20 trials return $1M-plus judgments in 2024

The following are jury verdicts with a judgment of at least $1 million awarded in 2024 and reported to Virginia Lawyers Weekly.

1. $360 million — Jury returns verdict for trio of sexual abuse victims

Name of case: A.B.E., E.C., H.E.B. v. Cumberland Hospital, LLC et al.

Type of case: Negligence and tort

Court: Richmond Circuit Court

Attorneys: Kevin Biniazan, Virginia Beach; Lee Floyd, Richmond; Scott Perry, Arlington; and Justin Sheldon, Richmond

This is a consolidated action in which more than 40 survivors were sexually abused during their adolescence at a behavioral health facility in New Kent County by the facility’s medical director. They sued the owners and operators of the hospital in Richmond Circuit Court for negligence, gross negligence, reckless disregard for the plaintiffs’ safety, false imprisonment and violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act in accordance with the Virginia Multiple Claimant Litigation Act. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants were vicariously liable for the director’s conduct and sought punitive damages for the defendants’ reckless disregard for the plaintiffs’ safety. The plaintiffs also alleged claims of assault and battery against the director and his medical practice.

In the plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, gross negligence and reckless disregard against the facility’s owners and operators, they alleged breaches of duty arising from a special relationship. By providing residential services to the plaintiffs, who were vulnerable minors, a special relationship arose that created a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the plaintiffs from foreseeable dangers. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants knew or should have known of the risks posed by the medical director, who had a reported history of unwanted touching of minors during physical examinations. The plaintiffs also alleged the defendants acted negligently by retaining the medical director, whom they knew or should have known posed a danger to patients. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants were aware of his abusive behavior soon after his hiring and should have terminated him sooner.

In addition, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants made material misrepresentations concerning the hospital and false statements in medical records to unjustifiably prolong the plaintiffs’ stay at the hospital, which these defendants did for financial gain, in violation of the VCPA. This led to the illegal restriction of the plaintiffs’ freedom, which was the basis for the plaintiffs’ false imprisonment claim.

The defendants objected to consolidation of the plaintiffs’ claims for discovery, but the court overruled their motions and discovery proceeded on a consolidated basis. The defendants also objected to consolidation for trial; ultimately, the court permitted the consolidation of three plaintiffs’ claims for trial due to their similarity in substance and time frame.

The three plaintiffs’ consolidated cases proceeded to trial on Sept. 9, 2024, and it lasted three weeks. At the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence, all defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs’ evidence. The court granted the motions to strike filed by two of the defendants but denied the other defendants’ motions.

On Sept. 27, 2024, after roughly seven hours of deliberation, the jurors returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $20 million in compensatory damages against all defendants, $60 million in treble damages against the hospital for its violation of the VCPA, and $40 million in punitive damages per plaintiff against all defendants, for a total $120 million per plaintiff and an aggregate verdict of $360 million.

2. $42 million — Contractor pays for abuse of detainees in Iraq

Name of case: Alshimari et al. v. CACI Premier Technology Inc.

Type of case: Negligence and tort

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Attorneys: Charles B. Molster III, Washington, D.C.; Shereef Akeel, Troy, Michigan; Baher Azmy, New York; Muhammad Faradi and Michael Buchanan, New York

This case was filed under the Alien Tort Claim Act, a 1789 law.

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States awarded a multimillion-dollar contract to the defendant, a multibillion-dollar company, to furnish interrogators to collect intelligence from detainees who were held at the Abu Gharib prison.

Pictures surfaced and testimony revealed that the defendant conspired with a few military police personnel to “soften up” detainees by engaging in the torture of detainees by stripping them naked, subjecting them to sexual acts and humiliating them by placing women’s underwear over their heads. Detainees also were electrically shocked and bitten by dogs.

The lawsuit was filed back in 2008 after the plaintiffs’ counsel went to Iraq with a childhood Iraqi friend and met the detainees. The plaintiffs survived 21 motions to dismiss and several rounds of appeal with the 4th Circuit. New law has been established that a suit can be brought against a company under certain circumstances by foreign nationals for crimes committed against humanity.

The jury learned of the details suffered by the plaintiffs. Generals from the United States testified in support of the plaintiffs by explaining that the defendant’s interrogators conspired with certain MPs to abuse the detainees and subject them to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.

The jury learned that the MPs who were involved were court-martialed and that the only entity that has escaped accountability was the defendant.

Counsel for the plaintiff told the jury that the defendant has continued to deny liability despite various Army reports implicating the company, demeaning their clients by questioning their injuries and deflecting responsibility by blaming the Army. The jury agreed and awarded punitive damages of $33 million — the amount of the contract. Of note, jurors also passed a note asking if some money could be set aside for torture victims.

3. $28.37 million — Jury returns $28M verdict in sex abuse suit

Name of case: K.S. v. Puckett

Type of case: Negligence and tort

Court: Augusta County Circuit Court

Attorney: J. Michael Sharman, Culpeper

When the sexual battery against the plaintiff began in September 2017, the plaintiff was 16 to 17 years old and in 11th grade. Her stepfather, the defendant, was 43 to 44 years old.

