(Note: The following is the transcript of Judge Elliot Wilk's ruling from the bench in regards to motions stemming from the jury verdict in Zion v. New York Hospital. The judge reduced as excessive the original jury award of $750,000 (reduced to 50% due to the partial responsibility of the plaintiff.) He also
granted the plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on the improper presentation of evidence regarding prior drug use, which eliminated the reduction of damages for plaintiff's responsibility, and leaves the award at the original amount of $375,000.)
OPINION
THE COURT: On February 6th, 1995, the jury returned a verdict in
this malpractice trial in which it awarded plaintiff $750,000 for
pain and suffering. It also found that Ms. Zion ingested
cocaine immediately prior to her hospitalization and that she
failed to provide an accurate medical history upon her admission
to New York Hospital.
The jury reduced the award by 50% to reflect Ms. Zion'
responsibility.
Defendant's move to set aside monetary award as excessive. I
agree to the extent that the verdict exceeds $375,000 and direct
a new trial on the issue of damages unless the plaintiffs are
willing to except and the defendants are willing to pay
$375,000.
Plaintiffs motion to direct a new trial on the issue of Ms.
Zion's culpable conduct is granted.
Prior to the commencement of the trial I determined that the
remote use of cocaine by Ms. Zion, as alleged by defendants and
denied by plaintiffs, was not relevant to the issues to be
considered by the jury. Nevertheless, there was trial testimony
which was based upon and which referred to Ms. Zion's alleged
ingestion of cocaine at an earlier time.
This jury acted with uncommon intelligence, diligence and
integrity. Under the circumstances, however, it is impossible
for me to be sure that the jury's deliberation was not infected
by allegations that may not be true that were not contradicted
because of my pretrial ruling and that should not have been
before them.
Because the plaintiff's motion requests a new trial, this
decision does not address the issue of the sufficiency of the
evidence of cocaine use. This constitutes the decision and the
