Oden v. Chemung County Indus. Dev. Agency , 87 N.Y.2d 81, 83-84, 637 N.Y.S.2d 670, 661 N.E.2d 142 (1995) ; Stowlowski v. Bellew , 89 A.D.3d 549, 549, 933 N.Y.S.2d 232 (1st Dep't 2011) ; Johnson v. New York City Tr. Auth. , 88 A.D.3d 321, 327-28, 929 N.Y.S.2d 215 (1st Dep't 2011). SeeKromah v. 2265 Davidson Realty LLC , 169 A.D.3d 539, 541, 95 N.Y.S.3d 36 (1st Dep't 2019). Therefore defendant is not entitled to any further disclosure, but is entitled to a hearing, where the burden will rest on defendant to show, through the interpretation of these bills by a witness with personal knowledge or other admissible evidence, that collateral sources have paid or are available to pay a specific amount of the $480,000 in medical expenses awarded by the jury.
There was also medical testimony that plaintiff developed traumatic arthritis as a result of the accident. This court has sustained greater awards in similar cases (seeKromah v. 2265 Davidson Realty LLC, 169 A.D.3d 539, 540, 95 N.Y.S.3d 36 [1st Dept. 2019] ). The award for future medical expenses was supported by the testimony of one of plaintiff's treating physicians, which the jury was entitled to credit (seeColeman v. City of New York, 87 A.D.3d 401, 928 N.Y.S.2d 23 [1st Dept. 2011] ).
There was also medical testimony that plaintiff developed traumatic arthritis as a result of the accident. This court has sustained greater awards in similar cases (see Kromah v 2265 Davidson Realty LLC, 169 A.D.3d 539, 540 [1st Dept 2019]).
In addition, plaintiff never explained why he stopped those treatments, and relies only on Dr. Bender's general statement that "[i]n any case where there is an injury like this, it is necessary that you have ongoing care, physical therapy, passive movement, things to keep contractures from happening " Because the absence of the foregoing treatment for years demonstrates a lack of necessity for such treatment in the future, the jury award as to those projected treatments should be set aside (see Kromah v 2265 Davidson Realty LLC, 169 AD3d 539, 541 [1st Dept 2019];Hyatt v Metro-North Commuter R.R., 16 AD3d 218, 219 [1st Dept 2005]). However, in view of plaintiff's proof that he had been taking Neurontin instead of Percocet, which is similar in price, the award for future need for painkillers should remain.
There was also medical testimony that plaintiff developed traumatic arthritis as a result of the accident. This court has sustained greater awards in similar cases (see Kromah v 2265 Davidson Realty LLC, 169 A.D.3d 539, 540 [1st Dept 2019]). The award for future medical expenses was supported by the testimony of one of plaintiff's treating physicians, which the jury was entitled to credit (see Coleman v City of New York, 87 A.D.3d 401 [1st Dept 2011]).
The court agrees with the plaintiff that the Appellate Divisions have, on several occasions, sustained verdicts between $2.5 million and $6.1 million in cases in which an injured plaintiff established that he or she suffered from CRPS or RSD (see e.g. Kromah v 2265 Davidson Realty LLC, 169 AD3d 539 [1st Dept 2019] [$6,100,000 for past and future pain and suffering]; Brown v Reinauer Transp. Cos, 67 AD3d 106 [3d Dept 2009] [$3,700,000]; Serrano v 432 Park S. Realty Co., LLC, 59 AD3d 242 [1st Dept 2009] [$2,500,000]; Hernandez v Ten Ten Co., 102 AD3d 431 [1st Dept. 2013] [$1,000,000 for past pain and suffering over 8 years and $2,166,666.67 for future pain and suffering over 25.8 years]).