Presenting VLW’s million-dollar jury verdicts of 2023

Each year, Virginia Lawyers Weekly compiles a feature that highlights the million-dollar verdicts of the prior year, usually run in late January.

Typically, there are between 15-20 jury verdicts reported to us where the jury awarded $1 million or more. In 2023, that number dropped slightly, as attorneys from around the commonwealth reported 14 million-dollar verdicts.

That was a decrease from the 18 verdicts reported to VLW in 2022, and up a couple ticks from the 12 reported in 2021.

When trial courts were closed for most of the year due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, only three verdicts of $1 million or more were reported to VLW. The number of million-dollar verdicts reported to us in 2019 was 17.

Our 2023 feature highlights the million-dollar jury verdicts we received, from a $6.1 million medical malpractice case from Loudoun County to a $1 million defamation case from Prince William County.

For comparison, the million-dollar jury verdicts we received in 2022 varied from a $15 million wrongful death matter from Charlottesville to a $1 million personal injury case.

Million-dollar verdicts reported to us in 2021 ranged from a $10 million medical malpractice matter to a $1 million personal injury case, while 2020’s top verdict was a $6.5 million recovery in a medical malpractice case. A $1 billion copyright infringement matter garnered top billing in 2019.

We thank the lawyers who sent in these reports, and we look forward to hearing from you this year.

Kelly Caplan

1. $6,146,575.34 — Patient had severe liver injury following improper prescription

Name of case: Barnes v. Loudoun Medical Group, P.C.

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Loudoun County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Travis W. Markley, Richard L. Nagle and Benjamin M. Wengerd, Reston

Michael S. Barnes was a 61-year-old liver transplant patient who presented to an orthopedic physician’s assistant (PA) with osteoarthritic pain in his knee. The PA prescribed him diclofenac, an NSAID that is more hepatotoxic than any other and should not be prescribed to patients with hepatic disease. The PA was unaware of the hepatotoxicity of the medication.

Within two weeks after the diclofenac prescription, Barnes became jaundiced. His liver function tests, which were mildly elevated at baseline, skyrocketed when tested approximately a month later. He was then hospitalized for more than a week, during which time he suffered hepatic encephalopathy and lost cognitive function. After a career as an international investment manager, Barnes had previously retired to a job in customer service at a local Harris Teeter for social engagement and to stay active. After this incident, he could not return to even that kind of work due to mental fog, fatigue, and short and long-term memory issues. Barnes was also briefly re-hospitalized for elevated liver function values on two subsequent occasions more than a year after the diclofenac prescription.

Plaintiff’s orthopedic PA and orthopedic surgery experts testified that the prescription of diclofenac to a liver transplant patient like Barnes breached the standard of care for a reasonably prudent orthopedic PA. Plaintiff also called a transplant hepatology expert, who testified that the improper diclofenac prescription caused Barnes’ elevated bilirubin levels, abnormal liver function tests, and inpatient hospitalizations. The transplant hepatologist also testified that the diclofenac caused the need to re-list Mr. Barnes for a second liver transplant. Although that listing had been changed to inactive status before trial, plaintiff’s expert testified that Barnes remains at meaningful risk for needing a second liver transplant in the future.

The case was vigorously defended on the grounds that although there are repeated references to hepatic effects of the medication in the prescribing information, there is no specific black box warning or contraindication that precludes the prescription of diclofenac to liver transplant patients. The defense presented testimony from Virginia orthopedic surgery and orthopedic PA experts that prescribing diclofenac to Barnes or any liver transplant patient would be well within the standard of care. The defense also presented testimony from a causation expert that the liver injury Barnes suffered was not due to the diclofenac prescription, but rather represented a recurrence and worsening of his underlying liver condition combined with chronic rejection of the previously transplanted liver.

On the fifth day of trial, Barnes requested a verdict of $4 million on slightly more than $225,000 in medical bills. After deliberations of approximately three hours, the jury awarded Mr. Barnes $5 million, as well as prejudgment interest from the negligent prescription date of Feb. 12, 2020.

