Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Duane Mercer v. Forty Four Parker Avenue North, LLC
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The matter was the subject of a hearing in damages on April 1, 2011. The plaintiff now is incarcerated at Whalley Correction Institute in New Haven but lived, on October 11, 2009 at 27 Beck Street. On that day, he had been invited to the apartment of a friend who rented at 23 Easton Avenue in Waterbury, which apartment building was allegedly owned and controlled by the named defendant. The friend, Norman Reynolds, invited the plaintiff on his arrival to “come up-stairs” and he did without incident. When the plaintiff left with his friend and his friend's girlfriend, his foot caught on the edge of a carpeted stair and, as he reached for the banister rail on his left, the rail separated from the wall and the plaintiff fell to the bottom of the “twelve or thirteen” steps. He here claims to have injured his low back, neck, and left wrist. He was then forty-four (44) years old.
A Default for Failure to Appear was granted by Deputy Chief Clerk Haas on March 19, 2010.
The plaintiff was transported by ambulance (American Medical Response–AMR) from the scene. He complained of back, neck, and “extremity” pain, gave a history of the fall to include the fall down twelve (12) steps, and was boarded and collared as a precaution. The report from that provider noted that the physical findings as to all body parts was “unremarkable” and the neurological exam showed no loss of sensation. Ex. 3. He was taken to Saint Mary's Hospital in this city where he repeated the history of injury to his neck and back. The hospital's report of 10/11/09 notes there was no head injury or loss of consciousness, that he was mentally alert, and had no neurological findings. X-rays showed no soft tissue abnormality and that there was “no fracture dislocation, or destructive process” demonstrated. Ex. 4. A cock-up splint was applied to the left wrist. He was discharged the same day with a finding of a cervical and lumbar strain.
On October 15, 2009, he began treatment with Rosa Chiropractic Center where he was seen on five (5) dates—10/15, 10/19, 10/21, 10/27, and 11/4/09. Treatment consisted of chiropractic adjustments of the neck and back and he was given moist heat and EMS/ultrasound treatment. Each visit showed improvement and pain to the affected areas was consistently described as “mild to moderate.” Ex. 5. He has not been treated since then. See Ex. 6.
At the hearing, Mr. Mercer testified that, with regard to his back, he cannot sit or stand for long periods of time, that he sometimes experiences headaches (for which he is given Motrin at the prison), and that his left wrist becomes numb when it is extended such that the hand is positioned with the palm facing downward (No explication of the circumstances or frequency of such position was offered.). Mr. Mercer did not reference continuing neck pain at this hearing.
Medical bills for treatment have been provided and they total $3,429.56. That sum is awarded as is five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) in non-economic damages for the gentleman's transient pain and suffering.1
Judgment for the plaintiff enters this date in the amount of eight thousand four hundred twenty-nine dollars ($8,429.56) as against the named defendant.
SHEEDY, J.
FOOTNOTES
FN1. Counsel has provided a life expectation table (Ex. 7). No claim of permanency is asserted in the Complaint and no medical provider has rendered a permanency rating.. FN1. Counsel has provided a life expectation table (Ex. 7). No claim of permanency is asserted in the Complaint and no medical provider has rendered a permanency rating.
Sheedy, Barbara J., J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CV106003628S
Decided: April 05, 2011
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)