Opinion ID: 494607
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Pain and Suffering Award

Text: 9 We will accept arguendo plaintiffs' contention that Judge Stewart's award to Mr. Rufino for the latter's pain and suffering was the direct result of his findings that Rufino had no cognitive awareness and very limited conscious pain and suffering. See Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants at 9. Plaintiffs assail those findings as clearly erroneous. 10 Plaintiffs candidly acknowledge our limited power to review the factual findings made below. Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). They nonetheless contend that in view of the totality of the evidence, Judge Stewart's findings are clearly erroneous. 11 In this regard, there is evidence of record indicating that Mr. Rufino was capable of responding to outside stimuli. For example, one of his attending nurses testified on direct examination that he turned away from noxious odors such as ammonia, that he turned to and from sound, and that he responded to painful stimuli such as pin pricks. Members of Mr. Rufino's family indicated that over time, he became more aware of his surroundings. Dr. Mihai Dimanescu, a diplomate in neurosurgery who testified for plaintiffs, examined Mr. Rufino during the latter's two stays at South Nassau Communities Hospital. During the first stay, from February 10 to March 1, 1982, Dr. Dimanescu noted that Mr. Rufino opened his eyes on his own, and in response to painful stimulation; that he could, on occasion, track with his eyes; that he displayed a good cough reflex and an ability to swallow; that he grimaced in response to noxious stimuli; and that on occasion, he would spontaneously move his left foot. During the second stay, from June 10 to June 14, 1983, Dr. Dimanescu noted that Mr. Rufino appeared alert; that he tracked well with his eyes; that he displayed some movement in his extremities; and that, on command, he was capable of squeezing with his left hand. On the basis of this second examination, Dr. Dimanescu concluded that Mr. Rufino was clearly better than before. He obviously ... showed some definite improvement. 12 Dr. Eric Stern, the assistant chief of cardiology at the Bronx V.A. Hospital and one of Mr. Rufino's treating cardiologists, testified for the defendant. From April, 1981 to the time of trial, at three to four month intervals, Dr. Stern visited Mr. Rufino once or twice per week for one month periods. On direct examination, Dr. Stern testified that there were times when Mr. Rufino appeared alert, but he did not believe that significant cognition accompanies this alertness. On redirect, Dr. Stern described Mr. Rufino's situation as one in which [c]ommands are not obeyed as commands, they show a general awareness at some lower level, in my view, of the nervous system to input from the outside, but do not by any means imply integration or understanding of what is occurring in the outside world....Defendant also called Dr. Richard Schoenfeldt, a neurologist, to testify as an expert witness. Dr. Schoenfeldt had not treated Mr. Rufino, but had examined him on one occasion in February, 1985. Dr. Schoenfeldt testified that in his opinion, Mr. Rufino is in a chronic or persistent vegetative state.... [T]here's every indication that he does not experience pain.... I could elicit no response to auditory, visual or limb stimulation.... [T]here did not seem to be a conscious awareness of what was going on around him. 13 Based in part on the foregoing evidence, the district court decided 14 to accept as more reliable the testimony of the defendant's witnesses, one of whom has had frequent opportunities over the past several years to observe Rufino. We accept, however, the testimony of plaintiffs' experts to the extent that they have found some evidence of very limited conscious pain and suffering. Accordingly, we find that under all the circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to recovery on the claims for past and future pain and suffering and for loss of consortium. 15 642 F.Supp. at 86. 16 We cannot gainsay these findings. It is not the function of an appellate court to reconsider ab initio the evidence of record, reversing factual findings made below where they strike us as less plausible than others which might have been made. Rather, our task is to examine the facts found below against the background of the record, reversing a finding as clearly erroneous only when our examination leaves us  'with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'  Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). On this record, we cannot say that a mistake was made. 17 Nor can we say that Judge Stewart's award to Mr. Rufino for the latter's past and future pain and suffering was so grossly and palpably inadequate as to shock the court's conscience. See Korek v. United States, 734 F.2d 923, 929 (2d Cir.1984). As we have said, [i]t is not our function to second guess [the trier of fact], Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1008 (2d Cir.1967), and measuring pain and suffering in dollars is inescapably subjective. Gibbs v. United States, 599 F.2d 36, 39 (2d Cir.1979). As indicated hereinafter, however, we will remand for reconsideration of Mr. Rufino's damages limited to the question of loss of enjoyment of life.