The plaintiff was a “high-functioning autistic” with dyslexia who had suffered years of emotional and physical abuse from her biological father and stepmother. After discovering a suicide note that she had written, her mother put her into counseling in September 2017, thinking her problems were because of the biological father and stepmother. The mother had not realized that the stepfather had been steadily “grooming” the plaintiff and that the sexual battery by him had begun that same month.

The defendant warned the plaintiff that he, her mother and the family would be destroyed if she didn’t keep their secret, so for two years she did not tell anyone about the defendant’s sexual actions. But after the mother found something on her Snapchat account that concerned her, she confronted the stepfather and recorded his admission that he touched the plaintiff in a sexually inappropriate way.

The stepfather was interviewed by the Augusta County Sheriff’s Office and charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault and battery, to which he later pleaded guilty.

The defendant’s responsive pleadings denied liability and claimed the plaintiff had consented. The court ruled that, as a matter of law, consent is immaterial as to liability, but it can be raised as a factor that can be considered by a jury as to the amount of damages.

Based on the statements the defendant made in his criminal case and the civil case’s discovery, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to his liability.

The court granted defense counsel’s request to take the defendant’s deposition in prison to use at trial in lieu of his live testimony. His deposition was admitted as a defense exhibit. In it, he said he was currently serving a seven-year sentence and claimed the plaintiff had consented to his sexual actions.

The plaintiff called three witnesses. She also testified that she did not consent to her stepfather’s aggravated sexual assault and battery and described the emotional pain she has had because of it. Her counselor testified that she would need counseling for the rest of her life.

The defendant’s half-brother testified about receiving, as the defendant’s attorney-in-fact, the equitable distribution funds from his divorce. The half-brother also testified, as the executor of their mother’s estate, about the estimated value of the estate and that he and the defendant were the only two heirs.

The jurors deliberated 32 minutes before advising the court bailiff they had arrived at a verdict.

4. $10.05 million — Ex-worker conspires against former employer

Name of case: Atlantic Diving Supply Inc. v. Kormornik, et al.

Type of case: Negligence and tort

Court: Norfolk Circuit Court

Attorneys: Kevin Martingayle, Virginia Beach, and Matthew Moynihan, Norfolk; Brett Spain and Bethany Fogerty, Norfolk

The plaintiff is based in Virginia Beach and provides equipment and logistics solutions to the Department of Defense, other federal agencies and first responders on a worldwide scale. The defendant was employed with the plaintiff for about seven years. He had previously served in the British army and was hired to lead the plaintiff’s foreign military sales and international business unit.

He left the plaintiff voluntarily, but before and after he did, he conspired with several other employees and a competitor of the plaintiff to recruit away the plaintiff’s employees, take confidential business information and intercept the plaintiff’s business opportunities. The plaintiff discovered some of the tortious behavior because of computer forensics soon after the departure of a couple of employees.

The plaintiff sued and later amended and added defendants as the scope and scale of the conspiracy became clearer. The plaintiff determined that the ex-employee was the primary bad actor in a scheme among several individuals and a competitor. For most of the life of the litigation, all defendants denied any wrongful conduct, but the plaintiff settled with various defendants over time, gathered important documents and other evidence from those parties and was able to uncover facts and evidence that the ex-employee had hidden or destroyed.

When the case was tried, the ex-employee was the sole remaining defendant, and his former co-conspirators testified against him. The trial judge eventually issued a 44-page opinion finding that the defendant failed to preserve and deliberately destroyed evidence, and that he directed others to do likewise. The judge found him liable for violations of the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Virginia Computer Crimes Act, civil conspiracy, tortious interference, breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and fraud. As a result, the judge awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling $8,580,401.39. Later, the judge received evidence regarding the plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney fees and costs and issued another opinion awarding fees and costs in the amount of $2,122,470.04, for a total of $10,702,871.40. That total was reduced by a $650,000 pretrial settlement received from another defendant.

5. $7.62 million — Patient dies after developing stage IV pressure ulcer

Name of case: Clark, as Administrator of the Estate of James E. Clark Sr., deceased, v. Vista Park and Saber Healthcare Group

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Richmond Circuit Court

Attorneys: Bob Carter and Mary Estfanous, Lynchburg

The decedent, over a three-month period at a nursing home, developed a stage IV pressure ulcer to his left hip and an unstageable pressure ulcer to his right heel. He also developed contractures of his lower extremities and suffered unplanned weight loss. The left hip pressure ulcer became infected and was a source of sepsis.

The decedent, who had been referred for a hospice evaluation twice in the months preceding the development of his pressure ulcers, was hospitalized and transferred to a nursing home, where the right heel pressure ulcer resolved. He died at the nursing home five months after his pressure ulcers developed for reasons the plaintiff contended were caused by the left hip pressure ulcer. The total medical, funeral and burial expenses were $124,000.

The jury awarded $7.5 million in compensatory damages to five statutory beneficiaries for wrongful death, an additional $124,000 for medical and funeral expenses, and prejudgment interest on the medical and funeral expenses from the date of death.

6. $5.5 million — Missed symptoms and late test prove deadly

Name of case: Bradley, Administrator of the Estate of Stephen Bradley v. Mujeebuddin and Twin Rivers Medical Clinic, P.C.

