Shiwbodh v. Caribbean Airlines Ltd.
| Decision Date | 27 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:12-CV-01706 (MPS),3:12-CV-01706 (MPS) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | INDRAWATIE SHIWBODH, Plaintiff, v. CARIBBEAN AIRLINES LIMITED, Defendants. |
Plaintiff Indrawatie Shiwbodh brought this action against defendant Caribbean Airlines Limited for injuries she allegedly suffered in the July 30, 2011 crash of Caribbean Airlines Flight BW523. After the case returned to this Court following consolidated multi-district litigation proceedings concerning the plane crash in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the parties agreed that the sole remaining disputes between them were whether the crash proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries and the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled. To decide these issues, I held a three-day bench trial from December 11th to December 13th, 2017, and now set forth my findings of fact and conclusions of law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1), which can be summarized as follows: the defendant proximately caused the following injuries to the plaintiff: (1) her ankle injury through July 29, 2015; (2) her knee injury through September of 2012; (3) her back injury through October of 2011; and (4) her head injury through May of 2012; and I find that the plaintiff is entitled to $68,093.04 in economic damages and $204,279.12 for pain and suffering, for a total judgment amount of $272,372.16. In light of this disposition, I deny the defendant's oral motion for judgment as a matter of law (ECF No. 62).
The Court makes the following findings of fact based on witness testimony, trial exhibits, and the stipulation of facts ("SOF") submitted with the parties' joint trial memorandum ("JTM").1
The plaintiff is a forty-seven year old resident of Waterbury, Connecticut. (Trial Transcript ("TT") at 10). She was born in Guyana and came to the United States in 1988. (Id. at 10-11). She is currently married to Yadram Shiwbodh, and they have one child, Maleisa Shiwbodh. (Id. at 16-17). Shortly after arriving in the United States, the plaintiff attained a job at Covidien2 as an assembler. (Id. at 13). She worked on an assembly line that produced hospital instruments. (Id. at 13). Her duties including assembling the instruments and putting them in trays. (Id. at 14). This activity included "bend[ing] and pick[ing] [the trays] up," and then lifting them onto a rack about six or seven feet away. (Id. at 15-16). The plaintiff spent "a couple hours standing" and a "couple hours sitting" each day as she performed her duties. (Id. at 15). She would hold this job until the events underlying this case. In addition to her employment at Covidien, the plaintiff also did the majority of the household chores for her family. (Id. at 21-23).
The plaintiff's health was generally good prior to 2011, with a few exceptions. She suffered from high blood pressure, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes. (Id. at 18; Trial Exhibit ("Tr. Ex.") 10A). In 2007, the plaintiff was involved in a car accident. (Id. at 19-20; Tr. Ex. 25-A). She suffered a lower back injury as a result of the crash, and had to miss a short period of work. (Id.). She was diagnosed with "lumbar disc displacement" and prescribed various pain medications. (Tr. Ex. 25A). An x-ray taken a few weeks after the incident showed "[m]oderate degenerative changes of the L4-5 intervertebral disc," along with "evidence of a posterior annular fissure and broad based bulging. . . ." (Tr. Ex. 16CC). The plaintiff had difficulty performing her work for several weeks after the accident due to her injuries, but steadily improved with time. (Tr. Ex. 25B-E). By 2011, her back no longer hindered her ability to work. (TT at 20-21).
On July 30, 2011, the plaintiff embarked on a vacation to Guyana with Yadram and Maleisa. (Id. at 24). She was traveling as a passenger on board Caribbean Airlines Flight BW523 from New York to Georgetown, Guyana. (SOF at ¶ 3-4). As the plane landed at Cheddi Jagan International Airport in Georgetown on the night of July 30, 2011, it overran the runway, resulting in the rupture of the plane's fuselage. (Id. at 4; TT at 25; Tr. Ex. 20B). The plaintiff's head hit the seat in front of her upon impact, leaving her with a gash on the top of her head. (TT at 25-26; Tr. Ex. 20A). After the plane skidded to a halt, Yadram opened an emergency exit onto the wing of the plane. (TT at 26). Yadram then proceeded through the emergency exit onto the wing of the plane, followed closely by the plaintiff. (TT at 28). The wing was suspended approximately 8-12 feet above the ground, which was sandy. (TT at 31; Exhibit 20A). Shortly after walking onto the wing, Yadram slipped and fell to the ground. (TT at 28). The plaintiffthen slid from the wing onto the ground after him. (Id. at 29). She landed on her feet and then "[fell] to the ground." (TT at 31). Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff left the area with the other passengers from the plane. (TT at 32). She walked for approximately two hours in search of the terminal with the other passengers. (Id. at 93). She was eventually taken to a hospital where she received more than 10 stitches on her head. (TT at 32; Tr. Ex. 20B). The plaintiff subsequently went to another hospital, which proceeded to redo the stitches on the plaintiff's head laceration. (TT at 33-34).
