Learn About Our Recent Personal Injury Cases

$27,000,000.00 Construction Accident Settlement (approximately $20,000,000 present value). The action was based on Labor Law Sec. 240 and 241(6) claims, and the injuries included a traumatic brain injury (TBI), as well as various orthopedic injuries. The Plaintiff underwent wrist surgery and a procedure to address the facial fractures. Defense IME experts questioned that Plaintiff sustained a TBI and the extent thereof. Defense experts opined that the Plaintiff made a good recovery. With respect to the TBI claims, one defense IME expert stated that the Plaintiff's cognitive function was essentially the same before and after the accident. The plaintiff's experts and treating physicians opined that the accident resulted in a disabling TBI and other conditions and that his clinical presentation was consistent with radiological findings, which included encephalomalacia. The plaintiff was an undocumented laborer. Summary judgment on liability was granted to Plaintiff on his Sec. 240 and 241(6) claims. The action settled at the second round of mediation.

A worker died in a tragic construction accident when an improperly secured load of steel joists/beams fell from a loading fork of a crane, knocking him a scaffold and then falling on top of him, at which point he was pinned to the concrete floor of the construction site. The force of the impact and weight of these steel joists/beams resulted in catastrophic blunt injuries. Sadly, this worker, who was a father of six and a husband, died within hours of the incident. Evidence introduced by plaintiff established that the decedent was conscious and experienced pain and suffering for over 40 agonizing minutes. Mr. Shapiro relied on the opinions of multiple medical doctors to establish how the injuries sustained resulted in severe pain and, ultimately, suffocation. The court awarded $2,000,000 for pre-impact terror experienced by the decedent and $7,500,000 for the period of conscious pain and suffering. In addition, the court awarded over $1.5million for the pecuniary losses to decedent’s family.

The sad facts of this case illustrate, yet again, how corners are cut at construction sites and workers to save on costs, particularly undocumented residents as the decedent was in this case, are not provided with the proper safety devices that are mandated by law.

Worker fell off the roof of a one-story building. Plaintiff asserted various violations of applicable safety laws, including labor law. Damages involved in the action included pelvic and other fractures, as well as TBI. The defense maintained that Plaintiff made a reasonable recovery under the circumstances and had sufficient function to continue using his cell phone independently. Our office retained multiple medical experts, neurologists, orthopedist, psychiatrist, and life care planners, who were expected to testify that the Plaintiff was disabled for the rest of his life and required assistance from home attendants. The case settled at mediation after being placed on the trial calendar.

$9,350,000 settlement in a wrongful death case involving minutes of conscious pain and suffering.

Over $9,200,000.00 award in a case where primary injuries involved a mild TBI and ankle fractures.

$6,250,000.00 settlement in a construction accident case involving fall at work and primary injuries included mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and ankle fractures.

$6,250,000.00 settlement in a construction accident case involving an undocumented laborer.

$6,000,000 settlement in a premises liability action.

$5,250,000.00 settlement in an elevator accident action.

$3,500,000.00 settlement in an action involving an undocumented day laborer where Plaintiff contended 3-6 min of conscious pain while the defense expert disputed that there was any conscious pain and suffering given the nature of the injuries. The decedent fell while dismantling pallet racks in a warehouse. Defendants sought to dismiss LL Sec. 240(1) and 241(6) claims on the basis that there was no construction in process and that the worker was not engaged in a covered activity. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the Sec. 240(1) and 241(6) claims, arguing that dismantling the shelving fixture constituted demolition within the meaning of the Labor Law. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability was granted. The pecuniary losses in the action were limited because the worker did not have any dependents and had no documented history of earnings, as income tax returns were never filed. The defense maintained that the sustainable value of compensation for pain and suffering for such a limited amount of time was greatly limited by the case law, while the Plaintiff's counsel argued that this action could be distinguished from prior precedent and that there is an upward trend in the sustainability of awards. The case was settled during mediation.

