(00:00) Hi everybody. This is Arcatie Fman. I'm a New York City [music] personal injury trial attorney. And today we're going to do something really interesting. We're going to go through some verdicts from the [music] verdict search. And we're going to do it in the states and cities where we get [music] the most comments in our YouTube channel.
(00:19) So that's places like New York, California, Michigan, Texas. [music] So let's get into it. and we're going to do it for traumatic brain injury as well as back injuries like [music] herniated discs including back surgeries. Those are probably the most common cases we get. [music] So, um yeah, what kind of cases and what kind of numbers can a jury put on a case uh [music] when a company treats someone like even a child like [music] an afterthought and treats safety as an afterthought? Well, let's start with this case. This is actually a
(00:51) big case. This was an 8-year-old boy and he sued a company called Continental and this happened in Michigan and there was a jury verdict in July of 2026 and the verdict was for $896 million in present value $250 million with interest. So, the story was an eight-year-old on a STEM camp field trip to Continental's Auburn Hills headquarters, and the kids were supposed to watch a Ford Mustang prototype test from a video feed in a conference room, but the room was double booked, so they got put trackside about 10 ft from the car. The two experienced
(01:30) test drivers scheduled that day were both out of town. So, a third driver who was qualified refused the job. And then Continental used a 22-year-old employee with three months on the job whose main driving background was go-karts. And there was some safety features on the car were switched off for the demo.
(01:55) The driver lost control, struck the boy and another child. So what happened was the plaintiff said that look this was an unsafe viewing setup. There was an unqualified driver, a disabled safety feature on the car. They did no risk assessment whatsoever. They violated the bailment agreement with Ford. The car was only cleared for brake [music] testing.
(02:22) And the defense said the damages was were just excessive. The kid can still work and live normally. The future medical is closer to [music] 1.6 6 million, not 200 million. And Continental admitted negligence a month before trial. So this was a pure [music] damages fight. So the number breakdown was that past medicals were $558,000.
(02:45) Future medicals were $199 million. Future lost earnings were 41 million. 41.9 million. Past non-economic was 100 million. and future non-economic was 554 million for a total of 896. The jury deliberated only an hour after a 3-week trial was 80. So when a company hands the fight on liability, the entire case becomes about the size of the number and juries go big when the story is this clean.
(03:16) Also worth mentioning that his father separately won 2 million 2,66,000 on a bystander claim from watching it happen. So yeah, that was a terrible case, but a big big verdict. And now case number two was a New York case. And uh what happened was let's come home to New York. This is a Brooklyn case. And it's a perfect example of how labor law 240 and 241 work in our favor.
(03:43) So, the case was uh a lawsuit by someone named Henry against a company called King's Logistics Center, [music] an LLC, as well as some other defendants. And the jury verdict also happened [music] in July of 2026. And the number here was 17,394,000. So, the story was that a construction worker was installing a temporary step at a Brooklyn site in August of 2021, and he testified that his foreman denied his request for a lifeline and told him to tie off to a scaffold beam instead.
(04:22) [music] So, there uh and the scaffold beam was installed a few steps uh that way. And he couldn't [music] reach the next anchor point, so he unhooked to move up and he fell 14 ft. So, both sides agreed. And here were the arguments. The plaintiff said, "This is a classic labor law 240, elevation hazard.
(04:42) [music] There's no proper safety device. The summary judgement should be granted before trial on both 240 subsection 1 and 2416." So that the whole trial was only about damages only. The defense said imaging is right after the fall showed nothing beyond a head laceration. Their orthopedic and neurosurgery experts found no objective injury and they said he was exaggerating.
(05:06) So let me tell you what happened next. So the injury now it's really important to talk about what the injury is here. It's a traumatic brain injury with cognitive and memory problems, depression, anxiety. There was a herniated disc [music] at C4C5 L3 L4 L5S1. a meniscus tear, a shoulder labum tear, cervical fusion with plate and screws [music] in 2022, a lumbar microisquctctomy in 2025, a life care plan [music] projected a future lumbar fusion, shoulder arthoroscopy, and possible revisions.