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Richmond Circuit Court

Attorneys: Derrick L. Walker, Richmond; Kari J. La Fratta, Charlottesville

The decedent, a 48-year-old man, presented to the defendant, his family physician, with complaints of shortness of breath, dizziness, chest pain and dry mouth. His vital signs revealed mild tachycardia, an oxygen saturation of 94% and blood pressure readings of 92/50 and 130/80. The decedent also was about 3½ months post-op from a thoracic decompression surgery, which resulted in significant mobility limitations, including extensive reliance on a wheelchair and a walker for ambulation.

Following a physical examination, the defendant attributed the decedent’s shortness of breath to deconditioning, his chest pain to gastroesophageal reflux disease and his dizziness to possible orthostatic hypotension. Before the decedent’s discharge, the defendant ordered several lab studies, including a D-dimer test which is used almost exclusively to evaluate for acute pulmonary embolism. The D-dimer was ordered on a non-emergency basis and was scheduled to be reported the following day.

The decedent was discharged but collapsed later that evening. Despite resuscitation efforts initiated by EMS, he died about six hours after his arrival at the defendant’s clinic. Reported the following day, the D-dimer result was severely elevated — about 30 times higher than normal.

At trial, the plaintiff’s standard of care experts testified that the defendant violated the standard of care in failing to develop an appropriate level of suspicion for acute pulmonary embolism based on the decedent’s risk factors and presenting signs and symptoms. They also testified that the standard of care required his immediate transfer to the nearest emergency room so that the D-dimer could be completed on an emergency basis and a chest CT-A obtained.

Plaintiff’s causation experts testified that, had the decedent been quickly transferred to an emergency room, he would have received telemetry and other monitoring, and anticoagulants would have been initiated to keep the existing clot from propagating. They testified that, in the event the decedent decompensated, and support measures were insufficient to maintain decedent’s hemodynamic stability, thrombolytic medication could have been initiated and would have saved his life. Finally, they also testified that, while a D-dimer is a nonspecific test and does not necessarily confirm a pulmonary embolism, a result elevated to such a high degree is more likely than not due to pulmonary embolism.

The defendant’s standard of care experts testified that the decedent did not meet the profile of a patient experiencing an acute pulmonary embolism primarily because his chest pain was nonpleuritic, his vital signs were historically consistent with those gathered at other medical visits, and he did not appear ill.

The defendant’s causation experts testified that the decedent’s death was more likely the result of a sudden cardiac death unrelated to his earlier presentation and not a pulmonary embolism. They relied on certain cardiac risk factors, the decedent’s presentation during the office visit, and the sudden nature of death in supporting their conclusion. The experts testified that the decedent had been evaluated for pulmonary embolism a few months before his death after a sudden onset of chest pain and that, although that evaluation included an elevated D-dimer, a chest CT-A ruled out the presence of emboli. Therefore, they concluded that the elevated D-dimer at the time of the primary care visit was diagnostically unreliable for pulmonary embolism. Moreover, defendant’s causation experts testified that even if the decedent had been sent urgently to an emergency room, there was neither sufficient time nor resources to save his life.

After four days of hearing evidence, the jury deliberated for just over an hour before returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Before closing arguments, the parties entered into a high-low agreement.

7. $4.4 million — ‘Just fine’ plaintiff receives 7-figure judgment

Name of case: Garner v. Rice Tire, et al.

Type of case: Motor vehicle negligence

Court: Loudoun County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Chidi James, Robert Stoney, Matthew Tsun and M. Barkley Horn, Fairfax

The plaintiff was traveling on Route 7 in Loudoun County when a dump truck hauling a commercial trailer with construction equipment on it lost control as it descended a hill toward Route 7. The dump truck and trailer entered Route 7 directly in front of the plaintiff, and the two vehicles collided.

The plaintiff suffered multiple internal injuries, which all healed, and significant lower limb injuries to both legs, resulting in multiple surgeries and the implantation of metal plates in one femur, knee and ankle.

The brakes on the trailer of the rig were out of alignment and lacked the required safety features. The trailer had been inspected several months before the crash by the defendant inspection company and passed inspection despite the lack of safety systems.

Four weeks before trial, all defendants conceded liability, and the case went to trial on only damages. The plaintiff counsel’s called an expert in polytrauma to testify to the plaintiff’s likely future medical needs, and the plaintiff presented a life care plan of $1.2 million. Because the plaintiff had completed treatment 2½ years before trial, the defense contended that the plaintiff was “just fine” and needed no future treatment. The jury deliberated for just over two hours before returning a verdict of $4.4 million.

8. $4.35 million — Drunken driver crash costs man his profession

Name of case: Wood v. Christian

Type of case: Gross negligence, punitive damages, prejudgment interest

Court: Colonial Heights Circuit Court

Attorneys: C. James Williams III and Kimberly J. Raab, Midlothian

The defendant had a blood alcohol content of 0.226 and drove the wrong way on Interstate 95 for several miles before colliding with the plaintiff’s car. He pleaded guilty to DWI maiming.

