allstate Insurance Company, Mr. Cozzolino's own automobile insurance provider.
The plaintiff maintained that as a result of the accident, he sustained a ten percent permanent partial disability of the lumbar spine secondary to a cervical musculoskeletal injury. He was determined not to be a candidate for corrective surgery.
Plaintiff's medical expenses totaled $5,811 with no claim of lost wages or lost earning capacity. As has been stated, on June 10, 1999, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. In addition to the $80,811 awarded for compensatory damage, counsel had previously filed an offer of judgment. Under Connecticut law, as the verdict exceeded the amount of that offer of judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest running at a rate of twelve percent annually from the commencement of the legal action which added the additional $31,500 plus taxable costs to the amount due for a total of $114,411.
Gertrude Gayton vs. City of East Haven
CV-01-0276090-S
Plaintiff's Attorney: James G. Williams, Esquire
Tried to the Judicial District of New Haven at Meriden
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $46,793.61
Pretrial negotiations - Demand $25,000 Offer $2,500
The plaintiff Gertrude Gayton was walking south along the sidewalk located on the East Side of Prospect Street in East Haven, Connecticut, when she was caused to trip and fall over a raised concrete slab in front of the driveway access to property known as 132 Prospect Road, East Haven, Connecticut. As a result of the fall, Ms. Gayton, who was sixty three years old at the time of the subject accident, in walking to an elementary school in order to pick up her grandson, sustained a fracture of her right arm which was orthopaedically reduced without open operative intervention. The treating orthopaedic surgeon signed a ten percent permanent residual impairment of the affected arm.
This case was brought under Connecticut's Highway Defect Statute as the fall occurred within the public right of way known as Prospect Road, East Haven, Connecticut. As such, in order to prevail, the plaintiff must establish that neither her nor any third party was negligent in producing the fall and that the fall was solely caused by a defective condition within the highway. There existed an unevenness between two abutting concrete slabs of the public sideway of approximately three quarters of an inch. The defendant Town of East Haven denied liability under the Highway Defect Statute maintaining that the condition was open and obvious and that a reasonable prudent pedestrian would have seen and avoided the alleged trip hazard. As the defendant maintained, the plaintiff was at least partially negligent in producing the fall, the defendant's position was that she was barred from recovery under the highway defect statute.
The jury disagreed and in January of 2004, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $46,793.61.
Karl Pepin vs. Christopher Cacchillo
NNH-CV-94-0364290-S
Counsel For The Plaintiff: James G. Williams, Esquire
Disposition: Judgment in favor of the plaintiff
Procedural Posture:
Sixteen year old plaintiff (Karl Pepin) sued nineteen year old defendant (Christopher Cacchillo) for furnishing him alcohol and allowing him to drive resulting in an accident that caused severe injuries to the plaintiff. The parties agreed that should the court find legal liability, the defendant would tender its available insurance policy proceeds of $300,000.
Overview:
Nineteen year old Christopher Cacchillo illegally bought alcohol for Karl Pepin. The two voluntarily consumed the alcohol, after which Karl Pepin started driving home and had a one car accident in which he sustained severed spinal cord injuries when he drove his vehicle off the road. The court found the plaintiff's intoxicated state was a proximate cause of the accident and that the plaintiff's intoxication was proximately caused by the defendant's conduct in supplying the alcohol. It however found that the sixteen year old plaintiff was equally aware of the situation and dangers of intoxication diminishing his recovery by fifty percent.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff's voluntary consumption of the alcohol broke the chain of causation and that his negligence in falling asleep at the wheel and driving off the road was greater than fifty percent, thus precluding recovery.
The Judge disagreed and judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff on liability. Once this occurred, the homeowner's insurance carrier for the defendant, Mr. Cacchillo, tendered it's Three Hundred Thousand ($300,000) Dollar policy limit to the plaintiff.
