New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial District Upholds a $3.16 Million Verdict Related to a Patient’s Stroke

ByBlaire Fellows
Document that reads Medical Lawsuit

The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial District has upheld a jury’s decision to award $3,160,561.55 in a lawsuit against an emergency room doctor and a Long Island hospital, which was accused of failing to prevent a patient’s severe stroke by failing to obtain a complete patient history and as a result, was unable to diagnose the patient with a transient ischemic attack correctly, and that these departures from accepted medical practice proximately caused injuries to the patient. The appellate panel concluded that the jury’s verdict was justified and not excessive based on the evidence presented.

A four-judge panel from the Appellate Division affirmed the Nassau County jury’s findings against Dr. Michael R. Mendola and a triage nurse from St. Joseph Hospital. They were accused of overlooking signs of patient Paul Chicoine’s stroke when he visited the emergency room complaining of dizziness and vomiting. Instead, they diagnosed him with vertigo and dehydration and subsequently discharged him.

The lawsuit claimed that the triage nurse did not obtain a complete medical history and that Dr. Mendola failed to recognize Chicoine’s transient ischemic attack, also known as a mini-stroke, which might have prevented a full stroke that occurred eight days later at home.

The jury ruled in favor of Chicoine and his wife, who also sued the healthcare providers for loss of services. They found Mendola responsible for 55% of the fault, while the hospital was found liable for the remainder. This led to an initial award of $2.65 million that was later increased to $3.16 million.

In their appeal, the defendants contended that the $1.8 million awarded for Chicoine’s past and future pain and suffering, along with his wife’s $350,000 for past and future loss of services, were excessive and not supported by the evidence. However, the appellate panel disagreed, stating that the jury’s award was well-supported.

The panel stated, “…there was a rational process by which the jury could have found that St. Joseph departed from accepted standards of medical practice by failing to obtain an appropriate patient history for Paul, that Mendola departed from accepted standards of medical practice by failing to diagnose and treat Paul’s TIA, and that these departures proximately caused Paul’s injuries.”

Additionally, the appeals court dismissed the defendants’ claim that the awards were too high, noting that the compensation for pain and suffering was reasonable.