(05:40) And the number breakdown was as follows. Future medicals were 1.3 [music] million. Past lost earnings were 264,000. Past pain and suffering was 2.5 million. Future pain and [music] suffering for 30 years was 9 million. Future lost earnings were 2.955 million. [music] And the wife's derivative claim for loss of consortium was 1 million for a total of 17,394,365.96.
(06:09) [music] So this is the move. Once liability is locked up on summary judgement under 240, [music] the defense has nothing left but to attack the medicine. and the good teaching moment on why the labor law is so powerful for construction workers in New York because you know if you have the labor law you have liability locked up then it all becomes about damages that argument that [music] it's um he's not that hurt or whatever or he's exaggerating that usually does not fly if you just show all the evidence and you show [music] the human
(06:38) story as well. Let's go to the third case. It's a New York case as well. The roof collapse settlement. Here's one that never even made it to a jury because once liability is locked sometimes the city just writes [music] the check. This was a case someone named Alvin against the city of New York and the New [music] York City School Construction Authority.
(06:55) This was in Kings which is Brooklyn and it happened in May and the number was 6 million and this is from the city alone. Other defendants settled confidentially. So what is the story here? What are the facts? And as [music] best handler working at a Brooklyn junior high school in July of 2019, he fell through the roof about 20 ft [music] into a classroom, hit his head on a desk.
(07:22) A,000 lb machine fell with him. >> [music] >> The injuries were blunt trauma to the head, chest, pelvis, cervical, spine, herniations at C3, C4, C4C, C5, C5, C6, L4, L5, hip labum tear, torn ligament in his hand, bilateral shoulder instability, [music] a perccutaneous disquectctomy was done in 2020, then a full anterior lumbar interbody fusion in 2023, and he never returned to [music] work.
(07:52) The defense argued that the injuries were preexisting, that the surgery [music] was unnecessary and it didn't matter. This was immediated settlement after summary judgement on liability, which the plaintiff won. So this is your, you know, why we push for summary judgement on liability as fast as possible. So basically, if you get summary judgement on liability, that's when the defendants come to the table and they're going to pay you like 6 million or a big number, right? And that's what happened here.
(08:22) You had liability on uh summary judgement. So then the city's own risk calculus does the rest of the work and then it's settled. So the fourth case is also a New York case. A pedestrian hit by a rolling bus. There's no lost wages and it still got 12.5 million. So, the next one matters if you're worried your case isn't big enough because you didn't lose income.
(08:45) [music] And, you know, I see that a lot. In fact, some judges say, you know, case can't be worth a certain number if you don't have lost wages. [music] And look, this proves it's not true. This is a case with uh somebody named Nicholas and he sued [music] the New York City Transit Authority. This happened also in May of 2026, right in Brooklyn as well in Kings County and it was 12.5 million.
(09:06) Now, how did it happen? an auto parts assistant manager working on a car that was parked in a Brooklyn driveway. In June of 2017, an MTA bus parked and left unattended rolled backward and struck the car he was under, then [music] hit two more cars. The injuries were a herniated lumbar disc at L4 L5, a bulging disc at L3L4, [music] neck, shoulder, knee limbs were dropped, fully resolved by trial.
(09:33) Only the lumbar injury was tried. The fusion at L4 L5 was in March of 2019. There was a laminctomy, a festctomy, [music] and a for menottomy. So, multiple surgeries. The defense argued he didn't meet New York's no fault serious injury threshold, that the injury was degenerative from living his life, not from this incident.
(09:57) [music] The numbered breakdown was future medicals were 200,000. Past pain and suffering was 4.3 million. Future pain and suffering for 41.5 [music] years was 8 million. So the total was 12.5 million. So again, he'd gone back to work. He withdrew his lost earnings claim entirely. This is pure pain and suffering value [music] on a single level fusion.
