sr-062480-6lsss:YS:td
Council b9eeting of 06/24/80
CONFIDENTIAL STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUidCIL
FROM: CITY ATTORidEY
Santa PHonica, Ca
SUBJECT: Settlement of Case Entitled John Federico v.
Citv of Santa Monica - Case 110. G4EC 57503
IId T RODUCT ION
John Federico complained against the City of Santa
~>
~~~ r ~ i~~
Lifornia
b?onica and bus driver Pitts Jefferson for injuries he received
as a result of a bus-car collision on June 14, 197II at the
intersection of Centinela and Nebraska Avenues in Ldest Los
Angeles. Following the collision, plaintiff was comatose for
approximately eleven days. Plaintiff has various permanent
residual disabilities and cannot work anymore. The severity
of plaintiff's injuries creates a risk of substantial exposure
in this case; we recommend approval of the proposed settlement
of $85,000.
FACTS
The bus was proceeding south on Centinela Avenue when
it approached the intersection of Pebraska and Centinela. I=Zr.
Jefferson states that he was travelling approximately 30 to 35
m,p.h. when he observed the plaint if " s vehicle in the intersection,
and the plaintiff was travelling 40 m.p.h. The speed limit is
25 m.p.h.
.~$3 Al ~ ~- ~a~
Edmond Drakard, an independent witness, estimated the
bus driver's speed to be between 40 to 45 m.p.h. He also stated
that plaintiff made a rolling stop at the intersection and was
travelling approximately 10 m.p.h. at the time of the collision.
An independent reconstruction expert hired by the City concluded
that the bus was probably travelling between 27-1/2 and 30 m.p.h.,
and that the speeding was the primary cause of the accident.
The ~dest Los Angeles police report lists the primary
collision factor as violation of stop requirements and associated
factors such as £ederico's "inattention" and Jefferson's
speeding. The bus driver was off route when the collision
occurred; his employment was terminated shortly thereafter. Eke
has an action pending against the City for wrongful termination
of employment, and is not likely to be a cooperative witness.
INJURIES
The plaintiff was thrown from his van upon impact.
kIe was unconscious at the time of the accident and was admitted
to the hospital in a comatose state and remained in a coma for
eleven days. MMedical reports indicate: four fractured ribs;
a hemothorax (a collection of blood in the space between the
lungs and chest wall); pneumothorax (a collection of blood and
air in the pleural cavity); a severe contusion, including the
brain stem; cerebral edema; fractures of the spine; and multiple
superficial abrasions and contusions.
Plaintiff`s brain .injuries were considered the most
severe; his lung injuries, the second worst. kke required a
-2-
throacotorny, an operation to insert a tube in his lung. He
remained in the hospital until August 7, 1978..
Plaintiff has returned to Idew York to live with and
be cared for by his parents. He has been treated by several
doctors in I7ew York for problems associated with his lungs, eye-
sight and neurological problems. He has suffered from diplopia
(double vision), lack of coordination and weakness in the lower
left leg, improper balance, dizzy spells, headaches, partial
amnesia and a shortness of temper. He iras undergone eye surgery
which corrected his diplopia, oblique palsy and myopia with the
help of corrective lenses.
To date, plaintiff has incurred approximately $75,000
in medical specials. b7edical bills are continuous and will be
ongoing. Lost wages are in excess of $30,000 and will continue
into the future. On April 29, 1980, P4r. Federico was declated
by the State. of New York to be totally disabled from the date of
the accident.
STATUS OF LAWSUIT
There have been no conferences with the Court. Settle-
ment would avoid substantial discovery, trial preparation (in-
cluding medical experts), and trial costs. There is a high risk
that the City will be liable for the major proportion of plain-
tiff's dan;ages. TYiese daniages are permanent and severe, and
a jury verdict would likely be in excess of $500,000.
- 3-
SETTLEMENT RECOA1t'BENDA^1 ION
A $20,000 offer by the City to the plaiirtiff was
immediately rejected as being unrealistic. On April 1, 1980,
plaintiff's attorney made a demand of $125,000. For the past
two months, Deputy City Attorney Yvonne Binstock has engaged in
settlement negotiations with plaintiff's attorney. An agreement
to settle and dismiss the lawsuit for $85,000 has been reached.
The City Attorney and the excess insurance carrier believe that
this settlement is highly favorable; we recommend that it be
approved.
Prepared By:
S^1EPHEN S. STARK
Yv0P1NE BINSTOCK
Enclosures: Letter from Transit Casualty
Disability Ruling
-4-
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
BUREAU OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
1046b
NOTICE OF FAVORABLE DECISION
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
The enclosed decision is favorable to you, e'sther wholly or partly. If you are satisfied with the
decision, there is no need for you to da anything at the present time. Further action on the
decision will proceed automatically.
