$9 million award to student who developed OCD after car crash

by Walter Olson on July 13, 2012

“A Manhattan jury has awarded a former Pace University student $9 million for medical bills, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering as a result of injuries she sustained in a 2004 accident in Pleasantville, injuries that her left her debilitated by obsessive-compulsive disorder and unable to work.” Although a brain scan taken after the incident “came up normal,” “not long after, symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder began cropping up, and, over time, became increasingly severe. Grossman could no longer ride in black cars, while also developing an aversion to the number six,” among other symptoms. While the accident took place in suburban Westchester, the plaintiff lived in New York City and sued there; jurors deemed “25 percent responsible, as lawyers for [defendant] Mari argued that [plaintiff] Grossman was speeding and talking on her cellphone at the time of the accident.” No more than $1.1 million will be paid because of a prior agreement between the two sides, presumably what lawyers call a “high-low” agreement. [White Plains Journal-News/LoHud.com]

{ 6 comments }

1 Jack Wilson 07.13.12 at 9:11 am

She was speeding and talking on her cell phone at the time of the crash – and 25% responsible. Is this what they call New Math?

2 mojo 07.13.12 at 10:43 am

Ok, call me cynical, but what say we track the severity of her OCD post-award?

3 Jesse Spurway 07.13.12 at 12:35 pm

phew. it could have been worse…$6 million.

4 John Rohan 07.13.12 at 1:11 pm

Here’s a link to that article that doesn’t require you to log in:

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012307120048

5 blhlls 07.13.12 at 2:21 pm

If the jury determined tha she couldn’t have done much to avoid the accident because the other driver turned in front of her, then 25 percent for her speed and cell phone sound about right.

6 Turk 07.17.12 at 4:50 pm

She was speeding and talking on her cell phone at the time of the crash – and 25% responsible. Is this what they call New Math?

Well, actually, the article says that this is what the defense lawyers argued. That doesn’t mean it was accurate from a fly-on-the-wall point of view. Trials are about reconstruction of events. Juries get all the snippets, not just second-hand media summaries.

Ok, call me cynical, but what say we track the severity of her OCD post-award?

The article, for what it’s worth, says that there were seizures. This points to an organic cause of brain injury. I assume neurological experts batted this around in front of the jury.

Comments on this entry are closed.