In a significant ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided on May 6, 2026, in the case of Hichak v. Grand Plumbing, Inc. (Docket No. 2024-02659). The court addressed the personal injury claims of Nicole Hichak against Grand Plumbing, Inc. and its driver, Jose Orellana-Lainez. This decision is crucial for individuals involved in similar personal injury cases, as it clarifies how courts interpret jury verdicts regarding serious injuries and damages.
The case arose from a vehicle accident on December 17, 2018, when a vehicle owned by Grand Plumbing and operated by Orellana-Lainez struck Hichak's car. Following the accident, Hichak claimed she suffered serious injuries, including exacerbation of a pre-existing condition in her cervical spine. She subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking damages for her injuries.
During the trial, evidence was presented showing that the accident led to severe symptoms requiring surgical intervention, including a two-level discectomy and other medical treatments. The jury found that Hichak sustained a serious injury under the category of "significant limitation of use of a body function or system," but did not find that she met the criteria for "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member" or "significant disfigurement." The jury awarded her $15,000 for past and future pain and suffering and medical expenses.
After the jury's verdict, Hichak moved to set aside parts of the verdict that she believed were contrary to the weight of the evidence. Specifically, she contested the jury's findings regarding the serious injury categories and the adequacy of the damages awarded. In an order dated February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court granted her motion, setting aside the jury's findings on the two categories and ordering a new trial on those issues.
The defendants, Grand Plumbing and Orellana-Lainez, appealed the Supreme Court's decision. The Appellate Division, which included Judges Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, William G. Ford, Deborah A. Dowling, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez, reviewed the case. The court ruled that the Supreme Court erred in setting aside the jury's findings regarding the serious injury categories and in ordering a new trial.
The court stated, "The various categories of 'serious injury' as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d) are read in the disjunctive... A jury's finding that the plaintiff sustained an injury within any of the categories... satisfies the no-fault threshold, thereby eliminating that issue from the case and permitting the plaintiff to recover any damages proximately caused by the accident."
The court emphasized that since the jury found Hichak sustained a serious injury under one category, it eliminated the need to consider the other categories. This ruling is significant because it reinforces the principle that a jury's determination on serious injury can impact the entire case, allowing for recovery of damages without needing to prove every category of serious injury.
Additionally, the court found that the jury's award of $15,000 was inadequate given their finding of a serious injury. The court noted that such an award could not be reconciled with the jury's determination and was thus set to be re-evaluated. The court highlighted that while jury awards are typically respected, they can be set aside if they deviate materially from reasonable compensation.
This ruling has implications for future personal injury cases in New York. It clarifies that a jury's finding of serious injury under any category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) allows plaintiffs to recover damages for their injuries, simplifying the legal process for those injured in accidents. This decision may encourage more individuals to pursue claims, knowing that a finding in one category can support their case.
The court's ruling also serves as a reminder of the importance of jury verdicts in personal injury cases. It underscores the need for juries to carefully consider the evidence presented and the implications of their findings on damages awarded.
As for what’s next, the defendants can seek further appeal of this decision to a higher court, although the ruling from the Appellate Division stands for now. There are no related cases mentioned in the court filing.