(10:26) If someone calls in worried [music] their case is worthless because they're still working, this is your answer. you know, you could still get big numbers for pain and suffering, and they did it here. So, the fifth case, also a New York case, the painted alleyway and the high low agreement. [music] So, this was a case, this one's a um a good chance to explain [music] something callers ask about all the time and what's a high low agreement.
(10:53) So, this case is someone named Amelia and she's suing 1971 [music] Grand Housing Court and this is in the Bronx and it happens in uh you get a jury verdict and it's also in May of 2026. The number was 5 million. The verdict was 1 million was paid because of a high low agreement. So 5 million was the verdict, but only 1 million gets paid because of the high low.
(11:17) So the story is this. It's a 65-year-old nursing assistant. [music] She slips on a slanted oil painted rain wet alleyway in the Bronx [music] heading to do laundry in June of 2022. The defendants concede liability before jury [music] selection. So, it's damages only. The injuries are a traumatic brain injury, concussion, postconussion syndrome, a herniated lumbar disc at L4 L5, a partial rotator cuff tear, a [music] perccutaneous disquectctomy in 2023, four plus years of injections, and the number is the jury found 5 million in
(11:58) damages, but the parties had already agreed [music] to a $500,000 low, right? [music] And a $1 million high [snorts] or ceiling. [music] So what happens is no matter what, right? If you get zero, you get 500. If you get 100 million, you get 1 [music] million. You're between those parameters, the high and the low.
(12:18) So they had that 500 1 million. [music] And so the verdict came in, she recovered the 1 million even though, you know, she shouldn't have done the high low, right? Then she would have gotten 5 billion. It's a lot more than one, but I guess she wanted to protect something. [music] They thought maybe she's going to get nothing, right? And that way you get 500 as the floor.
(12:36) [music] So it protects you in case the jury says, "You know what? I don't believe you know this is from the fall or it's degenerative or whatever argument they make. It's [music] not caused by the fall." And then they dismiss it, right? Or they give you 50,000, right? You still get half a million.
(12:51) So that that way you're protected, but then your upside is also limited. Case number six is also a New York case. The four men and everything the defense threw at him. And the last New York case for today, and this shows you exactly what the defense will dig up on you if you don't have a clean record. So this case is called Aryan or the first name is Aryan and he's suing a construction company.
(13:18) He's suing a bunch of people, construction company, management company, housing development fund company, but this is in Kings County, which is Brooklyn as we know, right? >> [music] >> So, this is a jury verdict also in May of 2026 and the verdict is for $1,727,021. So, a pretty significant verdict. Now, here's the story.
(13:39) A plumber foreman slips on [music] an oil and grease near a forklift in a dimly lit area of a Brooklyn construction site [music] in June of 2019. And what happens are the injuries are a medial meniscus tear with cartilage damage at L4 L5 lumbar injury. MRIs were read inconsistently. Some has herniations.
(14:02) Some has bulges, [music] but he's got those lumbar or lower back injuries. Arthroscopic knee surgery was done in 2020, a lumbar laminctomy in 2022, [music] a lumbar fusion in 2024. Never worked as a plumber again. So, a lot of lost wages here. The defense argued, they basically said it's the good part, right? The back injury was degenerative, tied to his weight because he [music] was a 300 lb guy and his smoking, right? Three to four packs a day, diabetes, [music] high cholesterol.
(14:34) So they argued psychiatric claims were completely unrelated. [music] And the number breakdown as it came from the jury was as follows. The medicals, the past medicals were $339,66. [music] The past lost earnings were $928,912. The past pain and suffering was 1.2 million. The future medical for 35.7 [music] years was $2,367,177.
(15:03) The future pain and suffering for 35.7 years was 1,800,000. And the future lost earnings for 23 years was $5,91,326 [music] for a total of 11,72721. [music] Right? $727,000. So the demand was $6.75 million. The offer was $750,000. That gap is why this went to trial. The defense threw the kitchen sink at [music] his credibility lifestyle.