The plaintiff had no recollection of the collision or the events beforehand and awoke after four days of unconsciousness and three surgeries. He had another three surgeries afterward. The plaintiff made a recovery with no obvious limitations and maintains a pleasant disposition. He can no longer work as an industrial electrician as he cannot raise his right hand above his shoulder. His passion was golf, which he’d played since high school, but he can no longer turn his wrist sufficiently to hold a golf club.

The case had to be tried due to coverage disputes.

9. $3.98 million — Surgeon performs incorrect bariatric operation

Name of case: Jensen-Winkert v. Virginia Hospital Center Physician Group LLC

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Arlington Circuit Court

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

The plaintiff first presented on Oct. 26, 2020, for a bariatric surgery consultation. After hearing her surgical options at the consultation, she expressed to her surgeon her preference for undergoing gastric sleeve surgery.

Throughout the about yearlong process in preparation for her surgery, the plaintiff consistently expressed her desire to undergo the gastric sleeve procedure. On Oct. 8, 2021, she signed a four-page informed consent document specifically for the preferred gastric sleeve procedure.

On Oct. 11, 2021, a surgical scheduler with the hospital changed the plaintiff’s scheduled surgery from gastric sleeve surgery to gastric bypass surgery. When the plaintiff presented for surgery on Dec.16, 2021, the hospital prepared a day-of consent form based on the scheduler’s error that referenced the procedure to be performed as a gastric bypass. She signed that erroneous consent form among the other admissions paperwork presented to her that morning. Despite her extensive workup for the gastric sleeve procedure, the surgeon failed to recognize the plaintiff had been scheduled for the wrong surgery, and as a result, performed the gastric bypass.

The plaintiff suffered complications after the gastric bypass surgery, including an inability to tolerate oral intake of food and liquids. She also was hospitalized with an ulcer of the anastomosis that was created as part of the gastric bypass procedure. She did not find out that she had undergone the wrong surgery until March 2022, when the surgeon documented in her medical records that he had not actually reviewed her records preoperatively to confirm the surgery she was scheduled for was the correct surgery.

The plaintiff called two bariatric surgery experts to testify that the surgical scheduler breached the standard of care by negligently changing her scheduled surgery from a gastric sleeve to a gastric bypass and that the surgeon breached the standard of care by failing to recognize the scheduler’s error and performing the wrong surgery. The plaintiff’s experts further testified that the surgeon’s performance of the gastric bypass surgery caused her to suffer injuries and damages, including the anastomotic ulcer, recurrent vomiting and diarrhea, and her ongoing risk of malnutrition and other complications of the gastric bypass procedure.

Before the trial, the hospital stipulated its surgical scheduler breached the standard of care but contested at trial that the surgeon had done so. Although the defendant identified and qualified an expert at trial to testify that the surgeon met the standard of care, that expert did not offer that opinion to the jury. The surgeon, who appeared remotely at trial, testified that the plaintiff changed her mind and wanted to undergo gastric bypass surgery on Dec. 16, 2021. In addition, the defense vigorously defended the case on causation and damages issues, suggesting the plaintiff would have had the same outcome regardless of the bariatric surgery she underwent.

In her closing argument, the plaintiff requested a verdict of $3 million. After deliberating for slightly less than three hours over two days, the jury returned a verdict of $3.45 million, plus prejudgment interest from Dec. 16, 2021, the date that the wrong surgery was performed.

10. $3.45 million — Man dies from cancer related to asbestos exposure

Name of case: Katcham, Administrator of the Estate of James C. Katcham, deceased, v. John Crane Inc.

Type of case: Product liability

Court: Newport News Circuit Court

Attorneys: Robert R. Hatten, Hugh B. McCormick III, Geoffrey R. Grau and Adam M. Hawks, Newport News; Nathan D. Finch, Washington, D.C.

The evidence proved that the defendant, an international supplier of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing, was responsible for the decedent’s death because the company failed to provide any warnings or safety instructions with the asbestos gaskets and packings they sold to DuPont between 1961 and 1979, when the decedent was employed there as a millwright. The jury found that the defendant had breached its implied warranty of safety by selling unreasonably dangerous products without warning users of the products.

The evidence showed that the defendant was aware of asbestosis beginning in the 1930s, when it was required to provide worker’s compensation insurance for its employees for the condition, that it installed elaborate ventilation systems at its plant in the 1940s, and that it offered face masks to its employees beginning also in the 1940s. A public health historian testified that mesothelioma, a uniformly fatal cancer caused only by asbestos exposure, had been well known to the scientific community since 1960 and, in 1972, the Illinois Pollution Control Board provided detailed information about mesothelioma, including that minimal asbestos exposure could cause this disease, to the defendant.

Plaintiff relied upon a six-page dying declaration of the decedent, which confirmed his routine and frequent use of the defendant’s asbestos products from the mid-1960s to the late 1970s. A co-worker confirmed that the defendant’s asbestos gaskets were routinely and frequently used by the millwrights at DuPont. Plaintiff’s expert testified that the decedent’s exposure to asbestos gaskets and packing products was sufficient to cause mesothelioma.

