SEAN SEGOTA, plf-ap, v. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW YORK def-res

15421. SEAN SEGOTA, plf-ap, v. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW YORK def-res — Sacks & Sacks, LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for ap — Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., New York (Dinesh Dadlani of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered November 10, 2014, which denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict to the extent it awarded him $60,000 for past pain and suffering and $0 for future pain and suffering, future medical expenses, and future lost earnings, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted to the extent of remanding the matter for a new trial on the issue of damages.

This matter proceeded to a trial on damages after plaintiff, a 44-yearold carpenter who fell 14 feet from a wall while working at the World Trade Center construction site, was awarded summary judgment on a claim under Labor Law §240(1). Plaintiff’s doctor testified at trial that plaintiff suffered a traumatic disruption to the Lisfranc joints in his right foot, an injury that tends to cause the surrounding tarsal or metatarsal bones to fracture or become dislocated, rendering the foot unstable. The doctor performed surgery on plaintiff’s foot, using screws to compress the surfaces of the two bones together so the bones would fuse into a single bone. He testified that the surgery initially showed successful results and that he gave plaintiff permission to resume work after approximately four months. Plaintiff resumed working, but after two weeks he was too uncomfortable to continue. The doctor recommended that he take some more time off. Four months later plaintiff again attempted to resume working but could not. Again the doctor confirmed that the bones had fused as planned. However, plaintiff continued to complain of significant pain, and the doctor, after realizing from an x-ray that a bone spur had formed in the foot, diagnosed traumatic arthritis, a progressive condition that would cause plaintiff pain for the rest of his life. The doctor ultimately recommended that plaintiff seek out job retraining and choose a more sedentary line of work.