he found no
evidence of a delusional disorder. He concluded plaintiff had
psychosomatic symptoms, suggesting conversion of psychological
symptoms into medical symptoms. He explained that plaintiff
"genuinely believes she has a seizure disorder" that is "not
physical in nature" but is "psychological in nature." Dr.
Rosenfeld did not see any evidence to suggest that plaintiff's
conversion disorder was related to her interactions with
defendant, because the symptoms began before she met defendant,
and they did not noticeably worsen until years after plaintiff and
defendant ended their relationship.
As noted, the jury awarded plaintiff $1.5 million in
compensatory damages. Defendant was the sole witness in the
punitive damages phase, which resulted in a $1.7 million award.
Defendant raises the following points on appeal:
POINT I
DURING CROSS EXAMINATION, PLAINTIFF STATED WHEN ASKED A QUESTION AS TO WHY SHE WAITED SO LONG TO REPORT CERTAIN BEHAVIOR TO THE POLICE, "I REFUSED AN OFFER FOR $750,000.00." ALTHOUGH A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN, THIS WAS CAUSE FOR AN IMMEDIATE MISTRIAL WHICH WAS REQUESTED AND THE COMMENT MADE BY PLAINTIFF (INACCURATE AS IT WAS) HAD THE EFFECT OF TAINTING THE TRIAL, WHICH RESULTED IN A COMPENSATORY VERDICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500,000.
11 A-5520-14T3 POINT II
THE AWARDS OF $1,500,000 FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND $1,700,000 FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE SO EXCESSIVE AND NOT BASED UPON ANY REASONABLY RELIABLE EVIDENCE. FOR THIS REASON, THE TOTAL VERDICT SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE AND A NEW TRIAL MUST BE ORDERED ON ALL ISSUES.
A. Under The Law Regarding Punitive Damages, It Is Clear That The Verdict Of $1,700,000 Was Excessive Based Upon The Factors That The Jury Should Consider When Determining The Amount Of The Award.
POINT III
PERMANENCY WAS NOT IN THE CASE. NO DOCTOR TESTIFIED AS TO PERMANENCY, AND THE CLOSEST THAT ANY DOCTOR CAME WAS WHEN DR. CRAIN STATED THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S PROGNOSIS WAS POOR. NO FURTHER EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL DID NOT ARGUE PERMANENCY IN HIS SUMMATION. YET THE COURT CHARGED THE JURY WITH A PERMANENCY CHARGE, ALLOWING THEM TO DECIDE HOW LONG INTO THE FUTURE THE INJURIES ARE REASONABLY LIKELY TO LAST. EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY COUNSEL AT THE TIME, THIS WAS PLAIN ERROR AND THEREFORE REVERSIBLE.
POINT IV
DURING HIS OPENING STATEMENT TO THE JURY IN THE PUNITIVE DAMAGE PHASE OF THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL ARGUED THAT BY ITS VERDICT THE JURY SHOULD "SEND A MESSAGE TO DOCTORS" THAT THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. THIS STATEMENT WAS IMMEDIATELY OBJECTED TO BY COUNSEL AND AFTER IT WAS SUSTAINED PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL MODIFIED HIS STATEMENT TO "SENDING A MESSAGE TO DR. FELLUS." "SENDING A MESSAGE" IS CLEARLY AN IMPERMISSIBLE STATEMENT AND WARRANTS A NEW TRIAL. 12 A-5520-14T3 POINT V
PRIOR TO ENTERING A JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES, THE COURT WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE "REASONABLENESS" OF THE AWARD. AS THE COURT DID NOT DO THIS, DESPITE A REQUEST TO DO SO, THERE MUST BE A NEW TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
II.
A.
The