The defendant contended the asbestos in its products was encapsulated, but the capacity of its products to release high levels of otherwise invisible asbestos dust and fibers was established by plaintiff’s expert materials scientist, who used Tyndall lighting and videotapes to show that the intended uses of the asbestos gaskets and packing created millions of airborne asbestos fibers that could not be seen by the worker.

Defendant’s expert testified that it would take 1,000 years of exposure to the defendant’s products to cause mesothelioma. His testimony was contradicted by multiple scientific and medical organizations, which have concluded that mesothelioma can occur from minimal and brief exposures.

The former head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration also testified that exposures to asbestos gaskets and packing were insufficient to create a risk of mesothelioma. That testimony was likewise directly contradicted by multiple medical and scientific organizations, including OSHA’s own published opinion that mesothelioma can be caused by one or two days of asbestos exposure.

In closing argument, counsel for the defendant attempted to discredit the plaintiff’s exposure evidence, but the evidence of the decedent and his co-worker was supported by documents from DuPont demonstrating that the defendant was an approved vendor of crocidolite asbestos gaskets until 1973 and multiple asbestos-containing packing products until the 1980s. Plaintiff’s counsel has successfully prosecuted similar claims against the defendant to a jury verdict in a dozen consecutive cases.

11. $3.05 million — Defendant refuses to participate in crash case

Name of case: Paul v. Barret

Type of case: Motor vehicle negligence

Court: Virginia Beach Circuit Court

Attorney: Ed Booth, Virginia Beach, Ed Booth Law

Event Data Recordings showed the defendant driving over 100 mph on a crowded street in Virginia Beach on a summer evening. The defendant struck the plaintiff as she pulled out into traffic, having no realistic way to see him approaching given his speed. The plaintiff was seriously injured but survived.

Coverage in the case was limited, but punitive damages were permitted because of the extreme speed and an allegation of racing. Although represented by skilled and experienced defense counsel, the defendant would not meaningfully participate in the case. He refused to provide information regarding his financial status for pursuit of recovery beyond the limits of the coverage. He did not participate in discovery, which led to the plaintiff’s lawyer seeking and obtaining a ruling from the court — following the proper application of Rule 4:12 — to strike defenses and exclude the defendant’s testimony unless called adversely at the plaintiff’s request.

The case was tried before a Virginia Beach jury in a day. Shortly after retiring to deliberate, the jury returned a verdict of $2.75 million in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages.

12. $2.5 million — Key measurement not done before surgery

Name of case: Mason v. Subach

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Fairfax County Circuit Court

Attorneys: John E. Lichtenstein and Gregory L. Lyons, Roanoke

The plaintiff’s evidence asserted that the standard of care required presurgical measurement of the 81-year-old client’s epidural space before beginning a procedure to surgically implant the spinal cord stimulator, that the measurement was exceptionally easy, quick and without any cost, and that the tools for this are included in the software necessary to read the presurgical MRI. It was agreed that the defendant performed no presurgical measurement.

Evidence also asserted that the stimulator electrode, the paddle electrode selected by the defendant, was too large for the patient’s epidural space into which the defendant attempted to place it; further, that the defendant was required, upon experiencing resistance, to stop and identify the source of such resistance before proceeding. It was alleged that the final position of the wrongfully placed paddle electrode at the close of the implant procedure left it compressing the client’s spinal cord causing initial complete paralysis of the left leg and evolving to permanent gait abnormalities and requiring a leg brace and forearm crutches to walk.

The defendant argued that the standard of care required no such presurgical measurement of the epidural space, that careful assessment of the presurgical MRI is sufficient and effective, and that their measurement indicated the epidural space was sufficient. The defense further alleged that the plaintiff’s scoliosis explained the final asymmetric position of the stimulator paddle, and that a hematoma, which must have occurred in the postsurgical setting, was the cause of the plaintiff’s left lower extremity loss of sensory and motor function.

After a weeklong trial, the jury returned a verdict of $2.5 million.

13. $2.4 million — Child dies just days after visiting urgent care

Name of case: Hackworth v. Patient First Corporation et al.

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Chesapeake Circuit Court

Attorneys: Jeff W. Rosen and Jeff Hunn, Virginia Beach

Parents brought the decedent, their 16-year-old son, to an urgent care facility in Chesapeake after he experienced chest pain, nausea and vomiting for three days. The treating medical providers failed to perform an EKG or chest X-ray and did not send him to the emergency room.

The decedent was found dead in his bedroom three days later as a result of myocarditis.

14. $1.5 million — Specialist not called in early on blood disorder

Name of case: Est. of Stephanie Larson v. Al Khouri, et al.

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Fairfax Circuit Court

Attorneys: Lee Livingston and Anthony Greene, Charlottesville

The decedent was a 41-year-old wife and mother of three children who gave birth to her third child on Aug. 16, 2019. She lost a significant amount of blood during the delivery, necessitating a surgical repair of multiple vaginal lacerations, a uterine artery embolization and multiple blood transfusions. She was transferred to the ICU to recover. In 36 hours after delivery, she received seven units of packed red blood cells and multiple units of other blood products. On postpartum day two, her labs showed massive hemolysis, kidney injury and low platelets.

