The Greenwich urologist who won a $6 million jury award after a sledding
accident on town property has lobbied for a cap on the so-called "pain and
suffering" damages juries can give victims of medical malpractice.
In 2000, Nicholas Stroumbakis was sledding in a Greenwich park with his sons when
he hit a drainage ditch, fracturing his back and severely breaking his right
leg.
Stroumbakis has since returned to work. But, according to his lawsuit, he
suffered lost wages, his ability to work has been diminished, he had to pay
large medical bills, and he fears he may have a permanent disability.
Of the $6.2 million in damages Stroumbakis won on April 14, $1.5 million was for
non-economic damages, sometimes called pain and suffering. Such awards are
independent of medical bills, lost wages and other economic impacts a plaintiff
has suffered.
Greenwich was negligent in its maintenance of the drainage basin, according to
the suit.
The state keeps no official records on jury awards. But lawyers said $6 million
is almost certainly one of the largest negligence awards ever granted by a jury
against a municipality, especially in a case in which nobody died.
Stroumbakis, who attended a rally last year in support of a cap on the non-economic
damages patients can collect in malpractice cases, would not talk about his case
last week.
The award in the Stroumbakis case might have slipped by largely unnoticed in
Hartford, except it came at a crucial time in the medical malpractice reform
debate, when two competing measures are being considered by legislators.
Because of the timing, the case has become a favorite topic of conversation at
the Capitol.
Doctors are lobbying for a $350,000 cap in the non-economic damages they have to
pay out and a $650,000 cap for hospitals in malpractice cases.
Meanwhile, a group of legislative leaders who studied the problem for more than
a year is proposing a bill combining legal and medical reforms without a limit
on jury awards, said state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the
Judiciary Committee and a member of the group.
Both sides in the debate have pointed to Stroumbakis' lawsuit to bolster their
cause.
Some patients rights' advocates have called the doctor a hypocrite for accepting
an award under a legal system he opposed.
"The irony is that I would fight for his right to the jury trial because it
is in the Constitution," said Jean Rexford, the executive director of
Connecticut Patients' Rights. "I cannot but be appalled that that right is
there for him, but he wants to seriously curtail that right in, of all things,
cases of medical malpractice."
A limit on medical malpractice awards would force patients to bear the burden of
fixing the medical system, Rexford said.
Mark Thompson, executive director of the Fairfield County Medical Association,
which lobbied for a cap, disagrees. Huge jury awards are driving up the cost of
malpractice insurance and forcing doctors out of business, he said.
Thompson noted that Stroumbakis asked Greenwich to settle for $500,000.
"He wasn't asking for what he got, but that is what the jury gave
him," Thompson said. "This is exactly the problem we are talking
about. With juries having no guidelines, how do you determine how much you are
going to give somebody? It is totally arbitrary."
Randy Cohen, who writes The Ethicist column for The New York Times Magazine,
said it would not be wrong for Stroumbakis to accept the award.
"It will, of course, be an amusing spectacle, watching Dr. Stroumbakis
tap-dance his way out of this one while grinning bystanders mock him as a
hypocrite. Who wouldn't enjoy that? But I'm not convinced that he'd be acting
unethically," Cohen opined in an e-mail.
"In a democracy, we all have to live with laws we don't like. I wish the
income tax were more progressive, but that does not obligate me to send the IRS
a little extra. Similarly, Dr. S. can operate under the existing laws governing
malpractice suits while sincerely pursuing his efforts to change them,"
Cohen wrote.
It should not be forgotten that Stroumbakis suffered a serious injury, said
Richard Silver, a medical malpractice lawyer in Stamford who has lobbied against
a cap.
"It appears he has a very significant injury," Silver said. "The
law is the law; he is entitled to get those damages."
At the same time, Stroumbakis should recognize he has made a mistake in
advocating for caps in medical malpractice cases, Silver said.
The problem is not frivolous lawsuits or jury awards, but the oversight of
insurance and reinsurance companies, Silver said.
Paul Pollock, the Bridgeport lawyer who tried the case in state Superior Court
in Stamford on behalf of Greenwich and its insurance company, Genesis, said he
is asking a judge to lower the amount of the award.
Pollock has filed several motions that would give the judge more say over the
award. He confirmed that the plaintiff offered to settle for $500,000. He said
he could not say why that offer was rejected, since it came before he joined the
case.
Greenwich Town Attorney John Wetmore did not return calls seeking comment.
Stewart Casper, Stroumbakis' attorney, was out of the country last week. But
Andy Savvaides, another lawyer with Casper and De Toledo of Stamford, said he
does not believe the jury's award will be decreased.
"I think there was a solid foundation in the evidence," he said.
Greenwich will be liable for $500,000 of any final verdict, according to a
statement from the town. The rest will be paid by the insurance company.
The award may have been so large because juries view the town as so wealthy,
said James Tallberg, a lawyer with Updike, Kelly and Spellacy in Hartford.
"Greenwich is Gold Coast Fairfield County, and I think juries think there
are deep pockets there," said Tallberg. "Generally, you don't see
numbers that high simply because there aren't pockets deep enough to pay an
award that big."
