Practice Areas

News

More

Library

Medical Malpractice

More

Wrongful Death Cases

More

Bicycle Accidents

More

Negligence Cases

More

Car Accidents

More

Legal Advice for New Yorkers

More

Actual Deposition Testimony of Doctors in Malpractice Cases

More

New York Injury Times- our new newsletter

More

General

More

Search: www.oginski-law.com Web

News

$15 Million Awarded to 14 Year Old Car Accident Victim

Jury awards $15 million to crash victim

By Jutta Biggerstaff / Hi-Desert StarFriday, May 9, 2008 11:27 PM PDT

TWENTYNINE PALMS — A jury has awarded $15 million to the family of a 17-year-old Twentynine Palms boy who was severely injured in a 2005 traffic collision in Joshua Tree.

According to Spencer Lucas, attorney for the family, Kyle Tilton, who was 14 at the time of the accident, will require care for the rest of his life, and the award will adequately provide for his future medical needs.

“The family is very pleased,” he said. “They are relieved that now they can rest assured that Kyle will have the funds to be able to have the proper medical treatment that he so desperately needs.”

The boy was injured Nov. 2, 2005, when a Southern California Gas truck ran a red light at Twentynine Palms Highway and White Feather Road and struck the Tilton vehicle on the passenger side where Kyle was sitting.

To read the rest of the story click on the link:

http://www.hidesertstar.com/articles/2008/05/10/news/news2.txt

Read More About $15 Million Awarded to 14 Year Old Car Accident Victim...

back to top

NY Lawyer Sued For Not Timely Starting Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Lawyer sued for not filing medical malpractice papers against urologist 

BY JOHN MARZULLI 
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER 

Monday, April 21st 2008, 4:00 AM 

A Great Neck lawyer is being sued for failing to file court papers in time to sue a urologist who allegedly botched a penile implant procedure.

The suit, filed in Brooklyn Federal Court, accuses Ira Podlofsky, of the law firm Podlofsky, Hill, Orange & Modzelewski, of missing the deadline to file a medical malpractice action against the doctor.

To read the article at the Daily News click on:
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2008/04/21/2008-04-21_lawyer_sued_for_not_filing_medical_malpr-2.html

Read More About NY Lawyer Sued For Not Timely Starting Medical Malpractice Lawsuit...

back to top

Judge finds Georgia's malpractice caps unconstitutional

An Atlanta judge says a Georgia law that limits medical malpractice damages in some cases is unfair to the poor and middle class. He says the law needs to be tossed out.


Click on the link below to read the full story at WALB news.

Read More About Judge finds Georgia's malpractice caps unconstitutional...

back to top

NY Sen. Schneiderman Votes for Us, Against “Harvey’s Law”-Watch the Video

KIA FRANKLIN

NY Sen. Schneiderman Votes for Us, Against “Harvey’s Law”

I’m proud of how Senator Eric Schneiderman a) stood by his principles and stood up against the squandering of our public funds. Articulating why a proposed bill to subsidize New York medical malpractice insurance is problematic, he identifies the real medical malpractice crisis—the tiny 4% of doctors who are responsible for a whopping 50% (yes, half) of the medical malpractice payouts. The real problem is the lack of effective professional discipline that allows these doctors to keep practicing. The bill he voted against would exacerbate this problem by forcing the vast and overwhelming majority of good doctors to subsidize malpractice insurance for high risk doctors, spreading the costs of their malpractice across the board.

Below is a clip of him explaining why he is voting against the bill. This is the type of thing we need to see more of: representatives who fully grasp the issues and the interests involved, and are willing to stick to their guns and speak out on behalf of what they believe.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL15G-cyQYI

Read More About NY Sen. Schneiderman Votes for Us, Against “Harvey’s Law”-Watch the Video...

back to top

Sign or go elsewhere litigation-wary doctor's demand

Sign or go elsewhere litigation-wary doctor's demand

By Kris Hundley, Times Staff Writer 
Published Friday, April 4, 2008 4:38 PM

In her nearly two decades as a nurse, Kathleen M. Wagner of Palm Harbor has encountered dedicated doctors as well as frivolous malpractice lawsuits.

But she still flinched when a video provided by her doctor's office in Clearwater required that she give up her right to a trial by jury if she wanted treatment.

"I watched it thinking, 'They can't mean me,' " she said of the binding arbitration agreement required by Tampa Bay Women's Care, the largest obstetrics/gynecology group in the area. "I'd never sue them, but I don't want my rights taken away."