The defendant critical care provider consulted a nephrologist but not a hematologist. When a hematologist was consulted two days later, the patient was transferred to another hospital to begin treatment for a blood disorder pending a key blood test that would dictate the course of treatment. The test’s result indicated that the patient was suffering from aHUS, a potentially deadly blood disorder with an annual incidence of only 1 or 2 patients per million but that is highly treatable with an FDA-dubbed “magic bullet” drug, eculizumab. Before she could start on the drug, the decedent suffered a fatal brain bleed.

Plaintiff’s critical care and hematology experts testified that the combination of red blood cell destruction, kidney injury and low platelets in a postpartum patient mandated the urgent involvement of a hematologist to rule out a fatal blood disorder. They asserted that time was of the essence because the standard of care required a critical care doctor to know about rare blood disorders that could be effectively treated if diagnosed and treated soon enough.

Further complicating the case were issues including the expense of eculizumab, the difficulty of obtaining it, the actions of downstream providers, and the rarity of a brain bleed because of aHUS.

The plaintiff called experts in critical care, hematology and interventional radiology. The plaintiff’s critical care doctor ran what was at one time the largest critical care training program in the country, at Harvard University.

The defendants called three doctors from Johns Hopkins in critical care medicine and hematology. The plaintiff did not take their depositions.

The defendant made no offer before trial. The jury returned a verdict after nine hours of deliberations.

15. $1.49 million — Neighbors wage 2-year harassment campaign

Name of case: Fox v. Warshanna

Type of case: Negligence and tort

Court: Loudoun County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Timothy Bosson and Arie Jones, Fairfax

A jury awarded almost $1.5 million in damages to a Loudoun mother and daughter after finding a neighboring couple’s campaign of harassment violated Virginia law. After a six-day trial, the jury found the couple liable for malicious prosecution, defamation and private nuisance.

The mother-daughter plaintiffs, 24-year residents of Loudoun County’s Luckett neighborhood, had a falling out with the neighboring couple in the summer of 2019. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs said their “living nightmare” began, starting with the filing of dozens of frivolous administrative complaints with county and state agencies accusing them of conduct from animal cruelty to zoning violations and pollution. Though each complaint was found meritless, the couple sent dozens of letters and emails refiling the claims to try to get the plaintiffs fined by the government.

In a two-year span, the defendants filed four criminal cases against the plaintiffs, wrongfully accusing them of trespassing, assault and battery, and conspiracy to injure business reputation. The couple would call the police to the property for something as minor as receiving a text message from the plaintiffs.

Though the cases were either never prosecuted by the state or dismissed for lack of evidence, the plaintiffs were forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Meanwhile, the charges appeared in federal background checks, causing potential employers to withdraw job offers and threatening a security clearance held by one of the plaintiffs.

The defendants printed their allegations on dozens of custom signs, which they set up at 10-foot intervals on the property line along the plaintiffs’ driveway, barn and home. The signs implied that the plaintiffs engaged in animal cruelty, bestiality, white supremacy, public nudity and terrorism. The plaintiffs were constantly asked to explain the signs, which were visible to anyone who visited the property.

The defendants installed more than 75 cameras to record the plaintiffs’ activities and conversations. Dozens of high-power floodlights were set up, shining directly into the plaintiffs’ house. The defendants also erected 20 beehives 25 feet from the plaintiffs’ barn. They frequently provoked the bees to swarm whenever the plaintiffs tended their horses.

One of the plaintiffs sought extensive counseling and mental health treatment due to the constant anxiety caused by the harassment.

The plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the defendants in 2022. The six-day jury trial saw testimony from numerous witnesses, including an attorneys’ fee expert, a health care provider and a veterinarian.

The defense defended the case on technical and damages issues, suggesting that it was the plaintiffs who were responsible for provoking the defendants and that the defendants had reasonable grounds for pursuing the criminal cases.

The jury rejected the claims and found the defendants liable for counts of malicious prosecution, defamation per se and private nuisance.

In his closing argument, plaintiffs’ counsel requested a verdict of $800,000. After deliberating for six hours, the jury returned a verdict for $1,491,619. The damages award included $283,029 in compensatory damages, $208,590 in attorneys’ fees, and $1 million in punitive damages. Virginia caps punitive damages at $350,000 per plaintiff, meaning the final award will likely be reduced.

16. $1.4 million — Truck runs red light, strikes plaintiff’s vehicle

Name of case: Evans v. Ridgerunner Container LLC, et al.

Type of case: Motor vehicle negligence

Court: Fairfax County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Edward L. Weiner and Eugene C. Miller, Fairfax

The defendant ran a red light at International Drive and Westpark Drive in Tysons Corner and crashed into the plaintiff’s sedan, pushing plaintiff’s vehicle into a third vehicle at the intersection. The truck driver was charged and prepaid the ticket.

The entire crash was caught on the plaintiff’s dashcam. The plaintiff’s car was totaled, and he was taken by ambulance to the emergency room. He suffered a displaced spiral fracture of the left femur, comminuted, mildly displaced fractures of the walls of the right hip socket, a laceration of his forehead, which was repaired with staples, and multiple bruises and contusions. He was hospitalized for a week after intramedullary nailing of his femur and then spent two weeks in rehab. He had about seven weeks of home care.

