Million Dollar Verdicts of 2025

In 2025, attorneys from around the commonwealth reported 19 verdicts of $1 million or more to VLW.

Typically, there are between 15 to 20 million-dollar jury verdicts reported to VLW each year. In 2024, attorneys reported 20 million-dollar verdicts, the most since 2019. In 2023, attorneys reported 14 million-dollar verdicts, a slight decrease from the 18 verdicts reported to VLW in 2022.

Twelve million-dollar verdicts were reported in 2021 as the courts reopened following the COVID-19 pandemic. With trial courts closed for most of 2020, only three verdicts of $1 million or more were reported that year.

Our 2025 feature highlights verdicts on a variety of issues, from a Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act case in Hanover County with a verdict north of $9.5 million to a defamation case in which a Roanoke County jury awarded a $1 million verdict.

Thank you to all the lawyers who shared these reports, and we look forward to hearing from you this year.

Note: Virginia Lawyers Weekly omitted the largest verdict, a $10 million gross negligence verdict handed down by a jury in Newport News, from the original version of this story. The story has been edited to include the verdict.

1  $10 million

Jury returns $10M verdict for Newport News teacher shot by student

Case name: Zwerner v. Parker

Type of case: Negligence and tort

Court: Newport News Circuit Court

Attorneys: Diane Toscano, Virginia Beach, Toscano Law Group; Jeffrey Breit and Kevin Biniazan, Virginia Beach, Breit Biniazan

Case description: On January 6, 2023, Richneck Elementary School first-grade teacher Abby Zwerner was shot by her 6-year-old student in front of her class. The bullet pierced Zwerner’s left hand and lodged into her upper left chest, two centimeters from her aorta, almost killing her. Zwerner alleged assistant principal Ebony Parker received multiple warnings earlier in the day that the 6-year-old boy possessed a gun and that Parker failed to take the necessary actions to prevent the shooting, including directing a search of the boy and calling law enforcement.

Before the commencement of trial, the defendants filed pleas in bar asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter pursuant to the Virginia Workers Compensation Act and that each defendant was immune from suit in accordance with the commonwealth’s sovereign immunity. The court denied the plea in bar pursuant to the workers compensation act, but granted defendants’ plea of sovereign immunity, in part. The court found the assistant principal may be held liable for gross negligence, but not for simple negligence.

The trial proceeded on a single count of gross negligence against Parker arising out of her assumed duty of care towards the plaintiff and others similarly situated in the school.

The defense argued that Parker in her role as assistant principal did not owe a duty of care to Zwerner and that, even if such a duty existed, Parker’s conduct was sufficient under Virginia law to satisfy any legal obligation. The defense also argued that Zwerner was contributorily negligent by not taking steps to search the boy herself or call 911.

The defense did not dispute that the damages resulted from the shooting. The defense argued that the injuries do not inhibit the plaintiff from returning to gainful and meaningful employment, specifically the plaintiff’s pursuit of a career in cosmetology in the aftermath of her time as a teacher.

The jury found for the plaintiff for $10 million with pre-judgment interest.

2   $9,573,963.94

Trio accused of luring staff, clients to competing business

Case name: J. Park & Associates v. Rue et al.

Type of case: Commercial

Court: Hanover County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Christopher D. Davis and Erin C. McDaniel, Chesapeake, Davis, Burch & Abrams

Case description: The plaintiff purchased an accounting, tax and tax problem resolution practice in Mechanicsville in August 2018 from a trust set up by the defendant. The defendant stayed on as an employee after the sale, along with his two daughters, also defendants.

In 2021, according to the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants secretly started a competing business and conspired to copy the company server onto an external hard drive and to covertly, while still employed by the plaintiff, move the files, staff and clients to the new company.

After the lawsuit was filed, all defendants indicated in discovery that the defendant had no involvement, and they told the court that there were no responsive text message communications because the defendants did not use their cellphones for business.

After a third-party subpoena revealed that these representations were false, the court ordered a forensic review of defendants’ cell phones and computers. The forensic review confirmed, among other things, that the defendant was substantially involved in the conspiracy and was actively competing.

The court entered an adverse inference against the daughters but not the father. Also, the plaintiff successfully advanced a legal theory of “closely related parties” to enforce the non-compete against the defendant personally, although only the trust was a party to the sale documents. At trial, the jury found all defendants jointly and severally liable on all counts asserted by the plaintiff and awarded punitive damages.

The verdict of $9,573,963.94 includes $8,835,677.99 awarded to plaintiffs by the jury and an additional $738,285.95 awarded by the court post-trial comprising attorneys’ fees, costs and forensic expenses.

3  $7.25 million

Jury finds police lieutenant not promoted due to race

Case name: Goodrum v. City of Alexandria

Type of case: Employment discrimination

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division

Attorneys: Joshua Erlich and Katherine Herrmann, Arlington County, Erlich Law

Case description: The plaintiff alleged that the Alexandria city government, through the Alexandria Police Department, failed to promote him to captain due to his race. Specifically, the former chief of police stated that he intended to promote on the basis of race. Following those statements, the police department denied a promotion to the plaintiff, despite the chief having already acknowledged his qualifications and his intent to promote the plaintiff. The person selected over the plaintiff was a less qualified white officer.

