A jury awarded $6.4 million to a 23-year-old plaintiff who underwent separate knee and ankle surgeries after stepping into a sidewalk hole. The plaintiff sustained no fractures.
How much of the verdict survived?
In McLaurin v Walcott, the Supreme Court, Kings County, reduced the award to $2.89 million—or approximately 45% of the jury’s verdict.
At a Glance
Summary: The Supreme Court, Kings County, reduced a $6.4 million damages verdict to $2.89 million for a plaintiff who sustained ligament tears in her ankle and a lateral-meniscus tear in her knee, underwent two surgeries, and faced progressive post-traumatic ankle arthritis and additional treatment.
Court: Supreme Court, Kings County
Decision Date: August 7, 2026
Case: McLaurin v Walcott, 2026 NY Slip Op 51226(U) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2026)
Injuries: Left-ankle internal derangement and joint effusion; tears of the anterior and posterior talofibular ligaments; a partial deltoid-ligament tear; and a left-knee lateral-meniscus tear.
Treatment: Separate knee and ankle surgeries, physical therapy, and home exercises.
Jury Award Challenged: $6.4 million—$1 million for past pain and suffering, $5 million for future pain and suffering over 50 years, and $400,000 for future medical expenses over 50 years.
Result: A new damages trial unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the award to $2.89 million—$700,000 for past pain and suffering, $2 million for future pain and suffering, and $190,000 for future medical expenses.
What Happened?
On May 6, 2018, Chantel McLaurin was walking to a store on New Lots Avenue in Brooklyn when she stepped into a sidewalk hole. Her left ankle turned inward, and she fell.
McLaurin was 23 years old and had no prior knee or ankle injuries or activity restrictions. A jury later found the abutting property owner negligent and McLaurin free from fault.
The damages trial focused on injuries to two joints:
- An internal derangement and joint effusion in the left ankle;
- Tears of the ankle’s anterior and posterior talofibular ligaments;
- A partial tear of the ankle’s deltoid ligament; and
- A lateral-meniscus tear in the left knee.
McLaurin did not sustain a fracture. She nevertheless underwent left-knee surgery in May 2019 and left-ankle surgery in July 2020. She also received physical therapy and continued exercises at home.
The Competing Medical Proof
The plaintiff’s treating foot-and-ankle surgeon testified that McLaurin had developed post-traumatic osteoarthritis that would worsen over time. He anticipated that she would need:
- Two additional ankle arthroscopies at $30,000 each;
- A total ankle replacement or ankle fusion costing approximately $80,000;
- An MRI every two years at $1,500 per study;
- Cortisone injections;
- Anti-inflammatory medications, including steroids; and
- Additional physical therapy.
The defense orthopedist reached a much different conclusion. She testified that McLaurin had sustained an ankle sprain, the condition had resolved, and the examination was normal.
The jury credited the treating surgeon. The court emphasized that choosing between conflicting experts was the jury’s function. The defense could challenge the amount of the award, but it could not obtain remittitur merely because its expert offered a less serious diagnosis.
The $6.4 Million Verdict
The jury awarded:
- $1 million for past pain and suffering;
- $5 million for future pain and suffering over 50 years; and
- $400,000 for future medical expenses over 50 years.
The total award was $6.4 million.
The defendant moved under CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict or reduce the damages. He argued that the awards were excessive and that the future-medical award was speculative.
The Court Reduced the Verdict to $2.89 Million
The court ordered a new damages trial unless the plaintiff accepted the following reductions:
- Past pain and suffering: $1 million to $700,000;
- Future pain and suffering: $5 million to $2 million over 50 years; and
- Future medical expenses: $400,000 to $190,000 over 50 years.
The permitted total was $2.89 million.
The court measured reasonable compensation against awards in comparable cases, consistent with the material-deviation standard in CPLR 5501(c). The absence of a fracture did not make the injuries minor, but the nature and extent of the proof did not sustain $6 million for pain and suffering.
The decision also drew a line between a medically supported need for future care and the amount supported by the evidence. The treating surgeon identified at least $177,500 in future costs: $60,000 for two arthroscopies, $80,000 for an ankle replacement or fusion, and $37,500 for MRIs over 50 years. His testimony about injections, medication, and therapy supported some additional recovery. The court therefore permitted $190,000—not the jury’s $400,000.
Counsel’s Summation Did Not Cap the Jury
Plaintiff’s counsel requested $200,000 in future medical expenses during summation, but the jury awarded $400,000. The defense argued that the verdict could not exceed counsel’s request.
The court rejected that argument. A lawyer’s suggested number is not evidence, and the jury is not formally capped by it.
That did not save the entire award. The medical testimony supported $190,000, so the court reduced the verdict to the amount grounded in competent proof.
This distinction matters. A summation request may be persuasive, but the evidentiary ceiling is ultimately set by proof of the need for and cost of future care.
How the Court Used Comparable Awards
The decision surveyed awards involving ankle, knee, foot, wrist, and lower-extremity injuries. Three comparisons are especially useful:
- In Deflorio v County of Nassau, the Second Department sustained $1 million for past pain and suffering and $2.25 million for future pain and suffering where a police vehicle crushed the plaintiff’s ankle.
- In Rendon v White Castle Systems, Inc., the Second Department reduced pain and suffering to $350,000 past and $400,000 future where the plaintiff sustained ankle ligament and tendon tears, underwent surgery, and was expected to require two additional procedures.
- In Castillo v MTA Bus Co., the Second Department sustained $500,000 past and $1 million future for knee meniscus tears requiring arthroscopic surgery with the prospect of a future knee replacement.