2. $5 million (tied) — Loudoun County jury returns malicious prosecution verdict

Name of case: Winters v. Roque, et. al

Type of case: Malicious prosecution

Court: Loudoun County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Thomas K. Plofchan and Jacqueline A. Kramer, Sterling

On Feb. 10, 2023, after five days of trial, a Loudoun County jury awarded former Loudoun County school teacher Kimberly Winters $5 million in damages in her malicious prosecution case against Sheriff Michael Chapman and Deputy Peter Roque. In just over two hours, the jury found that Roque acted maliciously. The award included $350,000 of punitive damages.

In November 2018, Roque brought charges against Winters alleging that between Oct. 1, 2017, and Nov. 2, 2017, she had sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old former student in her home while she was in a custodial or supervisory relationship. In February 2019, the charges were dropped by the commonwealth’s attorney after a finding that the allegations could not be credibly corroborated.

Winters brought her malicious prosecution charge to hold Roque and Chapman accountable for disregarding her rights by failing to investigate and prosecuting on the mere allegations of a “confused and conflicted” 18-year-old and his mother who presented an unsubstantiated and inconsistent story. In closing argument during the trial, Roque’s attorney acknowledged that the complainant was a “confused and conflicted individual.” Roque’s malicious actions, Winters testified, “ruined her life.”

Winters’ accuser went to the Loudoun County Sheriff’s office on Oct. 24, 2018, and reported that during the spring of his senior year in high school, when he was 18, he began a sexual relationship with Winters in her home. During the interview, he reported that he texted and called Winters hundreds of times and that the two had hundreds of sexual encounters. He also alleged that the teachers and students at Park View High School could verify his alleged relationship with Winters. However, he openly admitted he had no proof to offer Roque because he had “wiped his phone” the week before approaching law enforcement. In her interview, his mother told Roque that she had records of all the phone calls, emails and text messages on her laptop at home.

Based on the Oct. 24, 2018, reporting, Roque originally determined no crime was committed because the complainant was a legal adult. The accuser returned to Roque one week later and changed his story, now claiming the alleged sexual relationship began the month before his 18th birthday, in October 2017. He could provide no evidence of phone calls or text messages or ever having been in Winter’s residence during that time.

Prior to bringing the charges against Winters, Roque failed to investigate numerous leads that could have identified exculpatory evidence and challenged the accuser’s credibility. Although Roque obtained the complainant’s cell phone for analysis, he did no investigation other than speak to the complainant’s mother, who accompanied him on both visits to LCSO.

Roque took no action to further investigate the allegations. He failed to interview any other persons alleged by the accuser of being able to corroborate his story and acknowledged “taking the mother at her word” before formally charging Winters.

At trial, Winters established that Roque improperly disregarded the factual inconsistencies of the complainant’s multiple stories. Roque also acknowledged that he never obtained any documentation or other proof of hundreds of texts or phone calls in October 2017 or any other evidence that could corroborate any allegation that the complainant had ever been to Winters house in 2017, let alone that they had sexual relations.

Winters also established that Roque lied on his police report, informing his superiors and the commonwealth’s attorney that the complainant confirmed the alleged dates of calls and texts alleged by his mother, when no such confirmation had been made.

Subsequent searches of Winters’ classroom and home produced no evidence supporting the allegations. Subsequent subpoenas of the complainant’s phone records revealed no communications during the time of the alleged sexual activity. After the arrest, when she was asked to produce the records from her laptop, the mother informed Roque that she had been “bluffing.” Based on the lack of evidence, the commonwealth’s attorney dismissed the case.

After Roque’s false statements were used to obtain the warrant for her arrest, Winters was arrested, stripped searched and forbidden from being in contact with minors. Her mugshot and the charges were published in print and television media, irreparably damaging her reputation and livelihood.

During trial, Winters elicited the testimony of her therapist who attributed Winters’ post-traumatic stress and anxiety to Roque’s bringing of the warrant. Winters did not seek damages resulting from no longer working as a teacher but sought damages for the reputational damage created by the publicity from the malicious arrest, which has prevented her from obtaining equivalent employment. Winters’ evidence established her economic loss at more than $2 million.