Jean Elliott, Administratrix of the Estate of Kevin Elliott vs. City of Waterbury
Civil Docket #: UWY-CV-93-0117411-S
Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury
Plaintiff's Attorney: James G. Williams, Esquire
Defense Attorney: Waterbury Corporation Counsel
Description of Case: Kevin Elliott, a resident of Plymouth, Connecticut, was killed by a hunter in 1992 as he jogged in the Morris Pitch Section of the City's watershed area. Mr. Elliott was jogging on a dirt road owned and maintained by the Town of Morris when an individual hunting on adjacent property was shooting at a deer and discharged a shotgun. The bullet traveled from the adjacent property owned by the City of Waterbury and traveled onto the public road striking and killing Mr. Elliott. The Estate sued the City of Waterbury and it's former Mayor, Joseph Santropietro, for permitting hunting in close proximity to a public road. The defendants denied responsibility maintaining that the accident was caused by the negligence of the hunter. The defendants further relied on governmental immunity. The trial judge originally dismissed the case finding that governmental immunity barred suit against Waterbury and its officials. The Supreme Court reversed subsequent to which a settlement was negotiated in the amount of $900,000 for the Estate of Kevin Elliott.
Estate of Kristine E. Pire and Mischelle Pire vs. CWPM, LLC and Kenneth W. Clark
NNI-CV-01-0279026-S
Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, at Meriden
Plaintiff's Attorney: James G. Williams, Esquire
Mischelle Pire, a resident of the Town of Wallingford and forty years old at the time of the incident, was taking her twenty year old daughter, Kristine, to Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, in order to see the campus. Kristine, who was entering her senior year at a local university, had expressed an intention to obtain her Master's Degree in Irish History and attend Trinity College. The two were traveling northbound on the Berlin Turnpike in Newington, Connecticut, on May 21, 2001. At that time, a garbage truck owned by the defendant violently collided with their vehicle, causing the death of both Mischelle and her daughter, Kristine. After extensive negotiation, a settlement was reached in the amount of Four Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($4,250,000) Dollars.
Barbara Boczer, Administratrix of the Estate of Paul Boczer vs. John Doe, M.D.
FST-CV-03-0197813-S
Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford
Tried to verdict in the amount of One Million Two Hundred Thousand ($1,200,000) Dollars
Date of Verdict: April 13, 2006
Plaintiff's Attorney: James G. Williams, Esquire
Description of Case: Barbara Boczer commenced this action on behalf of her deceased husband, Paul Boczer, a sixty eight year old who suffered from a variety of concurrent health problems including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, aschemic disease, cardiomyopathy, and peripheral vascular disease, was being seen regularly by a primary cardiologist practicing in the Fairfield County area. In approximately March of 2000, he developed a cardiac arrhythmia known as atrial fibrillation which was reasonably well maintained through the use of Coumadin and medical management by the cardiologist. On June 22, 2002, while in the kitchen of his Norwalk home, Mr. Boczer experienced an episode of syncope (passing out). He fell violently forward, striking the kitchen floor. Thereafter, he presented to Norwalk Hospital and came under the care of the primary cardiologist who, after monitoring him for forty eight hours, discharged him without reaching a definitive diagnosis as to the cause of his syncopal event. Mr. Boczer thereafter experienced a sudden cardiac death on July 8, 2002, due to a ventricular arrhythmia, an abnormal heart rhythm often associated with syncope.
The plaintiff brought suit maintaining that the primary cardiologist committed malpractice by not referring Mr. Boczer for an electrophysiology study (EP study) to assess whether the case of his initial syncope was due to a ventricular arrhythmia. Had the EP study been done prior to discharge from the hospital, all experts agreed it would have likely demonstrated that Paul Boczer had experienced a ventricular arrhythmia which led to his June 22, 2002, passing out incident. Had that taken place, he would have had a defibrillator surgically placed which would have by all accounts successfully prevented the reoccurring ventricular arrhythmia which resulted in his death. The defendant denied responsibility indicating that it was appropriate to discharge the patient and obtain the test on an outpatient basis. Defense experts testified that it was not a violation of the standard of care to proceed in this fashion and that the doctor provided appropriate medical care by arranging for a referral to an electrophysiologist on an outpatient basis.