(15:33) The jury still gave him basically his full ask. So there's also a bad faith subplot worth mentioning. the primary insurer refused to [music] tender the 2 million policy. So now the excess carriers are suing the primary carrier because of that. Right? So that's an interesting uh case. We could maybe dive into that deeper about that bad faith component.
(15:54) And then case number seven is another mega verdict and it's a school bus and the surveillance footage. Here's one where the defense pulled out video of the guy mowing his lawn and it still backfired on them and how did that happen? Like what was the story here? So this is a case the guy's name is Brian.
(16:14) [clears throat] He's suing basically the uh first student incorporated right in Michigan. And this was a jury verdict and it happened in May of 2026. And it was also a big number. It was 32 million. So what's the story here? What happened was he was an HVAC worker broadsided by a school bus [music] making an illegal Michigan left through a red light.
(16:39) March of 2024, right? [music] The bus hits him. It ricochets off, hits him a second time, forces his truck into a guard rail. The bus driver initially told her employer she had a green light, but admitted at trial that was false. The injuries were a closed head injury [music] with traumatic brain injury, postconussion syndrome.
(17:00) There are disc protrusions and [music] an annular tear at L3 L4, L4, L5, three-level lumbar fusion in March of 2026. He's still recovering at trial. Neurogenic bowel and bladder. Lost his job in November of 2025. So, very, very serious injuries. Now, the defense argues this is these injuries are pre-existing.
(17:23) The plainif is exaggerating and they played a surveillance footage of him mowing his lawn plus evidence he traveled abroad after the crash. Right? So, that's all they had. And the plainif countered by saying, "Look, the travel happened, but he didn't enjoy it. The lawn mower was a self-propelled model. He wasn't even pushing it.
(17:48) He still has to do his chores. It's propelled by itself. So, the numbers came back from the jury as follows. Past lost earnings were 17,235. Past pain and suffering was $6 million. Future wage loss through 2052 was $4,46,816. future pain and suffering through 2070 was $21,951,932 for a total of $32,375,000. So, this is your surveillance rebuttal moment, right? It ties directly into the pain science material we've covered in other videos.
(18:28) A person doing some activity on camera isn't proof they're fine. The jury clearly agreed here. The demand [music] was 10 million. The offer was 750,000. the jury gave more than triple the demand. So, really good result here. And uh case number eight, [music] and this is where a fusion was recommended and the jury barely paid for it. And uh let's flip it.
(18:51) Here's a case with real [music] injuries and real surgery where the number came in way below what anyone expected. Good to know before you get your hopes up, right? This is a case by somebody named Jose and he's suing a bus company. And this is in Harris County, Texas, which [music] is Houston, I believe. And the jury verdict comes in in May of 2026 and the number is $1,47,500 and it's [music] against an 8 to10 million demand.
(19:17) So the plaintiff's attorney thought the case is worth up to 10 million, [music] but the jury only gave 1.4. So what's the story? A chemical plant scheduler [music] struck when a tornado bus company bus changed lanes into him [music] in a construction zone in June of 2022. of the car rolled pinned against the retaining wall.
(19:37) The defense stipulated to the driver's [music] negligence but argued he was going too fast for the construction zone. The injuries are a claimed TBI, herniated cervical lumbar thoracic discs [music] recommended for both a cervical fusion and ACDF anterior cervical disquectctomy [music] and fusion and a lumbar fusion only underwent the lumbar fusion in April of 2025. extensive years long workup.
(20:03) There's a diffusion tensor imaging DTI. [music] There's neurosych testing. There's a QEG, right? But what sank the number? [music] The defense called his own supervisor to testify. He showed no TBI symptoms and was highly [music] articulate at work. The defense objected to Pliff's kind of reptile theory closing arguments and the objections were sustained.
(20:26) [music] The jury was told to disregard and only one of the two recommended fusions was ever performed. So the number breakdown was as follows. Future medicals were 1 million. Physical impairment including past and future was only 100,000. Physical pain past and future was 200,000. Mental anguish past and future was 100,000.