The city alleged the plaintiff was not promoted due to his performance. The jury deliberated for approximately two hours and returned a verdict of $7.25 million in the plaintiff’s favor.

4  $6 million

Driver sustained severe leg injuries in crash on Route 1

Case name: Dalton v. Smithers

Type of case: Motor vehicle negligence

Court: Hanover County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Edward L. Allen and Anna Katogiritis, Henrico County, Allen & Allen

Case description: This personal injury case arose out of a motor vehicle collision on U.S. Route 1 in Ashland. The defendant, traveling southbound facing a flashing yellow arrow, failed to yield the right of way attempting a left turn onto England Street, directly into the side of plaintiff’s northbound motorcycle. The plaintiff sustained severe injuries to his left leg, including open femur fractures, tibia fractures, severe fractures to the heel bone and ruptured tendons and ligaments. The plaintiff underwent below-the-knee surgical amputation of his leg 17 days after the crash, following extensive but unsuccessful efforts to save his leg.

Prior to trial, State Farm paid a total of $90,000 limits of three underinsured motorist policies and offered defendant’s liability limits of $50,000. The defendant appeared to possess significant personal assets, including an unencumbered residence in Caroline County. After the verdict, State Farm paid the $50,000 liability limits on behalf of the defendant.

At trial, the defense argued the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, based upon a video of the collision taken from a traffic camera previously installed in the intersection by the Ashland Police Department. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court ruled that defendant was negligent as a matter of law and struck defendant’s claim of contributory negligence. Only the issue of damages was submitted to the jury.

The Hanover County jury returned a verdict of $6 million after approximately 30 minutes of deliberation. Although all insurance coverage available has now been paid, defendant has noted appeal of the judgment.

5  $5.021 million

Patient dies after dental surgery due to pulmonary embolism

Case name: Robert Moody, Administrator of the Estate of Kristen Moody, v. Williams

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Chesterfield County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Derrick Walker, Henrico County, and Kari La Fratta, Charlottesville, Allen & Allen

Case description: The decedent, who was obese and taking oral contraceptives, was not provided with mechanical deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis — specifically sequential compression devices — despite being at moderate risk for DVT. The plaintiff alleged that the anesthesiologist failed to assess her risk and did not include any mechanical prophylaxis in the anesthesia plan.

Immediately after surgery, the patient decompensated after being assisted into her husband’s car. Despite CPR and emergency transport, she was pronounced dead at the hospital. An autopsy later revealed multiple pulmonary emboli in her lungs.

Plaintiff’s experts testified that the decedent was at a moderate risk for developing DVT based on her obesity, use of oral contraception and the planned prolonged dental surgery under general anesthesia; and therefore, the procedure should not have gone forward without SCDs.

The plaintiff’s hematology expert testified that the fatal embolism likely developed intraoperatively due to prolonged immobilization and other risk factors, and that the use of SCDs would have prevented DVT and the fatal pulmonary embolism. Plaintiff’s forensic pathology expert testified that the fatal emboli likely developed intraoperatively based on their size, texture and lack of microscopic features typically associated with older clots.

Defense experts argued the patient was at low risk for DVT during the procedure and therefore prophylaxis was not required. They testified the embolism likely existed prior to the surgery. Specifically, the defense forensic pathology expert cited the microscopic presence of fibroblasts, connective tissue cells generally associated with the healing process, which supported a clot age of two to five days before death. The defense pulmonology/critical care expert is a nationally known authority on pulmonary embolism medicine and prolific publisher on the topic. He testified he probably sees more PE cases than any other physician in the country and that he has never seen the formation of a DVT leading to PE occur during a minimally invasive dental procedure, even one lasting six hours.

The decedent was survived by her husband of five years and her 10-year-old son.

The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $5.021 million after approximately six hours of deliberation.

6  $3,460,223.86

T-bone crash causes injury, long-term pain and numbness

Case name: Mitchell v. West

Type of case: Motor vehicle negligence

Court: Spotsylvania County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Jason W. Konvicka, Henrico County, and
P. Wilson Van Winkle, Fredericksburg, Allen & Allen

Case description: This case arose out of a motor vehicle collision in which the defendant ran a red light and T-boned the plaintiff’s vehicle at an intersection on state Route 3 in Spotsylvania County. The plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed more than 100 feet across the intersection and up onto a curb.

The impact fractured his C5-C6 vertebra and caused an arterial dissection, leading to permanent neck pain and numbness of the hands. Liability was not disputed.

The plaintiff was originally treated at Mary Washington Hospital, where he was examined and released with a diagnosis of whiplash. Three days later, he presented to urgent care, where a CT scan revealed mildly displaced fractures of C5 and C6 and a vertebral artery dissection. The plaintiff was transported to Inova Fairfax Hospital and admitted for three days.

Following his release, the plaintiff was required to wear a hard Aspen collar for seven months while his fractured vertebrae and artery dissection healed. Before the crash, the plaintiff worked as a sidewalk repair technician, using a 70-pound saw to cut and remove damaged portions of sidewalks.