In addition, Winters asked the jury to determine that Roque acted with actual malice and to award her the maximum punitive damages permitted in Virginia, $350,000. She sought reimbursement for her expenses associated with defending her from the charge and damages for humiliation, embarrassment, loss of reputation, physical pain and suffering. The jury determined that Roque’s disregarding of Winters’ right to a thorough investigation and his misrepresentation to his superiors and the commonwealth’s attorney, and his lying to the magistrate were malicious.

2. $5 million (tied) — Breathing tube placed in esophagus, not trachea

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Chesterfield County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Jonathan M. Petty and Christopher P. Yakubisin, Richmond

This wrongful death case arising from medical malpractice involved care provided at Southern Virginia Regional Medical Center in Emporia. The decedent, 50, was rescued by first responders from a house fire. He had been trapped in his trailer and was found unconscious. He had been down for an unknown period, but regained consciousness at the scene after he was removed from the structure. He was transported to the emergency department where he was found to have inhalation injuries and carbon monoxide poisoning. The defendant emergency physician’s plan was to stabilize him and have him transferred to VCU for definitive care.

The defendant placed an endotracheal tube to protect the patient’s airway and deliver oxygen but removed it after several minutes when the oxygen saturations dropped. There is no documentation that the patient received any supplemental oxygen between the time of extubation and when he was reintubated 3-6 minutes later. Several minutes after he was reintubated, the patient suffered cardiopulmonary arrest. At some point prior to or during the resuscitation efforts, a chest X-ray was taken that showed the endotracheal tube was not in the trachea but was in the esophagus. As a result, oxygen was delivered to the patient’s stomach, not his lungs. The defendant physician never recognized that she had lost the airway, and the patient died.

At trial, the plaintiff presented expert testimony that it was a breach of the standard of care for the defendant to remove the endotracheal tube, which she had earlier confirmed was appropriately placed. As a result of the extubation and prolonged period without oxygen, the patient suffered hypoxic cardiopulmonary arrest. Because the second endotracheal tube ended up in the patient’s esophagus, resuscitation efforts were doomed to fail. The defense argued that the decision to remove the tube was reasonable, and that the patient was likely to die from the injuries sustained in the housefire regardless of any treatment.

The statutory beneficiaries were the decedent’s four adult children. There was no claim for economic loss. After three days of testimony, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $5 million, allocated equally among the children. Defendants’ post-trial motion to set aside the verdict was denied.

4. $3.5 million — Nurse unable to return to work after rollover crash

Name of case: Norman v. Leonard’s Express, Inc.

Type of case: Auto accident

Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division

Attorneys: Kevin W. Mottley and Benjamin P. Kyber, Richmond; Jonathan T. Wren and Robert E. Byrne Jr., Charlottesville

In this traumatic brain injury case, the plaintiff was a 54-year-old woman who was visiting her sister in Washington, D.C., for the holidays. On Dec. 28, 2019, she was travelling on Interstate 81 near Lexington, back to her home in Charlotte, North Carolina. She was a passenger while her son was driving, and her granddaughter was in the back seat. During their drive home, a truck driving without a trailer made an unsafe lane change and clipped the rear driver side of the plaintiff’s car, causing it to go airborne and flip multiple times before landing.

Plaintiff was transported via helicopter to Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital in Roanoke, where she was diagnosed with a concussion. She also suffered from a contusion and laceration to the right side of her face.

She was discharged from the hospital and stayed in a local hotel for a night before returning home to North Carolina. During her hotel stay, she began to suffer from common TBI symptoms such as nausea, sensitivity to light, blurry/double vision and headaches.

Plaintiff had no significant prior medical history or ongoing medical problems. She was a pediatric home health nurse for high-risk children who had tracheostomy tubes and was in the process of obtaining her registered nursing license. Upon returning home, she started seeking treatment for her ongoing TBI symptoms, specifically her chronic headaches and vision difficulties.

