At a Glance
Summary: Plaintiff claimed a mild traumatic brain injury/post-concussive symptoms and a nasal fracture. He claimed submitting to a nasal surgery and experiencing headaches, fatigue, issues with concentration, and visual complaints.
Case: Beer v Equinox Holdings, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 30243(U) (Sup Ct, NY County 2026)
Court: Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.)
Injury Described: Traumatic brain injury and nasal fracture
Jury Award Challenged: $0 past pain and suffering; $2 million future pain and suffering over 27 years; $106,435 future medical expenses
Challenge: The plantiff sought increases; the defendants sought remittitur and, alternatively a new trial.
Result: $200,000 additur for past pain and suffering; $2 million future award; and $106,435 future-medical award left intact.
A Verdict with an Internal Tension
The plaintiff alleged that she sustained a mild traumatic brain injury and a nasal fracture when she slipped and fell in an Equinox locker room. She described headaches, fatigue, concentration difficulty, dizziness, visual strain, and residual nasal sensitivity. Her treating physician performed nasal surgery. The brain-injury proof was sharply disputed: defense experts cited normal imaging, normal testing, and the plaintiff’s continued high level of work, travel, and exercise.
The jury awarded no past pain and suffering, $2 million for future pain and suffering over 27 years, and $106,435 for future medical expenses. Both sides challenged the verdict from opposite directions.
The Court’s Category-by-Category Review
Justice Cohen concluded that zero compensation for past pain could not be reconciled with the traumatic impact, immediate symptoms, and nasal treatment. The court ordered a new trial on past pain and suffering unless the defendants stipulated to an additur of $200,000.
The court nevertheless preserved the $2 million future award. The jury could rationally credit ongoing but relatively modest symptoms while rejecting a permanent, disabling brain injury. It likewise upheld the $106,435 future-medical award, which reflected only a small part of the plaintiff’s life-care plan and the jury’s right to accept some treatment needs while rejecting others.
Claims and Litigation Lesson
Beer demonstrates that material-deviation review is category specific. A court can increase one component, preserve another, and reject a multimillion-dollar life-care projection without treating the verdict as an all-or-nothing package.
For claims professionals, the practical lesson is to evaluate past pain, future pain, and future care separately. A highly functional plaintiff may still recover for persistent symptoms, but a life-care plan built on diagnoses the jury rejects may be reduced to the limited services the jury finds credible. For trial counsel, any claim that the verdict is internally inconsistent should be raised before the jury is discharged, even though inadequacy or excessiveness may remain reviewable afterward.
Related Post
Verdict Value Day: Second Department Cuts TBI Award from $4.93 Million to $1.75 Million
Verdict Value Day: $13 million for Pain and Suffering in Labor Law § 240(1) Fall
Photo Credit: Carolina Heza