Following this initial seven-month treatment period, the plaintiff was not seen by any doctor for crash-related injuries for three years. During this time, the plaintiff was able to return to work in a less physically demanding role, surveying sidewalks for defects.

However, by September 2022, his condition had progressed and he was terminated from his job for reduced performance. Around this time, he also returned to a pain management clinic for treatment, which is still ongoing.

By the time of trial, the plaintiff’s past medical bills totaled $50,287.36 and his past wage losses amounted to $77,750.

His doctors, who are all in North Carolina, and all of the plaintiff’s experts testified via Zoom deposition.

Costs for future medical care were projected to reach $1,492,186.50. Experts testified in support of a lost earning capacity claim valued at $840,000.

The defense focused heavily on the three-year gap in treatment and the plaintiff’s lack of employment since 2022, as well as the large amount of claimed future specials. An expert described the plaintiff’s injuries as mild and not sufficient to explain his ongoing complaints or work restrictions.

After approximately two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for $3,460,223.86, which represented the amount of the plaintiff’s claimed economic damages plus $1 million. Post-trial motions are pending.

7  $3.3 million

Birth injury caused boy’s permanent impairment

Case name: John Doe v. Jane Doe

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Attorneys: Charles J. Zauzig III and Melissa G. Ray, Woodbridge, Nichols Zauzig

Case description: An expectant mother presented to the hospital in labor on April 12, 2019, at 39 weeks, with her second baby.

The defendant obstetrician was assigned as her attending physician.

As labor progressed throughout the day, the baby’s heart rate showed repetitive decelerations on the electronic fetal monitoring strips and the nurse asked the defendant OB to evaluate her. At about 6:21 p.m., the mother was 9.5 cm dilated with an anterior lip. The defendant OB pushed the lip over the baby’s head with the next contraction and the baby’s head delivered after the mother pushed two more times.

The defendant doctor documented in her delivery note that after the head delivered, she called for assistance for shoulder dystocia and two nurses performed the McRoberts maneuver as the doctor applied “gentle” downward pressure in an effort to relieve the impacted anterior shoulder. The baby did not deliver, and the defendant OB attempted to perform a corkscrew maneuver, but there was still no movement of the impacted shoulder. Next, the defendant OB documented that she then delivered the baby’s left arm, which was the posterior arm, and the baby delivered. She recorded the shoulder dystocia as lasting one minute.

The baby weighed 3910 grams and had an Apgar score of 9 at 1 minute and 5 minutes. In the delivery room, it was documented that the baby was not moving his right arm, the limb with the impacted shoulder. During her deposition, the defendant OB said she used downward traction a second time during the delivery, but that was not documented in the records.

The defense argued that maternal forces of labor caused the baby’s injury, not the defendant OB.

The baby was seen at 3 months of age at Children’s National Medical Center in the brachial plexus clinic. An MRI was performed that showed evidence of a C8 nerve root avulsion. A nerve graft surgery was performed at 13 months of age. Shortly after the surgery, the baby started physical therapy and occupational therapy, which continues to this day.

Plaintiff’s counsel videotaped testimony of the treating occupational therapist that was played at trial along with several short videos taken during some of the child’s therapy visits to demonstrate the boy’s limitations. Despite surgery and years of therapy, the child has permanent limitations in the function of his right arm, hand and fingers.

8  $3,089,602.88

Patient dies following CT-guided lung biopsy

Case name: Estate of Belinda Lattimer v. Fairfax Radiological Consultants PLLC

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Fairfax Circuit Court

Attorneys: Lee Livingston and Anthony Greene, Charlottesville, Livingston Law Group

Case description: The plaintiff’s decedent was a 64-year-old full-time credit union manager with severe emphysema and nonsmoker’s COPD. She underwent a routine CT-guided lung biopsy to evaluate pulmonary nodules.

During the procedure, an interventional radiologist placed a chest tube through the posterior biopsy tract to evacuate a pneumothorax that had developed. In that process, the intercostal artery was injured, though the injury went unrecognized for 28 hours. The patient experienced massive internal hemorrhaging and suffered cardiac arrest shortly thereafter.

A second interventional radiologist performed a coil embolization, but by then the decedent was beyond resuscitation. She died approximately 36 hours after the biopsy. An autopsy performed by a pathologist that the plaintiff retained testified that his findings were consistent with an intercostal artery bleed.

The plaintiff’s interventional radiology expert testified that the standard of care required chest tube placement in the anterior or lateral “safe triangle,” where the intercostal space is wider and the intercostal artery lies directly beneath the rib, not posteriorly at the biopsy site. The plaintiff presented medical literature from multiple journals that supported
anterior/lateral placement to minimize vascular injury. Coronal and sagittal imaging showed the tube placed just under the superior rib, where the artery sits — a location all experts agreed should be avoided. There was a dispute over whether these images were reliable.

The defense argued that placing the tube through the biopsy tract was safer and faster, given the patient’s fragile lungs. The plaintiff countered defense life expectancy arguments with a pulmonologist who testified that the decedent was highly active, biking 10-plus miles and walking 4 miles daily. He estimated a 15-year-plus life expectancy, rebutting defense claims that her lungs were barely functioning and that she only had six years of life expectancy.