Unhappy but unwilling to miss her annual checkup, Wagner, 60, signed the mandatory agreement. Then she wrote to Randy Cohen, who writes the weekly "Ethicist" column for the New York Times. "Is this policy ethical?" Wagner asked. In a response entitled "Doctor, Bully," and published March 30, Cohen said the practice may be legal, but it is not ethical.

"The right to our day in court should be among the inviolable,' he wrote.

Not so in Florida. According to the state's largest medical malpractice insurer, several hundred doctors now require patients to accept binding arbitration as a condition for care. Obstetricians are particularly likely to have such a requirement because their specialty commands some of the highest rates for professional liability premiums.

"It's not just in Florida; it's something that's happening around the country," said Robert White, president of First Professionals Insurance Co., known as FPIC, in Jacksonville. "More and more we're seeing a desire on the part of doctors and patients to find an alternative to the very expensive, protracted litigation process."

White said the 70 doctors at Tampa Bay Women's Care are among "several hundred" of the insurer's 7,000 customers statewide who require patients to sign a binding arbitration agreement. FPIC even helped to create the practice's seven-minute explanatory video, available on the doctor's Web site or hand-held DVD.

"It utilizes a medium that preserves what people were told if there's any dispute in the future about what was said," White said.

Key points of the agreement are that patients and their families waive their constitutional right to a jury trial in case of a claim.

A lawsuit is still filed with the court, but the complaint is heard by a three-member arbitration panel, with each side choosing one arbitrator and the third picked jointly. Proceedings are private, and the cost of arbitration is split between the patient and doctors. The arbitrators' decision is final, with very limited rights to appeal.

Clancy Bounds, a Winter Park lawyer, said arbitration might be appropriate for disputes over cell phone contracts but not in a doctor-patient relationship.

"You walk into a doctor's office for treatment, not to deal with a significant legal issue and decision,' he said. "The relationship starts out with an uneven hand in favor of the doctor."

Bounds, a member of Florida Justice Association, said trial lawyers are trying to get a bill through the Legislature that will add certain consumer protections to the arbitration process.

"Right now it's the Wild West out there," he said. "And business controls the rules being applied."

Dr. Robert Yelverton, chief executive of Tampa Bay Women's Care, said that only about 100 patients have refused to sign the arbitration agreement, which has been phased in over the past year.

"Very few patients have objected,' he said, adding that the group had 100,000 patient visits last year. "They understand why we're doing this."

The reason, he said, is simple economics. Yelverton's 70 OB/GYNs pay an average of $67,000 each year for $250,000 worth of liability insurance. That's a higher premium for less coverage than in the past, but at least the group's doctors have insurance. About 5,000 of the state's 35,000 physicians have opted to go without insurance, though they're required by law to post a sign saying they have posted a $250,000 bond.

"Our insurer didn't give us any discount for requiring arbitration, but we hope our claims will be more rational and reasonable and eventually it will reduce overall rates,' Yelverton said. "Plus, we can give patients the satisfaction of knowing we have professional coverage."

Yelverton said patients have the option to go elsewhere if they don't want to accept binding arbitration, since his group only accounts for six of about 20 OB/GYNs in Pinellas County and 40 percent of the specialists in Hillsborough County. But it's not always easy for women in the Tampa Bay area to find another provider.

Doctors with USF Physicians Group in Tampa don't have to deal with the arbitration issue because as employees of the University of South Florida, they are immune from civil lawsuits. But Dr. Cathy Lynch, a USF obstetrician, said she empathized with the dilemma of self-employed doctors.

"Insurance reimbursements are going down while costs are going up, so they've got to do something,' she said. "People are generally quicker to give a tip to their hairdresser than pay their co-pay."

Another large local medical group, Diagnostic Clinic in Largo, considered requiring patients to accept binding arbitration a couple of years ago but dropped the idea.

"We were not smart enough to figure out how to do it without creating more bad feelings from patients than it was worth,' said Dr. Charles Campbell, who heads the group which has 100 providers at two locations.

Instead, Diagnostic Clinic found another way to avoid the high cost of insuring doctors who deliver babies. But it's not one that will help women of child-bearing age.

"We just got out of the OB business," Campbell said.

Kris Hundley can be reached at hundley@sptimes.com or (727) 892-2996.

Read More About Sign or go elsewhere litigation-wary doctor's demand...

back to top

Lawyer held in criminal contempt

Lawyer held in criminal contempt

By Lawrence Buser (Contact)
Thursday, April 3, 2008

In a medical malpractice case last week, plaintiff's attorney R. Sadler Bailey repeatedly called defense attorneys liars and told the judge her rulings could "set a world record for error."

