A serious car accident can leave injuries that require major surgery and have lasting effects on a person’s life. In New York, a woman who underwent spinal fusion surgery after a collision was initially awarded $2 million for past pain and suffering by a jury. However, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, has ruled that the amount was higher than what could be considered reasonable compensation and ordered a reduction or a new trial on damages.In a November 12, 2026 decision available on Justia, the appeals court modified the earlier ruling in Estela Larrea v. Sanitation Salvage Corp. et al. The judges vacated the $2 million award and gave Larrea 30 days after entry of the order to accept $1.35 million instead. If she does not agree, the case will return to court for a new trial limited to those damages. The appeals court otherwise upheld the lower court’s decision.
Woman underwent cervical spinal fusion surgery after accident
The case concerned Estela Larrea, who was 60 years old when the appeals court considered her compensation. She underwent a C5-C6 anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion, a procedure involving the removal of a damaged disc in the neck and the fusion of the affected vertebrae. The surgery involved a titanium plate and a plastic cage incorporating cadaver bone, which was secured with screws. The extent of the procedure formed an important part of the court’s assessment of the compensation awarded for her past pain and suffering.A jury had awarded Larrea $2 million for this category of damages. However, Sanitation Salvage Corp. and the other defendants challenged the outcome after the trial, seeking a new trial on damages. They argued that the trial court had improperly prevented their proposed biomechanical engineering expert from testifying. Alternatively, they asked the court to set aside the jury’s award and order a new trial on past pain and suffering.
Appeals court rejects challenge to expert testimony
The defendants argued that their biomechanical expert should have been permitted to explain the mechanics of the accident and its connection to Larrea’s injuries. The trial court had conducted a hearing under the Frye standard, which examines whether a scientific methodology is generally accepted in the relevant field. The First Department upheld the exclusion of the proposed expert. It found that the defendants had failed to establish that his personal injury-causation analysis was generally accepted in biomechanics.The judges also identified problems with the information used by the expert. He had relied on assumptions about the weights of the two vehicles that were not supported by the evidence. He was also unaware that the truck involved in the collision carried a large metal construction container and did not know its weight.Other details were missing from his analysis. The expert did not know Larrea’s body position at the time of impact or the type of seatbelt and headrest fitted in her vehicle. He was also unaware of her testimony that her car had moved approximately nine feet forward despite her foot being on the brake.The court further noted that the expert had not known that tape visible in photographs of Larrea’s vehicle had been placed there after the accident. The tape obstructed part of the damage shown in the photographs. The appeals judges concluded that the expert’s opinion lacked sufficient evidentiary value.
$2 million award reduced to $1.35 million
While the appeals court upheld the exclusion of the defence expert, it separately examined whether the jury’s compensation was reasonable. It concluded that the $2 million award for past pain and suffering materially exceeded what would be considered reasonable compensation under New York law.In reaching that conclusion, the judges referred to earlier cases involving spinal injuries and fusion procedures. These included a 2019 decision in which $1 million was considered reasonable compensation for a 69-year-old plaintiff, as well as earlier cases involving spinal fusion surgery and awards of $900,000 and $400,000. The court therefore vacated the $2 million award and ordered a new trial on past pain and suffering unless Larrea agrees to accept $1.35 million within 30 days after entry of the order. If she does not, a new trial will take place on that part of the damages.The November 12 ruling does not overturn the jury’s entire verdict or allow the defendants’ biomechanical expert to testify. Instead, it addresses the specific amount awarded for past pain and suffering while leaving the other aspects of the lower court’s decision intact.