Weeks after the crash, she tried returning to work but had developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder such as nightmares and a fear of driving. Her employer accommodated her by arranging for rides to and from her patients’ homes using Uber. Eventually, her employer was no longer able to accommodate this routine and, as her symptoms persisted, her confidence in her ability to safely care for her pediatric patients declined.

Plaintiff moved back to her hometown, New Orleans. She was offered multiple nursing jobs at a large health care system due to her extensive experience in different nursing settings. Unfortunately, she struggled to keep up with her tasks and feared making mistakes due to her persistent headaches and vision problems. Because she was no longer able to perform at her previous level, she was terminated, which ended her 20-plus-year career as a nurse.

The defendant trucking company produced the data collected from the truck’s Omnitracs system as well as dash camera footage depicting the initial impact of the crash. The video footage shows the truck driver clipping the back of plaintiff’s vehicle, causing the sedan to dart across I-81 and into the median.

The trucking company admitted liability for this crash after nearly a year and a half of litigation, and the trial proceeded as to damages only. After four days of hearing medical evidence from numerous treating doctors at trial in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Roanoke, the federal court jury awarded plaintiff $3.5 million in compensatory damages for her injuries.

5. $3 million — Delayed diagnosis of infection led to permanent knee fusion

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Danville Circuit Court

Attorneys: Les Bowers, Charlottesville and Anthony M. “Tony” Russell, Roanoke

The plaintiff, age 63, fractured his kneecap and tore his patellar tendon on Aug. 1, 2018, when his vehicle came out of gear and rolled backwards. He went to the emergency room and was referred to defendant’s orthopedic surgeon. As this was a rather routine repair, defendant’s orthopedic surgeon scheduled the plaintiff for surgery in eight days. The plaintiff’s repair surgery on Aug. 8, 2018, was uneventful. However, on Aug. 15, the plaintiff’s knee looked red, swollen and warm to the touch, with significant pain. By Aug. 17, the redness, swelling, warmth and pain had all increased, and there was drainage from the knee, all of which indicated the presence of a joint infection. Defendant’s orthopedic surgeon evaluated the plaintiff and prescribed Bactrim, an antibiotic that is effective only for a superficial wound infection. Four days later, the symptoms substantially worsened.

After the plaintiff went to the emergency room, defendant’s orthopedic surgeon was called, and he took the plaintiff back to the operating room. Though defendant’s orthopedic surgeon suspected a potential joint infection, he only did a superficial incision and drainage. During that procedure, he found gross purulence in the superficial tissues, but he never inspected or tested the joint space even though he and his expert witnesses acknowledged that the joint space was permeable to an infection and the plaintiff was at increased risk of a joint infection for a variety of other reasons. Defendant’s orthopedic surgeon cultured the pus from the superficial tissues, and it returned positive for staph aureus (MSSA). Though the plaintiff had essentially all the hallmark symptoms of a joint infection and had numerous risk factors predisposing him for a joint infection, defendant’s orthopedic surgeon did not obtain laboratory studies that could indicate a joint infection, perform the “gold standard” test of aspirating fluid from the joint and culturing it, nor open the knee joint to drain it of any infection.

After the procedure, the patient was put on IV antibiotics. However, the orthopedic surgeon unilaterally discontinued the IV antibiotics at discharge three days later and restarted oral Bactrim. He admitted that Bactrim was not effective for treatment of a joint infection, and that if he had intended to treat a joint infection, he would have ordered different antibiotics. Despite never running any test to definitively rule in or rule out a joint infection, the orthopedic surgeon documented that he did not believe the patient had a joint infection.

The plaintiff improved somewhat, but he began to worsen again after his antibiotics ran out. His knee wound opened and began draining serous fluid, and the redness, swelling, and warmth returned. On Sept. 28, 2018, defendant’s orthopedic surgeon did the same thing and hoped for a different result, namely he took the plaintiff back to the operating room and did a superficial incision and drainage. Again, he did not open the joint to drain it, did not aspirate any fluid for culture, and did not obtain any laboratory studies. He placed a wound vac that would stay in place for over two months and discharged the plaintiff the same day without any antibiotics.