On Wednesday, Bailey was led from the courtroom in handcuffs after Circuit Court Judge Karen Williams held him in direct criminal contempt of court for those and other "unprofessional and inappropriate" remarks he has made over the two-year course of the case.

"Much time was wasted because Mr. Bailey could not discuss issues in this case in the courteous and controlled manner that is expected of all attorneys and officers of the court," said Williams, who declared a mistrial in the case last Thursday. "He made abusive remarks which the court considers to be discourteous to defense counsel and disrespectful to the judicial process as a whole."

In a courtroom crowded with some two dozen attorneys and deputies, Williams sentenced Bailey to 10 days in jail, but promised to suspend nine days if he participates in the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program, which helps lawyers with personal issues.

He was jailed, with bond set at $1,500.

Attorney Jake Erwin, who represented Bailey, argued that Williams should give him time to prepare a defense or to allow Bailey to address the court, but Williams denied the request and read her seven-page finding of fact, conclusions of law and pronouncement of sentence.

"Your honor, my client is not being given due process, and we object to the procedure," Erwin said. "I feel like we're in front of a train that can't be stopped."

Erwin said later he would file an immediate appeal with the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

Bailey, 50, who has practiced law for more than 30 years, is known for his aggressive style and was once ordered by another judge to take an anger management course.

John Hall of Atlanta, an attorney for the defense in the case before Williams, said he was appalled last week by Bailey's behavior.

"I have never in my life seen a lawyer speak with a judge in that manner, to tell you basically you can't get rulings right, criticize you, argue with you, demean you, belittle you and then turn around and do the same thing to us," Hall said, according to a trial transcript. "It is a strategy to be a bully. ... I get called a liar. You get called a fool, and it's just ridiculous."

Bailey said in an interview last week that he is an honest and ethical attorney who fights passionately and aggressively for his clients. He said that if he sometimes goes too far, it is only because he is trying to stand up for what is right.

The medical malpractice case involving a 9-year-old girl who has been severely handicapped since birth settled out of court after Williams granted the defense motion for a mistrial.

Under the law, criminal contempt includes acts disrespectful of the court or its processes that obstructs the administration of justice.

Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the court, as opposed to constructive contempt, which occurs outside of court and may include failure to abide by court orders.

Lawrence Buser: 529-2385

Read More About Lawyer held in criminal contempt...

back to top

Staten Island jury holds Ford liable in fatal crash, awards $6.5M

Staten Island jury holds Ford liable in fatal crash, awards $6.5M

by Staten Island Advance
Thursday March 27, 2008, 8:12 PM

A Staten Island jury today awarded $6.5 million to the widow and estate of a Boy Scout leader from Mariners Harbor who was killed eight years ago when his Ford Explorer went out of control and rolled over on an upstate highway.

Steven Motelson's death was due to a defectively designed roof support system, determined a jury in the home port annex of state Supreme Court. Motelson was 60.

But the panel found Ford was not liable in the death of his 9-year-old grandson and the injuries suffered by two other family members in the horrific July 1, 2000, crash.

Gary Motelson, then 36, Steven Motelson's son, was a front-seat passenger. Gary Motelson's 9-year-old and 5-year-old sons were rear-seat passengers and were ejected along with a third rear-seat occupant. The jury said the two boys were not wearing seat belts.

Minutes after the verdict was announced, Elissa Motelson, the boys' mother, wailed in the courthouse lobby.

"They killed my son," she sobbed, as family members tried to console her.

Michael Motelson, another son of Steven Motelson and the administrator of his estate, shook his head after the verdict was read.

Outside court, he said the jury had vindicated his father, although he expressed disappointment at Ford's being found not responsible for the other death and injuries. The panel said Steven Motelson had not driven the SUV negligently.

"For the last eight years, Ford has been saying my father was responsible for the accident and for killing my nephew and himself," Michael Motelson said. "The jury said loud and clear that he's not responsible. They acknowledged this was the worst roof on the road today."

It was not immediately clear whether the verdict will be appealed.

Robert Cecala, a Ford lawyer, declined comment outside court.

Jurors were not immediately available for comment afterward.

The panel reached a verdict hours after Justice Joseph J. Maltese charged it at the end of the four-week trial. Both sides had offered reams of complex documents, data, experts' tests and videos into evidence.

The Motelsons sued Ford Motor Company, the SUV manufacturer; and Ford Motor Credit Company, the SUV owner and lessor.