Plaintiff's experts maintained that discharging the patient subjected him to a reoccurrence of the ventricular arrhythmia before a definitive diagnosis and appropriate medical management. Since Mr. Boczer had underlying structural heart disease, plaintiff's experts argued that there was a high likelihood that his original syncopal event was caused by ventricular arrhythmia and that by discharging him, he might experience a reoccurrence of this ventricular arrhythmia at any time which could very well expose him to a sudden cardiac death. After deliberating for a day and a half, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff finding fair damages in the amount of One Million Two Hundred Thousand ($1,200,000) Dollars.
Kelly McCurdy vs. Christopher Lachmund and System Engineering
NNI-CV-01-0278180-S
Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at Meriden
Tried to Verdict on August 22, 2002
Plaintiff's Attorney: James G. Williams
Defense Attorney: O'Connor, Redd, Gollihue, and Sklarin, LLP
White Plains, New York
The plaintiff, Kelly McCurdy, was a college student who had obtained a summer job for the Department of Environmental Protection Wildlife Division in Burlington, Connecticut. She would help the State collect bird specimens for testing for the West Nile Virus. On September 5, 2000, she was returning from the Health Department at UConn, Storrs, where she had dropped bird specimens off for testing and traveling westbound on Interstate 84 when she slowed her vehicle to accommodate heavy traffic conditions in front of her. A vehicle behind her proceeded at a high rate of speed causing a rear-end collision with the McCurdy vehicle. As a result of the impact, Ms. McCurdy was transported via ambulance to Saint Francis Hospital where she was treated complaining of neck and upper shoulder pain. She was discharged with a diagnosis of a cervical sprain and received conservative treatment involving evaluation, therapy, and medication management under the direction of Doctor Dudek, an orthopedic surgeon in the community in which she lived. She reached maximum medical improvement with conservative treatment and was assigned a four (4%) percent impairment of the cervical spine. Her total medical expenses equaled $7,631.06. The parties negotiated the claim toward attempting to reach a resolution. The plaintiff demanded $12,500. The defendant offered $12,000. Plaintiff's counsel, James G. Williams, refused to budge indicating that his position was reasonable. After trial, the jury awarded the sum of Sixty One Thousand Six Hundred Twenty One Dollars and Eight Cents ($61,621.80) plus prejudgment interest and costs. Attorney Williams refused to accept the settlement offer despite the fact that the parties were within $500 of a resolution indicating that the position was reasonable and that the interest of his client demanded that the jury hear Ms. McCurdy's story.
Robert Denes vs. Allstate Insurance Company
NNH-CV-98-0418681-S
Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven
On January 11, 2000, Robert Denes, a local chiropractic physician, was operating his 1993 BMW four door automobile in Cheshire, Connecticut, southerly on Coleman Road when the vehicle was struck by another motor vehicle operated by an underinsured motorist. After bringing a lawsuit against the underinsured motorist, and collecting the available policy limit, Doctor Denes did not believe he was fully compensated and brought a claim against his own insurance company, the Allstate Insurance Company, seeking underinsured motorist benefits under the policy of insurance issued to him. The Allstate Insurance Company denied the claim maintaining that Robert Denes was the negligent party that caused the accident and that they were not obligated to pay any money under the underinsured motorist policy because Mr. Denes had been more than adequately compensated by the minimal policy available to the tortfeasor. The jury disagreed. On September 24, 2002, after considering all evidence, a New Haven jury awarded Doctor Denes the sum of One Hundred Forty Thousand ($140,000) Dollars determining that the value of the case not only exceeded the money collected by the tortfeasor but the One Hundred Thousand ($100,000) Dollar underinsured motorist coverage available through Allstate's policy.
Joseph Pajor vs. Town of Wallingford
Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, at New Haven
NNH-CV-94-366807-S
Joseph Pajor was a resident of the Town of Wallingford, Connecticut, and had proceeded to the Wallingford Town Hall in order to pay his electric bill. At the time of the accident it was snowing out and Mr. Pajor was walking on a public sidewalk toward the entrance to the Town Hall when he slipped and fell sustaining a trimalleolar fracture of his left ankle. The plaintiff maintained a claim against the Town of Wallingford under what's known as the Highway Defect Statute, to wit, Connecticut General Statutes, Section 13a-149. Mr. Pajor contended that he could not see an ice condition under the fresh blanket of snow and that it was the hidden ice that led to his fall. After deliberating on April 11, 1996, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Pajor in the amount of Seven Hundred Thousand ($700,000) Dollars.