A few days later, the plaintiff’s nurses called due to concern about an infection and requested that he be seen or prescribed antibiotics. Neither occurred, and instead he was referred to physical therapy. Two days later, the plaintiff returned to the defendant, at which point the defendant’s orthopedic surgeon documented that the family was concerned about infection. Still, the defendant’s orthopedic surgeon gave no antibiotics and did not test the joint fluid. Over the course of October 2018, the knee wound had a “fist-sized hole in it.” By the end of October, tendons were visible through the wound and the surgeon said he might need to consult plastic surgery. Even still, there was no test for, diagnosis of, or treatment for joint infection. By the end of November 2018, the wound was spitting out sutures from the patellar tendon repair. Despite the plaintiff’s condition, defendant’s orthopedic surgeon was not concerned for a joint infection, nor a failure of the patellar tendon.

The plaintiff continued to suffer in December 2018 with pain and stiffness, while the superficial wound did begin to close. However, by mid-January 2019 the knee became red, hot, swollen, painful and was draining fluid, just like it had been in August 2018. The plaintiff’s primary care provider prescribed more Bactrim because that is what the defendant’s orthopedic surgeon had been giving and sent him back to defendant’s orthopedic surgeon for further evaluation. Again, defendant’s orthopedic surgeon did nothing to test for or treat a joint infection. The plaintiff returned to defendant’s orthopedic surgeon again on Feb. 1, 2019, with the same symptoms he had been having for more than five months. Defendant’s orthopedic surgeon finally ordered an MRI and laboratory studies but did not aspirate any fluid from the knee. The laboratory studies came back “off the charts,” and the MRI revealed a likely septic knee, with osteomyelitis of the femur and tibia.

After the MRI results returned, defendant’s orthopedic surgeon referred the plaintiff to Carilion, but his family managed to get him in to be seen the next day. At Carilion, he was immediately diagnosed with a chronic, long-standing severe joint infection and told they would have to amputate above the knee or perform a knee fusion. During the surgery at Carilion, the plaintiff had his patella, patellar tendon, and diseased portions of femur and tibia cut out. The Carilion doctor also took cultures from inside the joint, which came back positive for MSSA — the same organism that the defendant’s orthopedic surgeon had cultured from the superficial tissues over five months prior.

The Carilion doctor also began the process of external fixation for a knee fusion. The plaintiff underwent three additional procedures at Carilion to revise the external fixator, and then to remove it seven months later. He currently can only ambulate with a rollator while essentially “dragging” his fused right leg.

Suit was filed in 2019, and the trial was continued three times due to COVID. As the case matured, the plaintiff made reasonable settlement overtures. In response, defendant’s insurance carrier, CURI, refused to attend a court-ordered mediation and never made an offer. This “no-offer” position continued even after the defendant’s orthopedic surgeon retired early due to a progressive, lethal medical condition that significantly limited his ability to participate in the trial.

At trial, plaintiff’s counsel used numerous photographs of the plaintiff’s knee to demonstrate to the jury that his knee was infected “until proven otherwise.” These photographs were taken by the plaintiff’s daughter and healthcare providers over the course of the six months that defendant’s orthopedic surgeon treated the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s two orthopedic experts, and one infectious disease expert, concluded that the plaintiff had an MSSA infection of his joint from defendant’s original repair surgery and that it was clinically apparent. They testified that joint infection cannot be ruled out clinically and that when joint infection is suspected, aspiration of synovial fluid is mandatory. They testified that the defendant’s orthopedic surgeon violated the standard of care at every encounter from Aug. 17, 2018, through Feb. 6, 2019.

The defense argued that, although its orthopedic surgeon documented that he suspected joint infection, there were insufficient indications to aspirate fluid from the joint, that a joint infection could be sufficiently ruled out with clinical examination alone, and that while there was “possibly” a joint infection in August 2018, it did not become “apparent” until January 2019.

