Would you have appealed as a Plaintiff?

Personal injury cases often present difficult strategic decisions, particularly when a substantial verdict has already been secured at trial. The question of whether to appeal a favorable outcome becomes especially complex when weighed against the risks of potentially losing everything on appeal. This dilemma is perfectly illustrated in a recent Second Department case that raises important questions about appellate strategy and client expectations.

In personal injury litigation, trial courts sometimes reduce jury verdicts they deem excessive, leaving plaintiffs to decide whether the reduced amount is acceptable or worth the risk of appeal. The decision involves careful consideration of legal precedents, the strength of the appellate issues, and practical factors like the client’s immediate financial needs. Understanding how courts handle causation issues and damage calculations can be crucial in making these strategic decisions.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Nieva-Silvera v Katz, 2021 NY Slip Op 04144 (2d Dept. 2021)

Cervical fusion, arthroscopic surgery, verdict reduced to 2 million.

Plaintiff appealed and received another $570,000 from the Second Department. Would you have appealed for the extra $570,000?

I can tell you if I walked home with $2 million from a runaway jury after reductions at the trial court, I would have entered the appropriate judgment and said pay me. I think this was a bit piggish, unless the client was screaming and saying the reduction was unfair and demanded an appeal.

As I always say – what do I know?

Key Takeaway

This case highlights the challenging decision personal injury attorneys face when deciding whether to appeal an already substantial verdict. While the plaintiff ultimately succeeded in obtaining an additional $570,000, the risk of losing the entire $2 million award on appeal makes such decisions particularly difficult and heavily dependent on client wishes and case-specific factors.

The strategic considerations in cases like this are similar to those faced in New York no-fault insurance disputes, where practitioners must weigh the potential benefits of continued litigation against the certainty of a settlement or existing award.