X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
When Robin Hairston, a cleaner for the Metro-North Commuter Railroad, filed a claim against the railroad alleging that she injured her back on the job, Metro-North followed a common defense tactic: It hired a private investigator to videotape her daily activities. The railroad hoped, of course, that she would show no sign of injury. Instead, the investigator brought back footage of Hairston going to her doctor’s office, getting into a car with assistance from a nurse and, according to her attorney, using a walker “like your grandmother would.” Metro-North decided not to show the tape to the jury. But nothing stopped Hairston’s attorney from doing so. After learning of the tape during discovery, solo practitioner Philip J. Dinhofer opted to use it to impeach a defense witness. Metro-North objected on several grounds, but Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Richard F. Braun found for the plaintiff. “Defendant was hoisted by its own petard in videotaping plaintiff,” wrote the judge, paraphrasing “Hamlet.” A jury subsequently issued a verdict for the plaintiff for $242,000. Because the jury found Hairston 50 percent culpable, the award was reduced to $121,000. Hairston v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 400659/98. With videotaping on the rise, defense attorneys are increasingly in danger of hoisting themselves a la Hairston. Ten percent to 15 percent of personal injury defendants hire investigators to tape plaintiffs, estimated Robert Vilensky, a plaintiffs attorney with Ronemus and Vilensky. “It’s so easy to do these days. Everyone’s got a video camera,” he said. “It doesn’t take that much effort. Clearly, it’s being used more and more.” Plaintiffs attorneys therefore make a habit during discovery of including a request for all such tapes. Among tort suits, cases alleging back injuries invite videotaping more than others. “If someone loses their leg, you can surveil until the cows come home, and the leg is still not there,” said Christopher McGrath, a personal injury and medical malpractice expert with Sullivan, Papain, Block, McGrath & Cannavo. Thus the rarity of videos in medical malpractice cases, he said. Insurance companies see back injuries, which are difficult to prove or disprove, as perhaps the most common source of fraud. In perhaps one-fourth of videotapes, the defense is damaged by its own videotape, according to McGrath. “It goes both ways,” he said. “You’re obligated to turn over all videotape surveillance material. When the doctor says the person can walk, it’s all fair game.” ACCIDENT LEAVING TRAIN Hairston’s injuries occurred in the early hours of Jan. 29, 1997, after she cleaned a train car at the North White Plains Station. When exiting, she slipped and fell, injuring her back. She suffered a herniated cervical disc for which she underwent fusion surgery, according to Dinhofer. She also experienced post-operative spurring of the vertebrae above and below the fusion, resulting in severe degenerative arthritic conditions, he said. Hairston sued seeking $2 million under the Federal Employees Liability Act, which provides negligence protection to railroad employees (not just federal employees, as the name seems to imply). Metro-North hired an investigator to tape Hairston, according to Dinhofer. “Defendant did not offer the tape into evidence during the nine day trial before this court and a jury,” wrote Justice Braun in a summary of his ruling. “Presumably, that was because the tape showed plaintiff going through her life’s activities using a walker.” When Dinhofer sought to admit the tape into evidence, Metro-North objected on several grounds. It argued, among other things, that the videotape was hearsay and that its prejudicial content outweighed its probative value. Braun disagreed. “The videotape had no sound other than static. Plaintiff did not commit any nonverbal acts that constituted hearsay,” wrote Braun. “Thus, the hearsay objection was overruled.” The judge added that the proper standard in judging evidence entails “not prejudice but undue prejudice,” citing People v. Buie, 86 NY 2d 501. “Here, the videotape was not unduly prejudicial to defendant but rather was probative of plaintiff’s damages claim.” Both sides orally moved to set aside the jury’s verdict; Justice Braun dismissed the motions. Dinhofer, who called the finding of 50 percent contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff “ridiculous,” intends to file a written motion to set aside the verdict by Wednesday, he said. Jose Rios, Metro-North’s attorney, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.