After about three hours of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. CURI agreed to pay the $2.35 million medical malpractice cap prior to post-trial motions.

6. $2.5 million — Adequate anesthesia not provided during C-section

Name of case: Bandy v. Reston Anesthesia Associates, et al.

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Fairfax County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Lauren M. Byrne, Robert E. Byrne Jr. and John Simpson, Charlottesville

The plaintiff was laboring with her first child when the baby’s heart rate plummeted. The OB determined an emergency C-section was necessary and the team was summoned. The sole anesthesiologist at the hospital failed to timely arrive, despite multiple calls, until the C-section had already begun. Plaintiff was not put under adequate anesthesia until the time of the baby’s delivery.

The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded $2.5 million against defendants.

7. $2.235 million — Treatment of infection delayed, leading to death from sepsis

Name of case: Bell, Administratrix of the Estate of Stead v. Bon Secours, et al.

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Norfolk Circuit Court

Attorneys: Richard N. Shapiro and Eric K. Washburn, Virginia Beach

A 58-year-old nurse was employed at Bon Secours DePaul Hospital in Norfolk as of 2018 and had been working five years in the neurosurgical operating suite at the hospital. She developed strange abdominal pain and was seen by one of the surgeons with Bon Secours Surgical Specialists, who recommended she undergo colon resection surgery to remove part of her colon.

The colon surgery was uneventful on April 4, 2018, but on April 14, the nurse died in Bon Secours DePaul Hospital following several post-operative surgeries, involving re-exploration of the abdomen, wound debridement and a right leg amputation, all due to the effects of septic shock and fast-spreading necrotizing fasciitis infection.

Before trial, her surgeon admitted a leak had formed from the resected colon/intestinal area, which spewed fecal contents into the nurse’s abdominal cavity for several days, and ultimately trailed down the abdominal cavity to her right thigh, and then developed into necrotizing fasciitis. Nonetheless, the surgeon and her surgical colleague who rounded on the nurse both denied any negligent responsibility and denied any unreasonable delay in medical standards of care before recognizing her infection and addressing its consequences.

Plaintiff’s counsel subpoenaed all medical records, including the electronic “audit trail” of all electronic patient records accessed by her providers, but the hospital and surgeons refused all pre-suit settlement overtures.

During litigation, careful review of the hospital records revealed that the surgeons ordered a blood test on April 8, postoperative day four, which showed highly abnormal band neutrophils, a part of the white blood cells that always spike when the body fights a new infection. Despite the abnormal results, the surgeons never initiated an antibiotic, nor obtained an abdominal CT scan which likely would have lit up and shown fecal contents were leaking into the nurse’s abdomen over several days. The surgeons even repeated a CBC blood test a day later, on April 9, showing that the “bands” had skyrocketed higher, to nine times over normal. During relevant depositions, it was contended the surgeons didn’t recognize sepsis for 36 to 48 hours when all physicians agreed every hour of antibiotic administration can make a huge difference in the survival of a sepsis patient.

The medical record audit trail showed the attending surgeon had accessed the results of the blood tests on each day they were returned but had either never appreciated the “band” count nor acted to medically intervene with urgency as to the highly abnormal “band” results.

Plaintiff’s medical experts, two surgeons, each testified results of the blood tests on April 8 and 9 would have caused a reasonably prudent surgeon to immediately order an abdominal CT scan, start antibiotics and likely do immediate exploratory surgery, but the surgery occurred two calendar days late.

Besides creating detailed timelines and charts synthesizing the important medical evidence, plaintiff’s counsel also supervised the creation of professional medical illustrations to document the many surgeries the nurse underwent before she succumbed to septic shock on April 14, and presented the testimony of the pathologist and her autopsy results, which confirmed multi-organ failure due to septic shock and necrotizing fasciitis. Eighteen witnesses in total were called at trial by the plaintiff and the defense called six, including surgeons and an infectious disease doctor who fully defended the surgeons.