Steven Motelson lost control of his 1998 Explorer while returning home from a Boy Scout trip upstate. The SUV flipped over nearly four times on Route 17 in Goshen, killing Motelson, fatally injuring his 9-year-old grandson and injuring the three other occupants.

The crash, about 75 miles northwest of Staten Island, occurred around 3:35 p.m. as the group returned from a Scouting camp-o-ree at Ten Mile River Scout Camps in Narrowsburg, N.Y.

The plaintiffs contended the SUV suddenly sped up and lost its brakes as Steven Motelson wrestled to regain control.

In his closing argument yesterday, J. Edward Bell III, a lawyer for the Motelsons, accused Ford of seeking profit over safety.

Steven Motelson was killed, he said, when the driver's side roof shredded on the first roll, exposing his head. To save pennies, Ford had shortened a metal support rod in the door that bolstered the roof, he charged.

Bell also said the SUV's speed-control cable and rear seat-belt system failed. Each defect could have been remedied with minor additions or enhancements that would have cost Ford a dollar or two. Ford, he said, was aware of those problems.

In his closing argument, Cecala, the Ford lawyer, said Steven Motelson's actions had set the deadly chain of events in motion.

Motelson, he alleged, wasn't paying attention, drifted off the road, and sent the vehicle careening when he overcompensated on the steering wheel trying to regain control.

He further contended that company tests and evidence showed the speed-control cable did not jam open; in that event, the SUV would have spontaneously accelerated. Additional tests showed the three rear-seat passengers could not have been wearing seat belts -- although two of the victims said they all were.

Cecala said the Explorer's construction exceeded federal standards and could not have prevented the deaths and injuries.

Jurors, however, found Ford negligent in the design, inspection and testing of the roof support system.

The panel awarded $5 million in economic loss to Enid Motelson, Steven Motelson's widow, and $1.5 million in damages to his estate.

"Clearly, [this is] a resounding verdict against Ford in regard to their weak roof structure," Bell, the plaintiffs' lawyer said outside court. "It killed Mr. Motelson and it will kill others if something isn't done about it."

-- Contributed by Frank Donnelly

Read More About Staten Island jury holds Ford liable in fatal crash, awards $6.5M...

back to top

After lawsuit, doc OK'd to work

After lawsuit, doc OK'd to work

By Lindsay Tice , Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

A New York jury has found a Lewiston neurosurgeon liable for a botched spinal surgery that left a New York man in a wheelchair.

Dr. Victor T. Ho was ordered to pay the former patient $7.9 million. Because the two sides reached a settlement agreement before the verdict, however, his actual payment is capped at $1.9 million.

Ho is a spinal, brain and neurovascular surgeon with New England Neurosurgery in Lewiston, with surgical privileges at St. Mary's Regional Medical Center and courtesy privileges at Central Maine Medical Center in Lewiston. At the time of the New York man's surgery in 2000, Ho was working for New York Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn.

Ho has been the subject of numerous malpractice suits in New York, most of which he's won. In 2005, New York regulators suspended his New York medical license for negligence involving a brain tumor biopsy, but then immediately stayed the suspension and placed him on probation for two years, according to that state's Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct.

During that probation, Ho received a valid Maine medical license and began working in Lewiston, according to state and hospital officials.

New England Neurosurgery is a private practice comprised of independent doctors who share the office space. St. Mary's Regional Medical Center spokesman Russ Donahue said his hospital knew Ho's New York license was on probation before it gave him hospital privileges.

"Dr. Ho was carefully credentialed through our medical staff and board procedure, as are all of our physicians. This was subject to state licensure, which he received," Donahue said.

Donahue said the hospital is still comfortable having Ho perform surgeries there, despite the recent malpractice verdict.

CMMC spokesman Randy Dustin did not know Monday whether that hospital had known about Ho's background in New York before it granted him the limited privileges of a courtesy staff member.

Through his office spokeswoman, Ho has declined to comment.

Lawsuits

According to the St. Mary's Web site, Ho graduated from Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., in 1976, did an internship at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, N.Y., and completed his neurosurgery residency at New York University School of Medicine in New York, N.Y.

In 2000, Ho performed spinal surgery on Marcel Paul, a 60-year-old New York man, at New York Methodist Hospital. Shortly after the operation, Paul had trouble moving his left side and needed to use a wheelchair. A month later, according to Paul's lawyer, Ron Burke, another surgeon found Ho had used an undersized bone plug to stabilize Paul's neck. Among other problems, the plug had migrated and was pushing on his spinal cord.