(20:52) The wife's consortium claim was only 7,500 for a total of 1,47,500. So, this is a real lesson for anyone watching who thinks a recommended surgery automatically means a big number. He had one surgery was recommended another. He had this TBI claim, but because his own supervisor came, this is what I would do as a plaintiff, right? I would call my supervisor or somebody like a co-orker, a friend, a neighbor, but to say that he is a different person, right? But here, the plaintiff's attorney didn't do that.
(21:18) They didn't call anybody to talk about how he actually was. And instead, the defense was smart and they subpoenaed this supervisor. I guess they interviewed him and the supervisor for whatever reason was either going to just like tell the truth if that was the truth or maybe didn't like him and wanted to just like, you know, hurt him at trial.
(21:35) I don't know what the story was, but the supervisor comes in and says, "No, he doesn't have any TBI. He's completely fine." That's going to kill the case, right? Cuz why would the supervisor be lying? He has no skin in the game. He's just like a independent guy. So, it's very powerful, but it could also be used for the defense as you saw here, right? So, be careful with that. The next case is also from Texas.
(21:53) This is Dallas. This is a $12.5 million uh result against a $1.2 million ask. And what happened here is somebody got broadsided at an intersection in Garland. January of 2021, disputed signal accounts on both sides. There's a claimed TBI with vertigo, tonitis, insomnia, migraines, memory issues. But there were two major treatment gaps.
(22:17) Nothing from February to June of 2021 and nothing from July to March of 2022. I'm sorry, July 2021 to March 2022. [music] Right. So, the defense argued the second round of testing starting in mid 2022 was litigationdriven. Noted an unrelated neck strain from bathing a child in 2023.
(22:39) a high school history of migraines, 15 out of 16 score on a mental status exam, [music] and suggested to the jury to award 9,462 to $19,952 as a high. That's their range, right? 9,400 to 19,900. [music] Essentially nothing for the brain injury, right? The result was the jury split fault 50/50 [music] and they awarded $25,86 almost all past medical and [music] reduced to $12,543 net.
(23:14) So, this is the number one thing to tell anyone watching who thinks [music] they're fine, so why bother going to the doctor? If you stop treatment for months at a time, the defense will [music] use every single gap against you and juries listen. So, this case, yeah, it's settled. I mean, the verdict was only $12,000. [music] I'm sorry. I must have said something.
(23:31) I think I said 12 million. I thought it was I made a mistake. I thought it was 12 million on the screen, but no, it was only $12,000. So, this was like a low low result. Anyway, that's today's cases. [music] If any of this sounds like what happened to you, drop your injury type and your county in the comments below.
(23:50) And either tomorrow or, you know, in a few days, I'm going to go live and I'm going to pull real verdict data and give some of you real answers. So, you tell me your case, right? Your injury, your county, [music] your city, um whether you, you know, have a lawyer or not. I guess that doesn't really matter [music] for this.
(24:06) What I could do is I could do a damages search and then tell you what other people have obtained in your [music] city uh with the same injuries for the similar kind of case like if you have a car crash or slip and fall or whatever the case may be. So these are like the categories that we were talking [music] about like past and future medical actual and anticipated treatment cost and future lost earnings.
(24:28) This is [music] wage loss, salary loss to date and projected past and future pain and suffering [music] usually the largest line item driven by permanency, surgery count, credibility, physical impairment, functional loss distinct from pain, [music] mental anguish, sometimes tracked separately from pain and suffering depending on [music] your state's uh pattern jury instructions.
(24:48) Disfigurement, which is scarring, loss of consortium services, which is a spouse's derivative claim, right? And then [music] household services, the value of chores the injured person can no longer do. So these are some of the categories that we can go into. Okay everyone, uh please like and subscribe to our channel.
(25:05) Let us know what questions you have. We are here for you. Our goal is helping serious injury victims and families.