The decedent’s husband of 26 years, a veteran, and her 35-year-old daughter, who had recently given birth to twins, testified to her central role in their lives. The husband testified to their shared life and home responsibilities, the profound connection they enjoyed, and the life they had planned out together, including retirement on the beach. The daughter described the deep personal loss of not having her mother present during early motherhood and the loss of a grandmother to her kids.

The last settlement offer was $120,000 against a demand of $850,000. No offer was made at trial. After deliberating in six hours, the jury returned a verdict of $3,089,602.88, including $3 million in wrongful death damages, $83,708.74 in medical bills, and $5,894.14 in funeral expenses.

9  $3 million

Rehab center’s medication error results in blood clot and death

Case name: Tina Fornville, Administrator of the Estate of Barbara Tucker v.
Lynchburg Care Center LLC

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Lynchburg Circuit Court

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

Case description: The decedent was 68 years old and lived independently. One morning, she was walking to the bathroom when she twisted and broke her ankle, and fell and broke her knee cap. She underwent ankle and knee surgery at Centra Lynchburg General Hospital. Following surgery, it was determined she needed the prescription blood-thinning medication Lovenox to prevent a blood clot because she would be immobile for about six weeks. The plan was for the decedent to enter inpatient rehabilitation, after which she would return home to live independently.

Upon identifying the inpatient rehabilitation facility, the hospital sent records to the defendant stating that the decedent needed Lovenox. These records included an order reconciliation report specifically identifying Lovenox as one of the decedent’s medications that was ordered.

However, the defendant never noted or entered Lovenox as one of the decedent’s medications at its facility. Also, the defendant never notified its medical director and the decedent’s attending doctor of Lovenox. Consequently, the decedent never received Lovenox while at defendant facility.

Additionally, the defendant failed to provide the decedent with almost all her other medications during the first few days of her admission to the facility due to long-standing problems with its pharmacy. The defendant never alerted any of the decedent’s medical providers that she was not getting her medications. The defendant’s failure to provide the decedent her other medications caused harm to her and contributed to her blood clot and death, the plaintiff alleged in the lawsuit.

Eleven days after arriving at the defendant facility, the decedent suffered a pulmonary embolism that resulted in her death. The decedent was survived by four adult children.

In jury selection, the court granted the plaintiff’s Batson motion to one of the jurors struck by the defendant and later denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration, specifically finding that the defendant’s proffered excuse was pretextual.

The defendant’s nursing expert testified at trial on cross-examination that the defendant violated its own policies, Virginia law and federal law.

The defendant’s hematology expert testified on cross-examination that, if the defendant had provided decedent Lovenox beginning at any time during the first five days of her admission to the defendant’s facility, the decedent would have avoided her wrongful death. He also stated on cross-examination that he has made over $2 million as a paid expert witness, and that a federal judge had previously ruled that his testimony in a case was purely speculative and without foundation.

The defendant’s primary defense was to blame its medical director and the decedent’s attending doctor, who had been a defendant in the case but was nonsuited before trial.

The jury found for the plaintiff, awarding each of the adult beneficiaries $750,000 plus medical expenses and funeral expenses with interest from the date of the wrongful death.

10  $2.975 million

Children secure abuse verdict against mother

Case name: Zheng v. Lin; Zheng v. Lin (combined)

Type of case: Negligence and tort

Court: Fairfax Circuit Court

Attorneys: Thomas K. Plofchan and Jacqueline A. Kramer, Potomac Falls, Westlake Legal Group

Case description: The defendant was sued by her children for child abuse inflicted over a period of more than six years.

On July 3, 2025, after a four-day trial, a jury for the combined cases found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding compensatory damages to the daughter of $250,000 for assault and battery, plus $25,000 in punitive damages. The jury further awarded her $1 million in compensatory damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and $75,0000 in punitive damages.

The jury awarded the son compensatory damages of $500,000 for assault and battery, and $50,000 in punitive damages. It further awarded him $1 million in compensatory damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, with an additional $75,000 in punitive damages.

Judge Patrick M. Blanch heard the case in front of a seven-person jury.

The daughter, 19, and son, 18, sued their mother for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, gross negligence and willful and wanton negligence stemming from child abuse they endured from the time they were toddlers until their preteen years. Before trial, the court granted summary judgment as to liability on assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the trial proceeded on damages only. The plaintiffs nonsuited their negligence claims.

The defendant’s mental, emotional, physical and psychological abuse against the daughter and son continued until her incarceration in 2015. She remains incarcerated on a 2010 conviction for child abuse and a subsequent 2015 conviction for cruelty and injury to children.

Testimony established that the defendant often beat the children, punctured them with sewing needles, and manipulated and tortured the plaintiffs, demanding they determine the place on their bodies for additional puncture wounds. The abuse was initially discovered when the plaintiff son went to Inova Fairfax Hospital with a sewing needle embedded in his buttocks.

Additional testimony recounted instances of force-feeding to the point of inducing vomiting, with the children then required to consume their own vomit. The defendant also required the plaintiffs to stand and/or exercise for hours and would make them copy homework assignments thousands of times.