If you disagree with 4he decision, you hate the right to reques4 the Appeals Council to review
it within 60 days from the date of receipt of 4he notice of this decision. It will be presumed
that this notice is received within 6 days after the date shofile aerequest Itorsreview atnyoue
showing is made otherwise. You (or your representative) may
local social security office or a1 the hearing office, or you may write or telephone these of-
fices indicating your intent to request review. You may also submit a written request for
review directly to the Appeals Council, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, SSA, P.O. Sox 2518,
Washington, D.C. 20013.
The Appeals Council may, on its own motion, within 60 days from the date shown below,
review the decision, which could possibly result in a change in the decision. o(n0 Creo en4 and
and 416.1463). After the 60 day period, the Appeals Council generally may y P
revise the decision on the basis of new and material evidence, or if a clerical error has been
made as to the amount of the benefits or where there is an error as to the decision on the
face of the evidence on which it lea saCounc'IOdec~des Oto 9 eview04he5 enclos d Odecoson Ton
416.1477, and 416.1479). If the App
its own motion or to reopen and revise it, you will be notified accordingly.
Unless you timely request review by the Appeals Council or the Council reviews the decision
on its own initiative, you may not obtain a court review of your case (saction 2C5(g),
1631(c) (3), or 1869(b) of the Social Security Act).
This notice and enclosed copy of
decision mailed
A ~ 1 ?! t
CC:
Name and Address of Representative:
Mz, fenneth Robinson, Esquire
926 Alberton Ave.
Lronx. '•ve4r 9ortc 104f>~
ddress of Claimant:
?tr. John Federico
4p11 Dyer Ave.
Bronx, hew Yozk
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
BUREAU OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
DECISION
In the case of
Jahn Fedetim
(Claimant)
(Wage Earner) (Leave blank if same as abovei
Claim for
Period of Disability and
Disability Insurance Benefits
085-44-428
(Social Sec~riry Number(
This case is before me upon licat onyforQa period of di abflityd andtfor dasabiiity ns~ ranclesbelnefitds underh ecdt onrs
urination disallowing an app i
216(i} and 223, respectively, of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(i) and 423).
In view of my conclusion, which is whofiy favorable to the claimant, recitation of the evidence is unnecessary.
After careful consideration Jf all tl~~vild~e~$e of record, I f; the claimandtlwasllunder a "d sabQitye as that termeis
and that beginning on
defined in the Social Security Act, and that such disability has continued up to and through the date of this deci-
sion.
It is the decision of the undersigned that the claimant, based on the application filed on
Jta~e 18r 1979 , is entitled to a period of disability, commencing on
Jtaie 14, 1978 and to disability insurance benefits under sections 216(i) and
223, respectively, of the Social Security Act.
Date: April 29, X80 WIILIAM L. S"~
Actninistrative Law Jtrlge
Office of Flearin4 & Appeals, ,5,4?~
Rocco 600, Bank of Inuisville Bldg.
510 tATest BzoacbaaY
T1JLtj.3Vi1.1.(Ar i,CY 40?.02
~,
U _ _ 1.
~~
Transit C~(et
C n
May 15, 1980
Ms. Yvonne Binstock
Office of the City Attorney
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Our File No.~ OS-78-26903
Federico vs City of Santa Monica
Dear Ms. Binstoc'::
r,T
Y
4 S'Q'yT 41,,
Or ~y '~ ,, ~;~,~
~~~ ~ ~~
~G
During my visit to your office today you advised me that
the John Federico case would be settled within your self-
retention of $100,000.
There was no question of the severity of injury to plain-
tiff in this case. At the time of the accident and ten days
subsequent he was rendered unconscious and in a coma. He
suffered a brain stem contusion which has left him with partial
permanent disability and to what extent we do not know at this
time. The medical specials amount to $75,000 and lost wages
amount to $30,000 which no doubt will continue into the future.
With an economist involved, setting forth that plaintiff would
never be able to go back to his employment, this case would
have a verdict potential of $500l~to $1,000,000 exposure.
The question of liability then enters the picture. There is no
question that the plaintiff had stopped for the stop sign before
he proceeded into the intersection. There is no question that our
bus was on a through street but it still does not alter the fact
that our bus driver was exceeding the speed limit which contributed
to this accident. Depending on the effectiveness of plaintiff
as witness and his disinterested witnesses, a jury could have
easily assessed comparative negligence up to 50~. It is there-
fore our considered opinion that you have done an excellent job
for your principal for any settlement up to your self-retention.
3700 Wilshire Boulevard ~ Los Angeles, California 90070 ~ (2731 381-8017
~ r~"~ ^'
ix
-:.
~~. _.
r'
May 15, 1980
Page 2
Ki/n~djpe~rsonal regards,
! '"'"
Bob Whipple, Manager
Claim Litigation
BW:nh