No single comparator duplicated McLaurin’s injuries. The court treated the combined knee-and-ankle surgeries, the plaintiff’s young age, progressive arthritis, future procedures, and 50-year period as collectively significant. At the same time, it distinguished more serious crush injuries and fully disabling conditions.
That is the proper way to use comparable awards. The analysis should not stop at a shared body part or the fact of surgery. It should compare the mechanism, objective injury, treatment, permanency, prognosis, function, age, and duration of the award.
Key Holding
A $6.4 million award for non-fracture knee-and-ankle injuries requiring two surgeries materially exceeded reasonable compensation. The court found $2.7 million reasonable for past and future pain and suffering and limited future medical expenses to $190,000 because the balance of the jury’s $400,000 award was not supported by competent cost evidence.
Practice Impact for Claims Professionals and Trial Lawyers
1. Surgery is important, but it does not decide value by itself
McLaurin underwent two surgeries, and her treating doctor anticipated more treatment. Those facts supported a seven-figure recovery. They did not make a $5 million future pain-and-suffering award sustainable.
The valuation should address what the surgery repaired, what symptoms remain, whether function improved, and whether future deterioration is supported by objective proof.
2. Value the combined effect of multiple injuries
An ankle-only comparator may undervalue a case involving both ankle and knee surgery. Conversely, a crush injury, spinal fusion, or inability to work may exaggerate the reasonable range.
Build the comparison around the plaintiff’s total functional loss, but identify why cases with more severe injuries do not control.
3. Calculate future medical expenses line by line
Do not wait until summation to test the future-care claim. Create a schedule listing each proposed service, its frequency, unit cost, duration, medical necessity, and evidentiary source.
The court accepted the treatment prognosis but rejected the unsupported excess. That is a useful defense model: concede only what the competent proof supports and isolate the speculative remainder.
4. A treatment gap needs a medical explanation
The plaintiff did not return to her treating surgeon between 2020 and August 2025. The defense argued that the gap undermined the severity of her claim.
The treating surgeon explained that her condition had stabilized and that additional treatment during that period would not have helped. The jury was entitled to accept that explanation.
A treatment gap is most useful when the defense combines it with evidence of improvement, inconsistent complaints, resumed activities, lack of objective deterioration, or an absence of a credible medical explanation.
5. Audit the defense medical proof before trial
The defense expert testified that the ankle sprain had resolved and the examination was normal. But her earlier and later reports contained different causation language concerning the ankle surgery.
Before the expert takes the stand, compare every report, addendum, deposition answer, diagnostic study, and operative record. Any concession or change in opinion will affect how the jury evaluates the competing medical narratives.
6. Start the sustainable-value analysis early
The jury returned its damages verdict in less than an hour. Once a jury accepts the plaintiff’s medical narrative, the defense may be left seeking remittitur after a headline award.
An early damages assessment should identify:
- The controlling Appellate Division;
- Comparable sustained and reduced awards;
- Meaningful factual distinctions;
- The provable cost of future care;
- The plaintiff’s functional recovery and remaining limitations; and
- The realistic post-trial range.
That analysis should inform reserves, settlement authority, mediation, expert selection, trial strategy, and the preservation of a CPLR 4404(a) motion.
What This Decision Does—and Does Not—Establish
McLaurin is a reported trial-court decision, not an Appellate Division ruling. It does not establish a binding Second Department value for every knee-and-ankle case.
It is nevertheless useful because it explains the reduction category by category, identifies the medical proof supporting future expenses, and collects appellate comparators. Claims professionals can use it as a research starting point, but any valuation should be checked against the latest appellate authority and the specific plaintiff’s proof.
Questions Answered
How much did the jury award in McLaurin v Walcott?
The jury awarded $6.4 million: $1 million for past pain and suffering, $5 million for future pain and suffering over 50 years, and $400,000 for future medical expenses.
How much did the court permit the plaintiff to recover?
The court ordered a new damages trial unless the plaintiff stipulated to $2.89 million: $700,000 past pain and suffering, $2 million future pain and suffering, and $190,000 future medical expenses.
Did the plaintiff sustain any fractures?
No. The plaintiff alleged ligament tears in the ankle and a lateral-meniscus tear in the knee. She underwent separate knee and ankle surgeries.
Does a plaintiff’s summation request cap the jury’s award?
Not under this decision. The court explained that counsel’s suggested figure is not evidence and does not formally limit the jury. The award must still be supported by competent evidence.
What proof is required for future medical expenses?
The plaintiff must offer competent evidence establishing both the need for future care and its cost. An award based on treatment that may become necessary only if a future condition develops is speculative.
Is McLaurin binding appellate precedent?
No. It is a Supreme Court, Kings County decision. Its value lies in its detailed evidentiary analysis and collection of comparable appellate awards.
Sources
- McLaurin v Walcott, 2026 NY Slip Op 51226(U)
- CPLR 4404
- CPLR 5501
- Deflorio v County of Nassau, 247 AD3d 1138 (2d Dept 2026)
- Rendon v White Castle Systems, Inc., 241 AD3d 1373 (2d Dept 2025)
- Castillo v MTA Bus Co., 163 AD3d 620 (2d Dept 2018)
More Verdict Value Day
- Verdict Value Day: First Department Approves Nearly $48 Million in Catastrophic Bus-Injury Case
- Verdict Value Day: $13 Million for Pain and Suffering Survives in Labor Law § 240(1) Fall
- Verdict Value Day: Second Department Cuts TBI Award from $4.93 Million to $1.75 Million
- Browse every Verdict Value Day analysis