$3,000,000 settlement in a case where a traffic stop proved deadly. A couple of NYS law enforcement officers attempted to pull a car over for a traffic violation when this vehicle, which happened to be stolen, fled from them. In the course of fleeing from the officers, the vehicle struck and killed a bicyclist, who died virtually immediately at the scene. The driver of this stolen vehicle was never arrested for this incident. An action was commenced against the state on the basis that the law enforcement officers acted negligently and recklessly in commencing a high-speed pursuit within NYC streets, thereby endangering the public. The law enforcement officers denied ever commencing a pursuit, but investigative efforts undertaken by Mr. Shapiro uncovered video footage evidencing the pursuit. The defendant further argued that they could not be held liable because it was not the law enforcement vehicle that struck the bicyclist. Instead, his death was caused by the independent actions of criminals who were driving a stolen vehicle. The defense also invoked the protection of a certain law that provides qualified immunity to law enforcement officers, which most often bars any recovery for the plaintiff. Until the very end of the case, the defendant took the position that this is a "no-pay" case because, according to the defense, there was no basis whatsoever for establishing liability against them. Nevertheless, despite the high burden placed on the plaintiff, this action settled on the eve of trial for $3,000,000.

Our client has received a $2.5 million settlement and a waiver of an approximately $400,000 workers' compensation lien in a case involving a construction site accident with a fall from a height. This settlement was achieved despite the defendants only having $2 million in insurance.

$1,750,000 settlement in a construction accident involving a fall of about 8 feet where the defendant denied even being the proper party and injuries included ankle fracture and certain other conditions not noted in the original hospital admission.

An undocumented construction worker, who was not provided with the necessary fall protection, died as a result of falling from the roof. The worker became unconscious after the fall and did not regain consciousness before his death. An action was commenced against the property owner and general contractor. The case involved a one-family home, so the defense invoked the liability exclusion available to owners of one to two family homes under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6). With respect to the general contractor, there was a complete disclaimer of any insurance coverage by the insurance carrier of the general contractor, who had a one-million-dollar insurance policy limit. Excess insurance carrier likewise disclaimed any insurance coverage. As a result, in addition to the action commenced by Mr. Shapiro in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Mr. Shapiro also represented the estate administrator of the decedent in a related action in federal court where the issue was the validity of the insurance disclaimer. With respect to the federal court disclaimer action, Mr. Shapiro argued that the subject disclaimer was invalid because of, among other things, that the insurance exclusion on which it was based was ambiguous and unenforceable. Insurance carrier, of course, disputed this position. During the pendency of both actions, the parties were able to negotiate a settlement.

Mr. Shapiro obtained this settlement for a bicyclist hit by a sedan. Primary injuries included pelvic fractures.

A woman in her 70s purchased a freshwater fish from a retailer in Brooklyn. The fish was not farm-raised and harvested in the wild. After thoroughly cooking the fish, the woman developed kidney failure. She was hospitalized but the physicians were unable to identify the cause of her condition. Her kidney function was restored, but several weeks after the initial hospital admission, she developed a stroke, which led to her death. After the unfortunate death of this woman, her son cleared her refrigerator and brought food to his own house, including the fish. Like his mother, our client also developed kidney issues after consuming fully cooked fish and went to the same hospital where his mother was last treated. At that point, the physicians suspected the fish as the culprit, and samples were sent to an FDA lab. The lab was not able to identify any toxins in the fish, but physicians suspected a condition known as Haff’s disease, which is caused by a thermo-resistant toxin that is yet to be identified.

A civil action was commenced against the retailer and the fish distributor, asserting claims for products liability, breach of implied warranties, and violations of New York’s Agriculture and Markets Law. Defendants argued that there was no test available in existence today to detect this toxin, that the fish was wild-caught and that they had no responsibility for what happened.

In response, Mr. Shapiro argued that the fish industry should establish tests to detect this toxin and protect the public and that by selling the product defendants impliedly represented that the fish was safe to eat. After Mr. Shapiro prepared a summary judgment brief, this highly disputed case settled at mediation for $1,000,000. Multiple experts were retained for this action by Mr. Shapiro, including a neurologist, nephrologist, urologist, and a doctor of chemistry.