Fall From Ladder Caused Brain Damage, Worker Alleged
On Feb. 13, 1999, plaintiff Rupert Natoo, 46, a roofing company’s foreman, worked at John Adams High School, in Queens. Natoo fell 10 feet from an unsecured ladder that he had leaned against a wall. He struck his head and sustained a traumatic brain injury.Natoo sued the building’s owners, the city of New York and the New York City Board of Education; the construction project’s manager, the New York City School Construction Authority; and the project’s general contractor, Santa Fe Construction Corp. He alleged that the defendants violated the labor law.Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed that the incident stemmed from an elevation-related hazard, as defined by Labor Law ยง 240(1), and that Natoo was not provided the proper, safe equipment that is a requirement of the statute. He moved for summary judgment of liability, and the motion was granted. The trial addressed damages.
There was an indemnity agreement between Santa Fe Construction and the remaining defendants, so Santa Fe Construction’s carrier took over defense for all parties at the trial.
Natoo sustained a traumatic brain injury that caused moderate brain damage. He was diagnosed with dementia and organic mood disorder. Additionally, damage to the frontal and temporal lobes of his brain led to a psychiatric diagnosis of depression with bipolar features, loss of impulse control, violent behavior and disorganized thinking.
Natoo claimed that he is unable to work or care for himself, that he requires 24-hour supervision, and that he suffers a diminution of his attention, concentration, memory and cognitive ability.
Natoo’s wife contended that she must help care for her husband and perform many of his household duties. She claimed that his mood and personality changes have affected their relationship and his relationship with their children and friends.
Mr. Natoo sought recovery of his past medical expenses, his past and future loss of earnings, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. His wife sought recovery of damages for her loss of services.
Defense counsel argued that Natoo was malingering and exaggerating his symptomatology, claiming that Natoo was able to testify coherently in a deposition for this case and in a deposition for an unrelated motor-vehicle-accident case. He claimed that Natoo displayed an intact memory with no cognitive deficits in both depositions.
Evidence indicated that Natoo failed a number of malingering tests given by neuropsychologists. The tests revealed that Natoo was not using his best efforts during the testing and that he intentionally answered questions incorrectly. Defense counsel argued that Natoo did this for the secondary gain of increasing his injuries for this suit. He maintained that Natoo was able to give a coherent recorded statement to the insurance company in the automobile-accident case. He further argued that Natoo and his wife gave inconsistent histories to doctors who examined Natoo for workers’ compensation and Social Security disability benefits by failing to disclose that Natoo had returned to work for more than one year following the accident in an effort to convince them that he was unable to work.
Defense counsel presented Natoo’s former supervisor. He testified that Natoo worked in exactly the same capacity after the accident and was able to supervise men in the same manner as before. During cross-examination, the supervisor testified that he did not know why Natoo stopped working, but that he believed that Natoo stopped working because of back problems. Because the supervisor was unaware of Natoo’s condition, Natoo’s counsel argued that his testimony was unreliable.
In response, plaintiffs’ counsel presented Natoo’s wife, two children, three lifelong friends, and a co-worker to testify about his change in personality, loss of friends, loss of interest in hobbies, altered family relationships, and inability to work in the same manner after the accident.
Natoo’s expert neuropsychologist testified that personality changes were common with brain-injured individuals. He maintained that he believed that Natoo intentionally failed the malingering tests, not for secondary gain, but because of severe psychiatric adjustment disorder that placed Natoo in a regressed, childlike state and caused him to fail because of his belief that he had to perform poorly to be consistent with his childlike state. He also testified that Natoo’s depositions revealed instances of memory lapses, unresponsive answers, and misunderstanding of questions due to organic brain damage. He also pointed to instances in which Natoo “confabulated” or made fabricated details about the incident to fill-in memory gaps.
Natoo’s treating psychiatrist testified that Natoo intentionally failed the malingering test because of organic bipolar disease, which commonly makes people oppositional. He testified that in this case, it caused Natoo to refuse to participate and to become defiant for no rational reason.
Natoo claimed that an MRI of his bra
in taken four months after the accident, which was originally read as “normal,” was misread. Prior to trial, Natoo’s expert neuroradiologist read the film and identified damage to Natoo’s frontal and temporal lobes. A professor of neuroanatomy from Columbia University School of Medicine, Dr. John Martin, testified that damage in the frontal and temporal lobes was related to Natoo’s mood disorders and behavioral deficits.
Two therapists from Natoo’s day treatment center testified about Natoo’s childlike temper tantrums, jealousies, inability to perform math except for addition, and bouts of depression over not being able to work and provide for his family.
The jury found that the plaintiffs’ damages totaled $11,078,184. Santa Fe Construction’s insurer is liable for the entire amount of the verdict.