The plaintiffs testified regarding the mental and emotional impacts resulting from a childhood of cruelty, with both having difficulty forming relationships, grappling with grief and trust issues, anxiety, insecurity, trauma and eating disorders.

Plaintiffs’ expert witness concluded that the plaintiffs suffer from impairment across every domain of functioning, including but not limited to work, therapy, school, relationships, and even simple functions such as leaving the house. The plaintiffs suffer from obsessive and intrusive thoughts related to the defendant’s past abusive behavior, and the repercussions of her abuse on the plaintiffs will be lifelong. The defendant did not counter-designate an expert.

The plaintiffs testified as to their extreme distress, physical and emotional pain at the hands of their mother. The defendant also testified from prison. No appeal was taken from the verdict.

11  $2,727,417.87

Long-term workplace exposure to asbestos led to mesothelioma

Case name: Forehand v. VEPCO

Type of case: Products liability

Court: Newport News Circuit Court

Attorneys: Robert R. Hatten and Hugh B. McCormick, Newport News, Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein; Nathan D. Finch, Washington, D.C., Motley Rice

Case description: The plaintiff testified that from 1965 to 1971, he drove a delivery truck and worked in the warehouse of
Caudle-Hyatt, a former distributor of Johns-Manville asbestos insulation in Hopewell. In that work, he delivered thousands of cartons of asbestos insulation to VEPCO’s Chesterfield County power plant.

The cartons were delivered to the loading dock and contractors at VEPCO, who were installing and removing asbestos insulation on the premises of the plant.

The expert testimony of a materials scientist from Atlanta demonstrated through videotaped testing that the plaintiff would have had significantly high exposures to airborne asbestos fibers. The exposures came from opening the cartons on VEPCO’s premises and delivering them to areas where asbestos insulators were creating airborne asbestos dust from their work.

A pathologist who worked at a Newport News hospital for 36 years and has seen over 500 mesothelioma cases in Newport News and thousands more as a consultant, testified that the exposures received by the plaintiff at VEPCO were sufficient to cause mesothelioma and were a proximate cause of his disease.

A medical historian from Columbia University testified that VEPCO should have known about mesothelioma and how to prevent asbestos exposure since at least 1964. This opinion was based upon thousands of widely published medical articles from the 1930s through the 1950s concerning asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. His opinion that VEPCO should have known that asbestos was dangerous and should have warned the plaintiff when he was on company premises was supported by the fact that asbestosis has been recognized under Virginia’s workers compensation laws since 1944. He further testified that safety procedures for handling asbestos were published in 1943, long before OSHA was enacted in 1972.

The plaintiff’s testimony was supported by Caudle-Hyatt’s secretary from 1966 to 1972. She testified that VEPCO routinely purchased asbestos insulation from Caudle-Hyatt and 75% of the deliveries were made by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff testified to receiving extensive medical treatment and to his prognosis that mesothelioma will eventually cause his death.

The plaintiff has received settlements from some other parties and, under Virginia’s joint and several liability rules, the defendant will get a “dollar-for-dollar credit for any past settlements against the amount of the verdict.”

12  $2.225 million

Brakes fail on company vehicle, leading to crash, injuries

Case name: Nunez v. Drywall Specialists Inc.

Type of case: Motor vehicle negligence

Court: Richmond Circuit Court

Attorneys: Thomas Noel Brooks and Jesse Andres Baez, Chesterfield County, Brooks & Baez

Case description: A Richmond jury awarded $2.225 million to an independent contractor who was injured after the brakes failed on a company-provided vehicle.

The plaintiff was driving a 2002 Chevrolet Trailblazer on her way to a job site when the SUV’s brakes failed. She swerved to avoid another car and collided with a roadside fence, sustaining serious injuries.

Evidence at trial showed that the vehicle had a history of mechanical issues, including a prior accident and a failed safety inspection. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, through its agent, provided the vehicle despite knowing it was unsafe to operate. The defense contested liability and causation and maintained that the vehicle was not unreasonably dangerous at the time it was provided.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff after a multiday trial. The defendant’s last pretrial offer was $250,000.

13  $2.2 million

Lap pad left after C-section results in abscess, sepsis

Case name: Kaur v. Women First OB/GYN PC

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Fairfax Circuit Court

Attorneys: Anthony “Tony” M. Russell and Matt E. Kelley, Roanoke, MichieHamlett; Ken W. Curtis, Fairfax, Mahdavi, Bacon, Halfhill & Young

Case description: The defendant’s OB surgeon performed a C-section on the plaintiff for her first and only child, during which a surgical lap pad was left inside the patient’s right abdomen. The retained lap pad was discovered five months later, resulting in near death, two surgeries, sepsis, abscess, drain placements, long-term IV antibiotics, abdominal scarring, pain, discomfort and loss of bonding with child, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiff’s evidence showed that it had long been established medically that counts of lap pads may be said by nurses to be correct when they are actually incorrect, a situation known as “false correct counts.” As a result, surgeons cannot solely rely upon nurses’ counts to ensure that there is no retained lap pad in a patient; instead, surgeons must take other safeguards, including asking for lap pads from nurses; attaching an instrument to a lap pad that hangs outside the patient’s body; announcing the placement of a lap pad so the nurses can write the placement on a whiteboard; and performing a meticulous visual and manual exploration of the patient’s abdomen to identify and remove any retained objects. In addition, the plaintiff stated that the evidence showed that the defendant’s OB surgeon placed the retained lap pad.