"He was never able to walk again," Burke said.

Paul sued. After a two-week trial, the jury found Ho lacked informed consent from the patient before performing the surgery and had, among other things, failed to place the appropriate bone graft and failed to order the appropriate tests to determine why Paul had problems with his left side after surgery, Burke said.

Although Paul claimed Ho also failed to monitor his motor functions during surgery, the jury found Ho had monitored him correctly.

The jury awarded Paul $7.9 million. Because the two sides had reached a settlement agreement before the verdict, however, Ho will pay $1.9 million and will not appeal the decision, the judge in the case said.

Ho has been the defendant in at least six other malpractice suits, according to Burke. Ho won four of those outright and a fifth through appeal, Burke said.

The New York court system's Web site lists two other malpractice suits pending against Ho.

According to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, neurosurgeons get sued, on average, once every 18 months to three years. In any given year, one-third of neurosurgeons will have a case pending against them.

Maine license

In 2005, New York disciplined Ho for simple negligence involving a patient with a brain lesion.

According to a 42-page report from the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct, Ho biopsied the patient's brain lesion - an attempt to find out whether it was a tumor or a problem with blood vessels - but that biopsy didn't provide a diagnosis. After that biopsy, Ho failed to tell the patient there were additional ways to get a diagnosis, the board said. A month after the biopsy, the patient was unable to stand on her own and an MRI showed the lesion had grown so large that her brain was "significantly displaced" by it. Six weeks after the biopsy, Ho operated and found cancer.

The report said hearing committee members found no incompetence or gross negligence on Ho's part, but found simple negligence and deemed Ho "to be very arrogant, condescending and unwilling to own up to his mistakes." The report shows Ho was put on probation from March 2005 through March 2007.

Ho received a Maine medical license in November 2006.

Randal Manning, executive director of the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine, said his board carefully examined Ho's application and interviewed Ho, who was "upfront and straightforward" about his probation in New York. Because New York found him guilty of simple negligence, not gross negligence, the board found no reason to deny him a Maine license.

Ho has not been disciplined in Maine and his license here remains valid.

Ho joined New England Neurosurgeon in December 2006 and received privileges at St. Mary's in January 2007, both while still on probation in New York.

CMMC's spokesman did not know when Ho had received courtesy privileges at the hospital or what those privileges allow him to do within the hospital. CMMC records show Ho has never performed surgery there.

Read More About After lawsuit, doc OK'd to work...

back to top

6-Year-Old Dies Following Tragic Pool Accident

The young 6-year-old girl who was badly injured in a pool accident last June has died. Abigail Taylor passed away Thursday night at the Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

Abigail was injured back in June 29 when she was sitting in a wading pool in St. Louis.

Reports are that her parents were with her when she died.

The powerful suction of the drain ripped out part of her intestinal tract in an absolutely tragic accident.

The six-year-old has been in the hospital since December. She had to receive organ transplants to try and be cured of her medical troubles.

She ran into many complications though, as she had to go through several different surgical procedures. She also had to be fed through an intravenous tube.

In the beginning of March, she got the worst news yet when she had to begin chemotherapy. She developed cancer due to the organ transplants.

This story has sparked nationwide interest as many pushed for new safety standards to prevent further accidents.

In December, Congress approved legislation to ban drain covers that do not meet certain safety standards.

Minnesota lawmakers are also looking into new pool safety regulations on the state level.

It is a shame that something terrible has to happen before action is taken and safety regulations are put in place.

Read More About 6-Year-Old Dies Following Tragic Pool Accident...

back to top

$21 Million Awarded in Queens for Car Crash Death

$21M FOR GIRL OF TRAGIC CRASH DAD

By IKIMULISA LIVINGSTON

March 13, 2008 -- A Queens jury awarded a 10-year-old girl more than $21 million after her father was killed in a fiery car crash caused by a doctor nearly five years ago.

Antionette Hawthorne-Stanton was barely 5 years old when her father, James Stanton, was killed in a car crash after being hit by minivan driven by a physician from Teaneck, NJ.

Stanton and his brother were both burned to death as flames engulfed the car.

"She was devastated. There was no more communication, no more hugs and kisses," said the girl's mother, Sheila Hawthorne. "She enjoyed being in his presence, and all that came to a screeching halt."

The Queens Supreme Court jury awarded Antionette $21.35 million - $10 million alone for pain and suffering - after finding Dr. Howard Antosofsky and the company from which he leased the minivan responsible for the crash.