Following the five-day Norfolk medical malpractice/wrongful death jury trial, the jury deliberated nearly five hours before returning a $2.23 million verdict in favor of the nurse’s estate, comprised of her twin 33-year-old daughters.

8. $2 million — Patient lost vision in eye two months after surgery

Name of case: Livesay v. Brock

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Essex Circuit Court

Attorney: Suzette L. Hutchens, Richmond

Plaintiff had cataract surgery on Sept. 25, 2017. Although Brock had been doing cataract surgery for 40 years, he said that to keep up with the times he was learning a new technique. There was a dispute over whether he had mastered that technique. Brock removed two sutures at an office visit on Nov. 14, 2017. Within two weeks of that, Livesay developed a serious eye infection which led to his loss of vision.

Plaintiff’s expert testified that the defendant had breached the standard of care in the preoperative period, during the surgery and in the postoperative period and that those breaches led to the loss of vision.

Defendant’s experts testified that there were no breaches of the standard of care and that sometimes bad results happen that are no one’s fault.

The jury deliberated for more than three hours and returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $2 million.

9. $1.85 million (tied) — Resident assaulted in assisted living facility

Name of case: Lowe, Guardian and Conservator for Snider v. Herring, Individually and as Sole Proprietor of Stoney Creek Adult Care and Stoney Creek Adult Care Residence

Type of case: Assault

Court: Shenandoah County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Justin M. Wolcott and Mark D. Obenshain, Harrisonburg

This case arises from the assault and battery of an adult resident at an assisted living facility in Edinburg.

On Oct. 9, 2021, the defendant owner and operator of the assisted living facility struck the resident in the face, pulled a chair out from under her and dragged her down a hallway by her hair. Throughout these events the resident was cursed at, insulted and verbally abused. The resident was left lying on the floor of the facility suffering from a broken hip throughout the night of Oct. 9 until the morning of Oct. 10, at which time another staff member at the facility assisted her off the floor. However, it was not until Oct. 11 when the resident first received medical treatment from a healthcare provider outside of the facility.

At trial counsel introduced evidence of financial losses for medical bills in the amount of $71,528.92, physical injuries including a fractured hip, which necessitated a three-week hospital admission, and emotional injuries including shame, humiliation, embarrassment and the indignity of the assault and battery. In closing plaintiff’s counsel requested $1.5 million in compensatory damages, $350,000 in punitive damages and an award of prejudgment interest. After deliberation the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for these amounts and awarded prejudgment interest.

9. $1.85 million (tied) — Jury sides with dentist in lengthy litigation

Name of case: Grundy v. Brown, et. al

Type of case: Defamation

Court: Fairfax Circuit Court

Attorneys: Alan B. Croft and Lawrence J. McClafferty, Leesburg

Dr. Brown and his dental practice, after terminating the plaintiff as an employee, sent and/or handed a letter to hundreds of dental patients treated by Dr. Grundy that contained defamatory statements. After plaintiff filed suit for defamation and other claims, the defendants filed a counterclaim for defamation relating to a complaint filed by Dr. Grundy against the defendants with the Board of Dentistry. After a six-week trial, the jury awarded Dr. Grundy $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, reduced by the court to $350,000. The defendants’ counterclaim was later dismissed by the court for discovery abuses.

Litigation that began in December 2018 and included, among other things, competing claims of defamation per se and breach of contract has ended with entry of a July 7, 2023, final order. That final order confirmed a jury verdict awarding plaintiff, Dr. Richard Grundy, $1.5 million dollars in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages on claims against Dr. Charles Brown III and his dental practice for defamation, conversion and breach of contact. The trial court also dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim for defamation. This more than four-year litigation was notable in that four weeks into the jury trial, the case was stayed due to COVID-19. The trial resumed over two years later with the same jury sitting for an additional two weeks. This case was previously reported in Virginia Lawyers Weekly in September 2020 when Judge Devine awarded Dr. Grundy $140,554 dollars in legal fees and costs for defendants’ spoliation of evidence. In the final order, Judge Devine awarded an additional $60,000 in legal fees and costs, and dismissed defendants’ counterclaim, for discovery abuses.