The defendant’s OB surgeon stated that she did not know about false correct counts before this litigation but added that she did know that retained objects had been found in patients.

The plaintiff’s experts and the defendant’s sole physician expert testified that the defendant’s OB surgeon deviated from the standard of care by not knowing about false correct counts and performing other safeguards required to prevent a retained object.

Primarily, the defendant argued that its OB surgeon could reasonably rely upon the fact that the nurses said that their counts were correct, and that her assistant, not the defendant’s OB surgeon, placed the retained lap pad. Also, the defendant argued that its OB surgeon did perform the other safeguards, even though her sole physician expert said that there was no evidence of such.

In closing, the defendant argued that its OB surgeon fully complied with the standard of care, that the retained lap pad was not the defendant’s fault, and that, if the jury believed otherwise, it should award the plaintiff $500,000.

The jury returned a verdict of $2.2 million after about three hours of deliberation.

14  $2.1 million

Jury finds wife negligent in husband’s poisoning

Case name: Allen B. Repp II, administrator of the Estate of
Richard Allen Repp, deceased v. Deborah MacArthur Repp

Type of case: Negligence and tort

Court: Henrico County Circuit Court

Attorney: Keith B. Marcus, Richmond, Blank & Marcus

Case description: In this wrongful death case, the decedent’s adult children sued their stepmother for poisoning their father with an overdose of salicylate, the main ingredient in aspirin. It was alleged that she overdosed him with BC Powder, an over-the-counter pain reliever. In addition, the decedent had extremely high (although not lethal) levels of duloxetine and memantine.

The decedent was a former lawyer and had suffered with depression and anxiety almost his entire life, including a suicide attempt in the 1990s. The defendant, almost 10 years his junior, was a highly decorated trauma nurse with more than 35 years of experience. She received many accolades for her nursing ability and sold an in-home nursing business for over $2 million.

The plaintiff sued under two theories: assault by poison and negligence and breach of assumption of a duty. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant poisoned her husband and watched him die, failing to call 911 in a timely manner.

Part of the plaintiff’s case addressed the defendant’s motives. The defendant had forged a large check of the decedent and was using the decedent’s long-term care policy as a
profit center by forging time sheets, exaggerating hours and inflating hourly rates, the plaintiffs alleged.

The case was tried over six days. The jury deliberated for about six hours and returned a verdict on the negligence claim for $1.9 million dollars and $200,000 in punitive damages split equally among the three adult children.

15  $1,921,164

Part of appendix left behind, requiring second operation

Case name: Agostini v. Inova Health Care Services

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Loudoun County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Travis W. Markley, Richard L. Nagle and James N. Knaack, Reston, TrialHawk Litigation Group

Case description: On June 1, 2023, the 38-year-old plaintiff presented to a hospital in Leesburg with acute appendicitis. After appropriate evaluation by the emergency medicine team, he was scheduled for an immediate appendectomy. The surgery was reported to have been completed without any complication, and he was discharged from the hospital the same day.

After three days of uneventful and improving recovery, the plaintiff awoke on June 4, 2023, with a recurrence of the pain he had experienced prior to his June 1 emergency department visit. He promptly returned to the emergency department, where it was discovered that the distal half of his appendix remained freely floating and festering in his abdomen. That evening, the surgeon’s partner took the patient back to the operating room for emergency exploratory surgery to remove the remainder of the appendix. The surgeon found purulent drainage and an inflammatory mass now engulfing the end of the retained appendix, none of which was present three days earlier.

After successful and uncomplicated removal of his residual appendix, the plaintiff remained in the hospital for four nights, taking antibiotics and pain medications. He was discharged home on June 8, 2023, after incurring medical bills of approximately $40,000. The plaintiff’s condition improved after his return home, and he was cleared to return to work on June 16, 2023, by the repair surgeon. At the same visit, the plaintiff was also diagnosed with an exacerbation of his underlying inguinal hernias, which pre-existed the original appendectomy, but had become symptomatic since the surgery to remove his residual appendix. As a result of the multiple abdominal surgeries he had just undergone, he had to wait until March 2024 to have the inguinal hernias surgically repaired. In the interim, the plaintiff filed suit against the surgeon and her employer.

At her discovery deposition, the surgeon volunteered that the standard of care requires removal of the entire appendix during an appendectomy. The defendants nevertheless designated two experts to testify that her original surgery was completed within the standard of care and did not cause any harm to the plaintiff. The defendants made a final offer of $350,000 just over a month before trial, but the parties could not resolve the case.