Nancy Dembiczak vs. John Doe, M.D.
NNH-CV-91-0325659-S
Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven
Plaintiff's Attorney: James G. Williams, Esquire
Facts: Jury awards woman patient $1.8 Million after a hysterectomy left one of her kidneys non-functioning.
In September of 1998, a Superior Court jury awarded a Meriden woman $1 million in damages in a malpractice suit against her gynecological surgeon. The panel of four women and two men deliberated over three days before delivering the verdict, which is to exceed $1.8 million with added prejudgment interest. The lawsuit stemmed from a botched hysterectomy completed by a Wallingford gynecologist in March of 1990 that left the patient with a permanently non-functioning kidney. Plaintiff's counsel maintained that during the course of the hysterectomy and removal of the uterus, the doctor sutured the ureter, a tubular structure which allows urine to travel from the kidneys to the bladder. As a result of an obstruction of the ureter, her kidney becomes non-functioning. The woman had lived without knowing her kidney was non-functioning until it was picked up on an x-ray evaluation undertaken for unrelated medical reasons. Plaintiff's counsel reports that this happens frequently as people live their entire lives sometimes without recognizing obstruction to the genitor-urinary system. This is supported by statistical studies which often demonstrate women with non-functioning kidneys at autopsy.
Gynecological surgeons need to identify ureters during the course of these procedures and make sure they are out of harms way before clamping suturing in the general area of the anatomy as the structures are extremely close to that portion of the anatomy which is being removed during the hysterectomy procedure. Defendant's experts denied responsibility for the loss maintaining that the plaintiff's kidney was not lost due to a surgical suturing but rather caused by a medical condition known as endometriosis within the ureter. The plaintiff's experts maintained that the area of the obstruction was exactly where the operative gynecologist would be tying off ligaments and that the nature of the obstruction was consistent with the type of obstruction one would see through a surgical error. Plaintiff's experts further maintained that these injuries can be avoided through proper inspection prior to closure and in this case should have been recognized during the immediate post operative period given the plaintiff's complaint of flank pain.
John A. Radziunas vs. Harbor Health Services, Inc.
NNH-CV-02-0462946-S
Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven
Plaintiff's Attorney: Mongillo, Insler & Virgulto
Defendant's Attorney: James G. Williams, Esquire
Facts: The plaintiff John A. Radziunas, age 51 and at the time of the accident, a lawyer and counsel for the plaintiff's office, was operating his vehicle easterly on West Main Street in Branford, Connecticut, on March 2, 2000. He claims he was rear ended by a motor vehicle operated by an employee of Harbor Health Services. That employee maintains that the impact collision was low and did not produce the significant injuries which the plaintiff was claiming. The plaintiff, Mr. Radziunas, maintains that he sustained an eleven (11%) percent permanent partial impairment to the cervical spine and was permanently limited in his ability to engage in his normal activities of daily living. He contended that he was unable to continue training dogs, an activity which he had done for the vast majority of his adult life. Attorney for the plaintiff, Thomas Virgulto, made pretrial demands which Attorney Williams thought were unreasonable. Acting on behalf of his client, Attorney Williams denied responsibility for any damages secondary to the accident maintaining that the impact could not possibly have produced the extent of injury and limitation maintained by the plaintiff. After trial, the jury agreed. After judgment, the case was withdrawn with no voluntary payment of any money damages being awarded to the plaintiff.
Attorney Williams maintains his advantage in the litigation field by offering his services to both injured plaintiffs and the defendants against whom legal actions are brought as well as their insurance carriers.
At Williams, Walsh & O'Connor, LLC, the attorneys firmly believe that by representing both sides to the controversy, they develop a much better understanding of the opposing counsel's position and are better equipped to handle the case on behalf of their clients, irrespective of which side they are on. "We firmly believe that our practice which involves representing legitimately injured people as well as individuals against whom claims are frivolously pursued, offers an advantage to our client base. We always know what the other side is thinking and it helps to have a realistic appreciation of where they are going to go with their case so that we can stay one step ahead of opposing counsel during the litigation process."