He required extensive physical and occupational therapy. He used a wheelchair for a short time, then a walker, then a cane and now walks with no assistance. He was subsequently diagnosed with a meniscal tear that did not require treatment. Future surgery to remove distal screws was proposed by his surgeon. The plaintiff could not return to his previous physical employment and was on disability for almost a year and a half before he obtained a supervisory position in his field at a higher wage. Plaintiff’s fractures healed but he walks with a limp and reports pain with activity. He has a small scar on his forehead and surgical scars on his leg.

Past medical expenses were $143,969.89, and future ones were estimated at $57,000. Past lost wages were $134,512.80. The defense admitted liability. The defense expert, who only did a peer review, challenged the amount of time off work and the need for future medical costs.

17. $1.38 million — Broker leaves position after injuries in collision

Name of case: O’Shea v. Johnson

Type of case: Motor vehicle negligence

Court: Culpeper County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Matthew W. Broughton and Jared A. Tuck, Roanoke

The plaintiff was traveling in the left lane on Route 29 North in Culpeper County. As she was slowing down with traffic, she was rear-ended by the defendant, who was driving at 55 mph with his foot on the gas pedal.

Immediately after the crash, the plaintiff felt nauseous, “shaken up,” “out of it” and had a headache. At the scene of the crash, she told witnesses that she was OK, and she declined medical treatment and transport by ambulance. The trooper marked “no injury” on the police report.

The day after the crash, the plaintiff flew back home to California, where she had been working as a real estate broker for a large real estate management and investment company. In the years before the crash, she had increased her annual earnings from about $50,000 to about $300,000.

Two days after the crash, the plaintiff tried going back to work, but she had trouble focusing and using her computer’s mouse and the computer screen bothered her eyes. She left work after a few hours and went to the doctor. Later, the plaintiff’s treating providers diagnosed her with post-concussion syndrome and a mild traumatic brain injury.

The plaintiff utilized traditional and alternative treatments to treat her symptoms. Despite the plaintiff’s efforts to heal, her concussion symptoms continued. She had to take a leave of absence from work, and several months after the crash, she resigned from her job. Around the time she resigned, she was diagnosed with Lyme disease. Based on the diagnosis, she later told many of her medical providers that she attributed her symptoms to both concussion and Lyme disease.

About one week before the trial, the defendant admitted liability.

The plaintiff’s forensic neuropsychiatrist opined that the plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury as a result of a coup-contrecoup injury. Her neuropsychiatrist attributed her disability to the mild TBI resulting from the crash. He testified that she could only work a few hours each month going forward due to her ongoing symptoms. He also opined that she was mistakenly diagnosed with Lyme disease by a treating provider.

The defendant’s forensic neurosurgeon testified that the plaintiff suffered whiplash because of the crash, but not a traumatic brain injury. The neurosurgeon opined that her symptoms did not follow a traumatic brain injury pattern because her symptoms were not “worst at first.” The neurosurgeon also testified that many of the symptoms of Lyme disease mimic those of traumatic brain injury. The neurosurgeon believed much of her treatment was unreasonable, not medically necessary and not causally related to the crash. The defendant’s forensic neuropsychologist testified that, based on his evaluation and “objective” testing of the plaintiff, she did not suffer any cognitive impairment.

In closing, the defense argued that since the plaintiff could travel alone internationally, she could work. The plaintiff’s counsel argued that just because she could book a flight and sit on a plane did not mean that she could go back to her high-functioning corporate career.

The defense argued that the plaintiff’s lost wages were “speculative” because almost all of her earnings were commission-based, and it was unknown what deals she would have closed if she had kept her job. The defense also argued that her lost wages should be calculated based on her “guaranteed” income, which was a $35,000 base salary. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that no income is guaranteed, that she did not have to prove guarantees, and that car dealers and real estate agents are entitled to their lost earnings, too.

18. $1.34 million — Ex-CFO wins case over company’s dissolution

Name of case: Snell, et al. v. Shreiber, et al.

Type of case: Fraud

Court: Fairfax County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Robert E. Scully Jr. and Wendy Cousler, Fairfax

The plaintiff joined a flooring company in 2014 as chief financial officer and was later elected to the board of directors. The company was a closely held family company. It sold and installed flooring and tile in apartments, hotels and office buildings in multiple East Coast cities.

The company experienced severe business reversals in 2017 and 2018. It was undisputedly insolvent in early 2019. Facing the loss of its bank credit line, the board voted to sell the company in early 2019. The plaintiff negotiated a letter of intent to sell substantially all the operating assets of the company for $13 million and persuaded the bank to forgive $2.3 million in secured debt to facilitate the deal.

After the letter of intent was signed, he resigned as CFO and director and presented the company with his claim for an incentive compensation award of about $2 million. The company denied the claim. The plaintiff demanded arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded him $1,803,977.13 on Dec. 22, 2020. The Fairfax Circuit Court entered judgment on the arbitration award on April 30, 2021.

In the meantime, the remaining directors voted to dissolve the company. The defendant then distributed the retained assets to himself and a wholly owned family holding company. He claimed he transferred them in exchange for canceling the outstanding shareholder loans he had made to the company. The distributed assets were valued at $1,343,437.