Prior to trial, plaintiff nonsuited the surgeon as an individual defendant and proceeded to trial solely against her employer as responsible for her conduct. The plaintiff called two general surgery experts, both of whom agreed that the standard of care required the surgeon to remove the entire appendix and to examine the tissue that she had removed to ensure that she removed all of it. At trial, the case was defended with expert and fact witness testimony on the grounds that the surgery was performed appropriately and did not cause the plaintiff’s ensuing damages in any amount.

On the fourth day of trial, the plaintiff requested a verdict of $1.5 million on approximately $40,000 in medical bills. After deliberations of slightly more than an hour, the jury awarded the plaintiff $1.75 million, as well as prejudgment interest from the date of the negligent surgery on June 1, 2023.

16  $1,461,051

Rear-end interstate crash leads to herniated disc, surgeries

Case name: Hamlin v. Tran

Type of case: Motor vehicle negligence

Court: Richmond Circuit Court

Attorney: Christopher J. Toepp, Henrico County, Allen & Allen

Case description: The plaintiff, then in her mid-40s, was rear-ended in heavy traffic at the I-64/I-95 interchange in Richmond. Liability in the case was admitted.

The plaintiff immediately reported acute neck pain but declined to be evaluated in the emergency room and instead returned home. The next morning, when her pain worsened and she developed right-sided radiculopathy, her husband took her to the hospital. Seven days later, she was evaluated by her treating neurosurgeon, who identified a C5-6 disc herniation. She ultimately underwent an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and then a posterior decompression to address that injury circumferentially. Causation and medical necessity for both of those surgical procedures were also admitted in the case.

Shortly after her second neck surgery, the plaintiff developed left-sided upper extremity radiculopathy which necessitated a third fusion at C6-7. Thereafter, she developed acute lower back pain and had a fourth surgery to address a pars defect in her lumbar spine. She then had a fifth surgery to fuse C3-5, which largely resolved her ongoing complaints. Her treating neurosurgeon attributed her ongoing neck issues to adjacent segment disease caused by the first fusion procedure. Causation relative to all these subsequent procedures, especially the plaintiff’s lumbar issues, was hotly contested.

The named defendant in the case, who carried the state minimum liability coverage limits, was released pursuant to Va. Code § 38.2-2206 prior to filing suit. The primary UIM carrier made a substantial pre-trial settlement offer on the eve of trial that was rejected.

17  $1.4 million

ER misdiagnosis of ulcer led to death 10 hours later

Case name: Walker v. Rubenstein et al.

Type of case: Medical malpractice

Court: Norfolk Circuit Court

Attorneys: Amberley G. Hammer, Currituck, North Carolina, Hammer Law; Jonathan L. Thornton, Virginia Beach, Pierce & Thornton

Case description: The 30-year-old decedent presented to the former DePaul Medical Center in Norfolk on Dec. 28, 2019, with 10/10 abdominal pain, profusive sweat, cramping hands, feeling like he couldn’t breathe, vomiting and screaming in pain. He reported smoking marijuana earlier in the day.

He was triaged and quickly evaluated by a physician assistant, who ordered Zofran, labs and IV fluids. The PA sent the plaintiff to the main emergency room side for evaluation by the defendant ER doctor. The defendant saw the decedent within 45 minutes and documented that he performed a complete physical examination and noted the abdominal exam was normal. The decedent’s girlfriend disputed that an exam was performed.

Although the defendant ER doctor included several life-threatening conditions in his differential diagnosis, he failed to order any imaging, including an abdominal CT scan, and failed to request a surgical consult. His clinical impression was “nausea and vomiting of uncertain etiology.”

The medical record showed that the discharge was initiated by the defendant after the decedent was seen by him but before lab results were returned. The decedent’s lab results came back abnormal. The defense disputed that the discharge was initiated earlier in the evening.

The decedent was discharged with pain at an 8/10 level. The defendant claimed he was not aware of the decedent’s pain level at the time of discharge.

About 10 hours after his ER discharge, the plaintiff collapsed on the floor of his girlfriend’s home. A rescue squad returned him to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead shortly thereafter. The undisputed cause of death was a perforated duodenal ulcer. The decedent was survived by his 6-year-old son, the sole statutory beneficiary.

The plaintiff’s experts testified that the standard of care required ordering and performing an abdominal CT scan and requesting a surgical consult. The plaintiff’s experts testified that an abdominal CT scan would have shown abnormal radiology findings concerning a gastric outlet obstruction from a duodenal ulcer. The plaintiff’s surgical expert testified that a nasogastric tube would have been placed, thus saving his life.

At trial, the defendant’s experts testified that the decedent’s symptoms were caused by smoking marijuana, a syndrome known as cannabinoid hyperemesis, and were not from his duodenal ulcer. The plaintiff’s experts disputed that testimony. The defendant stated he did not include cannabinoid hyperemesis in his differential diagnosis that was recorded in the medical record. The defendant’s experts further testified that an abdominal CT scan would not have shown abnormal findings, that a surgical consult was not warranted and that the plaintiff’s death was tragic.

After a five-day jury trial and approximately nine hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

18   (tie)$1 million

Ex-state senator, wife defamed daughter’s girlfriend

Case name: Doe v. Bell et al.