11. $1.75 million — Dump truck struck vehicle on I-64

Name of case: Williams v. Handley Excavation & Development, LLC, et. al

Type of case: Auto accident

Court: Albemarle County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Robert E. Byrne Jr., Lauren M. Byrne and Jonathan T. Wren, Charlottesville

Plaintiff was driving an SUV on Interstate 64 when traffic started slowing. A commercial dump truck approached her from behind going approximately 70 mph, swerved to avoid traffic, bounced off the right guardrail and back into traffic, and struck the passenger side of plaintiff’s vehicle at a high rate of speed. Plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed off the road and into an embankment in the median.

First responders reported that plaintiff was alert and oriented following the crash, and that she was tending to her upset children. Plaintiff and her four children were transported from the scene by ambulance, evaluated at the emergency room, and released. After being released, plaintiff was unable to drive approximately 30 minutes to her home but stayed in a hotel for several days. During that time, plaintiff had two additional emergency room visits for a panic attack and for soft-tissue injuries.

Plaintiff claimed that she sustained a mild traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and some soft tissue injuries from the crash. Plaintiff, who was a college professor, received tenure several months after the crash. Approximately two and a half years after the crash, however, plaintiff resigned from her position, claiming that her injuries prevented her from fulfilling the duties of the job. At trial, plaintiff sought her past medical expenses, future medical expenses, and put on evidence of lost earning capacity.

12. $1.5 million — Trip and fall on mat leads to knee replacement surgery

Name of case: Robinson v. Party City of Richmond, Inc.

Type of case: Personal injury, premises liability

Court: Henrico County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Ben Rand and Sharif Gray, Richmond

Party City failed to properly secure a mat at the front entrance of its store. The plaintiff, as she walked into the store, tripped on the mat and fell to the ground. Because of the fall, the plaintiff underwent knee replacement surgery.

The defense contested liability and damages. The defense also argued that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

The jury returned a $1.5 million verdict.

13. $1.2 million — Guest sprained ankle after stepping in hole on walkway

Name of case: Rick v. Cedar Fair Southwest d/b/a Kings Dominion

Type of case: Personal injury

Court: Richmond Circuit Court

Attorney: Matt Danielson, Richmond

The plaintiff injured herself when she stepped into a hole in the pavement of a walkway at King’s Dominion on Sept. 29, 2018, during King’s Dominion’s Halloween Haunt. She was diagnosed with a sprained ankle and, after a month of conservative treatment with an orthopedist, switched to a podiatrist whose office had treated a fracture to the same ankle in 2007. Treatment lasted for three years, resulting in three surgeries by the podiatrist, and another surgery to remove hardware by an orthopedist.

The case was mediated unsuccessfully in 2022 with the defendant offering $75,000. A two-day jury trial commenced on Nov. 29, 2023, where the case was strongly contested on both liability and damages. Both the plaintiff and the defendant offered testimony by experts in the fields of architectural safety and orthopedic medicine. At the conclusion of closing arguments, the jury deliberated for 55 minutes and returned with a verdict in the amount sued for plus interest from the date of the injury.

14. $1 million — School board member defamed in social media post

Name of case: Sawyers v. Petrak

Type of case: Defamation

Court: Prince William County Circuit Court

Attorney: Evan D. Mayo, Charlottesville

Defendant William Petrak published a Facebook post on Dec. 2, 2017, accusing Ryan Sawyers of being a “sexual predator.” Sawyers was the chairman-at-large of the Prince William County School Board as of the date of publication and thus a public official subject to the actual malice standard to recover for defamation. There was an anti-SLAPP motion made under Va. Code 8.01-223.2, which was denied following the jury’s return of a finding of actual malice with respect to all five statements sued upon.

The court found that the statements in question would necessarily affect Sawyers in the practice of his profession or trade as a youth baseball coach and concluded that the statements were defamatory per se.

Sawyers requested $1 million in damages and was granted that figure by the jury.