Decision: DiCarlo v Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2026 NY Slip Op 04836 (2d Dept Aug. 5, 2026)
At a Glance
Summary: The Second Department reduced combined pain-and-suffering damages for an epidural hematoma and persistent headaches from $4.93 million to $1.75 million
Court: Appellate Division, Second Department
Injury Described: Epidural hematoma, a traumatic brain injury requiring surgery; approximately 11-day hospitalization; persistent headaches.
Jury Award Challenged: $1.25 million past pain and suffering; $3.68 million future pain and suffering over 46 years.
Challenge: Defendants argued that both pain-and-suffering awards were excessive.
Result: A new damages trial unless the plaintiff stipulates to $750,000 past and $1 million future pain and suffering.
The Injury and the Verdict
A New York City bus struck the plaintiff while he was crossing Fulton Street. The impact caused an epidural hematoma, which the Second Department identified as a traumatic brain injury. The plaintiff underwent surgery and remained hospitalized for approximately 11 days.
At the damages trial, the plaintiff presented proof that he continued to experience significant headaches approximately five years after the accident. He testified that the headaches occurred several times each month, interfered with social and professional activities, prevented him from playing recreational soccer, caused him to avoid noisy settings, and forced him to retire from military service. He nevertheless remained employed full time as a data clerk. His neurosurgeon characterized the headaches as likely permanent.
The jury awarded $1.25 million for past pain and suffering and $3.68 million for future pain and suffering over 46 years. The defendants challenged both amounts as excessive.
The Second Department’s Reduction
The Second Department concluded that the awards materially deviated from what would constitute reasonable compensation. It ordered a new damages trial unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce past pain and suffering to $750,000 and future pain and suffering to $1 million. The combined pain-and-suffering award therefore fell from $4.93 million to $1.75 million.
The decision is a useful reminder that the seriousness of the initial injury does not by itself fix the value of noneconomic loss. Surgery, hospitalization, and an objectively serious brain injury supported a substantial award. But the plaintiff’s continued employment, independent functioning, and intermittent rather than constant headaches remained important valuation facts.
Claims and Litigation Lesson
For claims valuation, separate the medical label from the functional record. A traumatic brain injury requiring surgery may establish a high starting point, but work capacity, frequency of symptoms, independence, recreational losses, and the nature of continuing treatment can materially change the range of sustainable damages values.
For posttrial and appellate review, the decision also illustrates the importance of injury-specific comparables. The court did not deny that the injuries were serious. It concluded that the dollar amounts exceeded the range supported by comparable precedent and the plaintiff’s demonstrated level of function.
Photo Credit: Egor Litinov