Upon returning from Guyana, the plaintiff sought additional medical treatment for her injuries. She complained initially of pain in the "right side of [her] scalp, head, neck, back, right leg, [and] both feet." (Tr. Ex. 2A). In August, 2011, her primary care provider, Dr. Lorenzo Galante, diagnosed her with neck pain, whiplash, a back sprain, a head injury, costochondritis (an inflammation of the cartilage connecting the ribs to the sternum) and posttraumatic stress disorder. (Id.). Various diagnostic imagery taken of the plaintiff did not demonstrate any fractures. (Tr. Ex. 16A-16O). By September, the plaintiff still complained of lower back pain, neck pain, headaches, and ankle pain. (Tr. Ex. 2B). The only image of note showed that the plaintiff had a "moderate degenerative change of the L4-L5 disc" with an "annular tear broad-based annular bulge," (Tr. Ex. 16N). This finding was nearly identical to the plaintiff's injuries following her July, 2007 car accident. (Tr. Ex. 16CC). Over the course of the next few months, the plaintiff received injections in her back, knee, and right ankle to address her ongoing reports of pain in those areas. (Tr. Ex. 5A-5D). The injections had a temporary salutary effect but the plaintiff reported that the pain ultimately returned. (Tr. Ex. 5D-5E; TT at 40). She also took part in physical therapy at Village Street Physical Therapy in New Haven. (See Tr. Ex. 3). In theinterim, the plaintiff was unable to return to work or to perform household chores. (TT at 41-42).
In early 2012, the plaintiff continued to seek treatment for pain in her back, right knee, head, and right ankle. (Tr. Ex. 2G; 4F; 5E-F; 6A-C). Despite this continuing pain, the plaintiff attempted to return to her job at Covidien in the spring of 2012. (TT at 54-55). She was physically unable to perform the duties of her job, however, and was subsequently terminated. (TT at 55, 120-121). The plaintiff's treatment providers were unable to zero in on an exact cause of her symptoms. Her diagnoses ranged from post-traumatic fibromyalgia (see Tr. Ex. 2H) to "musculoskeletal strain injuries" (see Tr. Ex. 6B) to simply "right knee and right ankle pain symptoms" (see Tr. Ex. E). The plaintiff's recommended treatments were similarly varied. Dr. Michael P. Connair, an orthopedist, provided the plaintiff with therapeutic injections in her right knee. (Tr. Ex. 5E-F). Dr. Adam Mednick, a neurologist, recommended that the plaintiff engage in physical therapy and over the counter pain relief medications for her head pain. (See Tr. Ex. 6B). Dr. Judith Gorelick, also a neurologist, recommended that the plaintiff continue a conservative course of treatment involving physical therapy, weight loss, and exercise. (See Tr. Ex. 4G).
Despite this plethora of treatments, the plaintiff reported that her ankle, back, and right knee pain continued unabated during the summer of 2012. In late June, 2012, an x-ray of the plaintiff's right ankle revealed the existence of "[s]mall osteophytes"—bone spurs—and a small loose body. (See Tr. Ex. 5H). Dr. Connair concluded that these findings could be "degenerative or related to prior trauma," and that they could warrant further "arthroscopic exploration" to determine if they were the source of the plaintiff's ankle pain. (Id.). He later wrote the plaintiff a prescription for an "Arizona ankle splint" for her right ankle; the plaintiff did not fill theprescription, however, due to the $400 copayment associated with the ankle splint. (Tr. Ex. 5I-J). In August, Dr. Connair noted that arthroscopic exploration of both the right ankle and the right knee could also be helpful. (Tr. Ex. 5I). The plaintiff also reported continuing lower back pain during this time period, and Dr. Galante prescribed her a number of painkillers for this condition. (Id.). The plaintiff's headaches, however, apparently diminished significantly during the summer of 2012. Dr. Galante wrote in July of 2012 that the plaintiff was "[n]o longer having headaches where she hit her head on [the] seat in front of her" during the plane crash and that she denied: "tingling/ numbness, paresthesia, weakness, dizziness, change in vision, [and] loss of consciousness." (Tr. Ex. 2L).
In October of 2012, the plaintiff underwent the first of several surgeries on her right ankle. Dr. Richard Zell performed the surgery—an ankle arthroscopy, debridement, and cheilectomy—on October 18, 2012. (See Tr. Ex. 7B-C). After the surgery, the plaintiff initially reported positive results. Dr. Zell noted a week after the surgery that the plaintiff stated that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial