Lo, and behold I have another case for your review. Please feel free to give
your opinion (for a worthy cause), Now that we have established (hopefully)
that this psychologist is not crazy enough to perpetuate a fraud on a site for
fraud investigators, I hope you can give me your valued opinion.
I will donate $5 per opinion to the Schiff liver institute
Thanks in advance,
Plaintiff’s Statement of the Facts
The Plaintiff, a laser eye surgeon from New York, was a passenger
on a Cruise Ship attending a medical seminar. On April 29, 2000, the
Plaintiff stepped from carpeting onto a wood floor just outside the seminar
conference room and slipped and fell, injuring his wrist. The wood floor on which the
Plaintiff slipped was coated with a very slippery substance with the result
that it was dangerously slick. In fact, approximately one hour and 20 minutes
before the Plaintiff’s fall, the seminar coordinator slipped and nearly fell
in the same area. There were no cones or signs warning of the slippery
condition of the floor. After her slip, the seminar coordinator immediately reported
the dangerous condition to the cruise line but the cruise line did nothing to
address the problem before the Plaintiff’s fall. After the Plaintiff’s fall,
the cruise line cordoned off the area of the fall.
The Plaintiff partially tore a ligament in the wrist of his
dominant hand. Although the Plaintiff still has use of his wrist, he experiences
pain on certain movements. Due to the delicate hand and wrist motions which
his occupation as a laser eye surgeon requires, the wrist injury has
significantly impacted his ability to perform certain surgical procedures (operations).
The Plaintiff has decided against having surgery on his wrist because a
surgeon has stated that he does not think that wrist surgery will fix the problem
and could possibly even worsen it.
The Plaintiff is a very high wage earner. His income was
$1,870,500.00 in 1998; $1,800,000.00 in 1999; $2,200,000.00 in 2000 (the accident
occurred on April 29, 2000); $1,500,000.00 in 2001; $1,800,000.00 in 2002; and
$1,850,000.00 in 2003. His 2004 tax return is currently unavailable. At the
time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s surgical practice had not peaked and was
on the upswing. The tax returns show that his income has declined since the
accident. This is supported by the records which show a decline in certain
surgical procedures performed by the Plaintiff after the accident which were
affected by his wrist injury.
Specifically in the 12 months before this accident, the Plaintiff
performed 2,916 of the effected procedures for total fees of $1,980,000.00.
In the first 12 month period following his accident, the Plaintiff performed
1,963 of these procedures for total fees of $1,351,000.00. In the second 12
month period following his accident, the Plaintiff performed 1,780 of these
procedures for total fees of $1,160,000.00. In the third 12 month period
following the accident, the Plaintiff performed 2,060 procedures for total fees of
$1,299,000.00. In the fourth 12 month period following the accident (through
April 22, 2004), the Plaintiff performed 1,982 procedures for total fees of
$1,142,000.00. These numbers show that the affected procedures have dropped
significantly following the accident as well as the income generated by those
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The Plaintiff was running late to the seminar which was underway
and allegedly slipped and fell on the floor outside of the seminar room. His
claimed fall was unwitnessed. The Plaintiff testified that he did not observe
any foreign substance on the floor or on his skin or clothing after the
Upon entering the seminar room, the Plaintiff did not report that
he had fallen or was injured to the coordinator at the sign-in desk when he
signed in. The seminar coordinator testified that she did not recall anything
unusual about the Plaintiff when he signed in. The Plaintiff did not seek
immediate medical attention but instead sat through the seminar.
The Plaintiff sustained a very minor injury to his wrist. The
x-rays performed were negative. The MRI showed a very small partial tear of a
ligament in the wrist. In fact, the Plaintiff did not miss a single day of
work as a result of the minor injury to his wrist.
The Plaintiff admittedly can do everything with his wrist after
his fall that he could do before the fall. There are no surgical procedures
that the Plaintiff could perform before the injury that he can no longer
perform. He has full range of motion in the wrist. He refused arthroscopic surgery
which his doctor testified could alleviate the occasional pain which he claims
to experience in the wrist. He can perform all of the wrist motions
necessary to the eye surgeries that he performs. The pain that he sometimes claims to
feel in his wrist can also be addressed with medication.
The Plaintiff still works fulltime in his surgical practice
performing thousands of procedures a year. The Plaintiff’s income in the years
after the claimed accident is virtually identical to his income in the years
before the accident, in the close to $2,000,000 per year range.
PROBLEM AREAS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
(1) The Plaintiff anticipates that the Defendant cruise
line will deny that it was warned of the slippery condition of the floor before
the Plaintiff’s fall. The Defendant claims that if the floor was, in fact,
wet and slippery, the Plaintiff should have noticed it and avoided it or
proceeded more cautiously.
(2) The wrist injury is a relatively minor injury. The
Plaintiff resumed his surgical practice full time, performs thousands of
surgeries a year and has on average made about the same money since the accident as
he made in 1999, the year before the accident took place.
PROBLEM AREAS FOR THE DEFENDANT
(1) The seminar coordinator testified that she slipped and
nearly fell before the Plaintiff did and immediately reported the dangerous
condition of the floor to the cruise line.
(2) The fact that the person who sustained the wrist
injury is a laser eye surgeon who requires highly refined coordination and delicate
movements of the hand and wrist.
(3) The records showing a decrease in the numbers of
certain surgical procedures performed by the Plaintiff after the accident.
(1) Was the Defendant negligent?
(2) Was the Plaintiff negligent?
(3) How much in damages would you award to the Plaintiff,
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]