The plaintiff filed suit against the directors, shareholders and the family holding company. Defendants demanded a jury. After a five-day trial, the jury awarded all damages sought against the defendant directors and shareholders for violation of the Virginia Stock Corporations Act’s limitation on distributions to shareholders of an insolvent corporation. The court separately found the transfers to be fraudulent and voluntary conveyances. It ordered the return of the assets of the family holding company that could be returned. It awarded money judgments for the cash, life insurance policies, the $650,000 debt and vehicles that they had sold to third parties or canceled or encumbered while the case was pending. The court also awarded $346,789.03 in attorney’s fees against the family holding company as a sanction against a knowing transferee under Va. Code § .55.1-403.

19. $1.2 million — Taxi crash internally decapitates passenger

Name of case: Brown-Ijames v. TAWA, et al.

Type of case: Motor vehicle negligence

Court: Norfolk Circuit Court

Attorneys: Kevin Biniazan, Virginia Beach, and Salem B. Amare, Arlington

The decedent, a taxi passenger with mental and physical disabilities, died because of an internal decapitation during a collision between the taxicab and another vehicle. The decedent was legally blind, nonverbal, unmarried and had no children.

A lawsuit was filed on behalf of his sisters against the cab driver, the cab companies and the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision. The plaintiffs resolved the claims against the intervening vehicle driver and insurance carriers before the trial but proceeded to trial on theories of negligence against the taxi driver and vicarious liability and negligent hiring and retention against the taxi companies.

The plaintiffs filed and prevailed on motions in limine to exclude argument and evidence pertaining to the negligence of the driver, who resolved their case pretrial. During the trial, the defendants disputed liability and damages.

The plaintiffs presented witnesses demonstrating that the taxi driver was speeding and driving recklessly in the moments before the collision. The plaintiffs also presented evidence through corporate representative and party depositions of defendants demonstrating the taxi driver’s prior reckless driving infractions and the prior knowledge of the infractions by the cab companies.

The defendants called the owner of the taxi companies to rebut prior knowledge of the driver’s reckless driving history but elected not to call the driver to the witness stand. The defendants ultimately argued that the driver was an independent contractor, not an employee. The plaintiffs countered by presenting evidence showing the driver was an agent or employee pursuant to a relationship the cab companies had with a third-party entity for the transportation of the decedent and other disabled adults.

All defendants contested the extent of damages, asserting that the decedent’s lack of speech, work, marriage and children meant there were no economic losses.

The plaintiffs, who were decedent’s beneficiaries, testified. His eldest sister visited him frequently and served as his legal guardian for about a decade before his death. Before then, the plaintiffs were not as actively involved in his life after the deaths of their parents. The plaintiffs presented evidence highlighting the renewed relationship between the family and decedent in recent years apart from the decedent’s half-sister, who had not met him. The half-sister described how their families were estranged, that she had no knowledge of the decedent or her half-sisters until recent years, and that she regretted having not met the decedent before his death.

The plaintiffs did not introduce bills from the decedent’s multinight stay in the emergency department or his funeral expenses and did not request any compensatory award for economic losses and limited evidence and argument to noneconomic losses.

After deliberating for 2½ hours, the jury returned a verdict of $1.2 million in favor of the plaintiffs. The jury found the driver negligent in operating the cab, held the taxi companies vicariously liable for his negligence, and found them liable for negligently hiring and retaining the driver.

20. $1.07 million — Oral surgeon removes all of plaintiff’s teeth

Name of case: Frey v. Winchester Oral Surgery Center P.C., et al.

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Winchester City Circuit Court

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

The plaintiff presented on Jan. 25, 2023, for removal of her 10 remaining lower teeth and placement of two implants to support a future overdenture. The defendant oral surgeon had three prior visits with the plaintiff over the preceding six months, during which time he only ever evaluated and discussed treatment of her lower teeth.

On the day of surgery, the surgeon did not read the consent form signed that morning or ensure that a preoperative timeout was completed before he operated on her.

He proceeded to remove all the plaintiff’s lower and upper teeth. She woke up from anesthesia that morning without any teeth and immediately panicked. She testified to the trauma that she endured that morning and over the 16 months leading up to trial. She continues to face ongoing dental reconstruction for fixed hybrid denture placement on her upper and lower arches and will require maintenance of her fixed hybrid dentures for the rest of her life, with associated inconvenience and the foreseeable potential for complications and additional trauma. Her past and future economic damages, all related to dental reconstruction, were about $130,000.

The plaintiff sued for negligence, battery and punitive damages arising out of willful and wanton negligence and the battery. The willful and wanton negligence and punitive damages claims were challenged on demurrer and again in the pretrial phase, and survived through trial, including motions to strike. The defense conceded ordinary negligence but litigated the willful and wanton negligence, battery, compensatory damages and punitive damages aspects of the case.

The defense offered $300,000 before trial, asked the jury to award $400,000 in closing argument and offered $600,000 moments before the jury returned its verdict.

After a four-day jury trial, the jury deliberated for about three hours and awarded $1 million, as well as prejudgment interest from the negligent removal of her upper teeth on Jan. 25, 2023, resulting in a total verdict of $1,079,561.64.