Type of case: Negligence and tort

Court: Roanoke County Circuit Court

Attorneys: Alicha Grubb, Jared Tuck and Frank Clay, Roanoke, Gentry Locke Attorneys

Case description: The defendants are a former state senator and his wife, a former employee of the state attorney general’s office. The defendant couple discovered their daughter was in a same-sex dating relationship with Jane Doe while the girls were students at Cave Spring High School. The defendants instructed their daughter to end the relationship, but she did not.

The daughter told her parents that Jane Doe touched her on the back at the prompting of another student because Jane Doe’s hands were cold and Jane Doe kissed the daughter on the lips without asking for consent. Based on those two events, the defendants told the principal that their daughter had been sexually assaulted by Jane Doe.

However, the principal talked to the daughter, who did not characterize the touches as unwelcome and who confessed to lying to her parents. The principal relayed that information to the defendants.

Four months later, without conducting any additional investigation, the defendants drafted a letter that the former state senator, who left office in 2008, sent on his former Senate letterhead. The couple sent the letter to the entire Roanoke County School Board and several state officials, accusing Jane Doe of twice sexually assaulting their daughter, without providing any details of the two events.

Upon receipt of the letter, the defendant former senator filed a Title IX complaint against Jane Doe and several other individuals, including school administration. Jane Doe sued the defendants for defamation per se.

After filing the lawsuit, the defendants took their daughter to the police for the first time, nine months after the incidents at issue. The daughter told police and admitted at trial that the reason she went to the police was to try to stop the lawsuit against her parents. The criminal complaint was closed as unfounded, and no criminal charges were brought. A few months later, the Title IX investigation concluded with a finding of “not responsible” for all those accused, including Jane Doe.

In the defamation case, the court ruled the defendants were entitled to a qualified privilege because they made their statements to individuals with a corresponding interest or duty in the subject matter. The court also ruled that false allegations of sexual assault are defamation per se. The trial was bifurcated between liability and damages. After three days of evidence and argument on the liability portion, the jury found that both defendants defamed Jane Doe and abused the privilege.

Following damages evidence, the jury awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, plus pre-judgment interest from July 22, 2022, the date of the letter.

18  (tie)$1 million

Jury sides with defendant, awards $1M for malicious prosecution

Case name: Hartnett v. Hardenbergh et al.

Type of case: Negligence and tort

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division

Attorneys: Thomas K. Plofchan Jr., Potomac Falls, Westlake Legal Group; Wyatt B. Durrette, Kevin J. Funk and Christine Williams, Richmond, Durrette, Arkema, Gerson & Gill

Case description: The plaintiff sued the defendants, a married couple, for assault and battery, defamation, trespass and malicious prosecution, alleging that the defendants kidnapped the plaintiff in July 2019. The female defendant countersued for malicious prosecution.

After a nine-day trial, the wife was found not liable to the plaintiff on all claims and was awarded compensatory damages of $950,000 and punitive damages of $50,000 in her counterclaim for malicious prosecution. The court remitted the award to $687,500. The jury rejected the plaintiff’s claims for assault and battery, trespass and malicious prosecution and also rejected claims against the husband defendant for assault and battery, trespass and malicious prosecution.

The male defendant is a licensed attorney in Virginia with a law office in Petersburg. His wife operates the business. The parties in the case were neighbors, living less than two blocks away from each other in Petersburg, and the defendants would often visit the plaintiff’s home and swim in her pool and otherwise had family-type gatherings at the plaintiff’s home.

In February 2017, the plaintiff began volunteering for the defendant husband by driving him to and from his law offices in Petersburg and Lexington and driving him to and from various court appearances across Virginia.

On July 20, 2019, the parties in the case were driven in the defendants’ limo by a driver to dinner at Bookbinders in Richmond, and thereafter to a charity event held at the Hippodrome in Richmond and then returned to their homes in Petersburg. The defendants and the plaintiff consumed alcohol at various times during the drive from
Petersburg to Richmond, at dinner at Bookbinders and at the charity event at the Hippodrome. On their return to Petersburg, while driving on Interstate 95 South, the defendants were sitting together in the back of the limo in the captain’s chairs, and the plaintiff was sitting across from them on the opposite bench.

What happened next was disputed by the parties. The plaintiff alleged an assault by the defendants, which they denied, and with which the jury agreed. Following the limo incident, the plaintiff traveled to Lexington with the defendant husband and stayed with him in his residence from July 21-25, 2019.

The jury found that following this series of events, the plaintiff, with her own legal assistance, falsely reported a sworn statement to the local law magistrate’s office on July 25, 2019, which resulted in the issuance of criminal warrants against the defendants for malicious wounding, abduction by force/intimidation, entering the plaintiff’s house to commit assault and battery, damaged phone line, destruction of property, and grand
larceny. At the same time, the plaintiff also obtained an emergency protective order against the defendants. The defendants were served with the criminal warrants and obtained
legal counsel.

The criminal warrants against the defendants were nolle prossed by the prosecutor on Nov. 18, 2019. Criminal warrants were again obtained by the plaintiff, and again they were nolle prossed in the Petersburg General District Court on Dec. 16, 2019.

The jury ultimately determined there had been no assault on the plaintiff, the primary claim underpinning the civil suit.