The girl's lawyer, Evan Torgan, said Antionette got to hear from witnesses how much of a doting father Stanton was. "It was important for her to see who her father was, how much he loved her," he said. "And it was important for her to know he didn't abandon her."

Read More About $21 Million Awarded in Queens for Car Crash Death...

back to top

$19 Million Awarded in Brain Damaged Baby Case

Monmouth jury awards $19 million to woman in malpractice case
(Published March 18, 2008)

FREEHOLD, N.J. — A jury has awarded more than $19 million to a Freehold woman whose 10-year-old son was born with severe brain damage and cerebral palsy.

A judge could reduce Monday's award since the jury found there was a chance the child would have suffered some harm anyway.

Bonnie Kowalski claimed that Dr. Aravind Palav didn't immediately notice her abdominal bleeding when she arrived at Riverview Medical Center in Red Bank, and didn't act promptly to deliver the baby by C-section.

Palav's attorney says he expects to appeal the verdict.

Read More About $19 Million Awarded in Brain Damaged Baby Case...

back to top

San Diego Woman Awarded $82.6 million award by Appeals Court

SAN DIEGO – An appeals court ruling upholding the $82.6 million in damages awarded to a San Diego woman paralyzed in a Ford Explorer rollover accident will be appealed to the California Supreme Court, an attorney said Tuesday.

“We plan to ask the California Supreme Court to review this case, and if need be, the U.S. Supreme Court,” Ford Motor Co. attorney Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. said by telephone from Los Angeles.

The award, affirmed by the 4th District Court of Appeal in a 100-plus page decision, includes punitive damages of $55 million to Benetta Buell-Wilson, who lives in the San Diego neighborhood of Del Cerro. Her back was crushed in the accident on Interstate 8 near Alpine on June 19, 2002.

Dennis A. Schoville, Buell-Wilson's attorney, said Tuesday he was not surprised to hear of Ford's intention to appeal.

“That's been their intention all along, and they just don't get it,” said Schoville, of San Diego. “... I believe that the Fourth District Court of Appeal opinion is bulletproof, and for good reason.”

Ford has sought a new trial. The company does not believe punitive damages should be awarded, or at the very least, “they should be significantly reduced” in light of Supreme Court decisions limiting awards in state courts for punitive damages, Boutrous said Tuesday.

Buell-Wilson's suit alleged the Explorer's design was flawed because it had a high center of gravity and low wheelbase, making it prone to tip over, and a weak roof. It also alleged that Ford knew about the design flaws but did nothing to fix them.

A San Diego Superior Court jury in June 2004 awarded Buell-Wilson and her husband, Barry, $369 million, including $246 million in punitive damages.

It was the first verdict against Ford in an Explorer rollover case. The automaker had previously won at least a dozen similar cases.

Punitive damages are awarded to punish defendants and deter others from similar behavior.

“What Ford does not seem to want to admit is that there were direct findings of intention ... involving the conscious disregard for the safety of the public and victims like Mrs. Wilson, who are suffering by the thousands, and it's time for them to understand that they are being punished for intentional wrongful conduct,” Schoville said.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Kevin A. Enright in August 2004 reduced the jury's award to $150 million, $75 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages. Enright said evidence supported the jury's findings that the company knew of design defects, but did not correct them.

Ford appealed, and in July 2006, the 4th District Court of Appeal, while finding the automaker liable for Buell-Wilson's injuries, ruled the punitive damages were excessive and violated a state law's ban on awards that are the product of “passion or prejudice.” The award was then cut to $82.6 million.

In an unexpected move in May 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court told the appeals court to re-examine its ruling in light of a Supreme Court decision several months earlier involving punitive damages against tobacco company Philip Morris.

In that case, the Supreme Court overturned $79.5 million in punitive damages against the company awarded to a smoker in Oregon. The court ruled that jurors might have improperly calculated the award based on harm the company caused to other smokers, not just than the man whose widow brought the case.

Boutrous said Tuesday that the appeals court's Monday decision “strongly contradicts” the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate in the Philip Morris case, “and in many other decisions.”

He said the request for a new trial is based in part on Ford's contentions that the trial was unfair because the automaker was prohibited from presenting certain evidence of the truck's safety record, and that references to other Explorer rollover cases should not have been heard in the case.

Buell-Wilson was driving a 1997 Explorer westbound on Interstate 8 near Tavern Road about 5 p.m. when she swerved to avoid a metal object in the road.

The SUV went out of control when a passenger-side wheel lifted off the road. She fishtailed and rolled four and a half times. The S