Ventarola v. Reyes-Narvaez
- Philip Halpern
- 7:18-cv-03231
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ventarola v. Reyes Narvaez, Judge Moses found Ventarola’s proposed damages findings deficient but allowed him to refile them with proper medical support.
Michael Ventarola must provide properly authenticated medical records or other competent medical evidence, support causation and the requested pain-and-suffering amount with citations, and serve the materials on the defaulting defendants. The opinion does not identify the defendants’ positions or state how the order otherwise affects them.
What happened
In Ventarola v. Reyes Narvaez, Michael Ventarola submitted proposed factual findings and legal conclusions, along with a declaration and exhibits, in support of a request for damages. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or events.
The court found that Ventarola had not submitted his medical evidence in an acceptable form. It also found that, given his preexisting conditions, he had not provided competent medical evidence connecting his claimed injuries to the events at issue. His request for $200,000 to $300,000 for pain and suffering also lacked supporting citations to comparable cases.
The court allowed Ventarola to file updated proposed findings by March 14, 2020, with authenticated medical records or competent evidence about causation and citations supporting each requested finding. Judge Barbara Moses also directed him to serve the order and updated materials on the defaulting defendants and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- Ventarola v. Reyes-Narvaez · No. 7:18-cv-03231
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 13, 2020
Background
The court reviewed Michael Ventarola’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, his supporting declaration, and related exhibits. The materials concerned a damages inquest, a proceeding to determine damages after defendants have defaulted. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims, the conduct alleged, or the basis for the defendants’ defaults.
Deficiencies identified by the court
The court found at least two problems with the proposed findings. First, Ventarola had not submitted his supporting medical evidence in admissible form. The court cited decisions declining to consider unauthenticated or uncertified medical records during damages proceedings.
Second, the court noted Ventarola’s significant preexisting conditions, including back pain that apparently required narcotic pain medication and epidural injections, headaches, and hearing loss. The court found that he had not submitted competent medical evidence showing proximate causation—that is, evidence linking his claimed injuries to the events for which he sought damages.
The court also stated that Ventarola’s request for $200,000 to $300,000 for pain and suffering should be supported by citations to cases involving comparable facts and similar awards.
Disposition
The court permitted Ventarola to refile his proposed findings no later than March 14, 2020. Any updated filing had to include properly authenticated medical records and/or competent medical evidence regarding proximate causation. It also had to cite the specific paragraph of an accompanying declaration or the specific page of an accompanying medical record supporting each requested finding.
The court directed Ventarola to serve the order and any updated proposed findings and exhibits on the defaulting defendants, and to file proof of service. The opinion does not state that the court awarded or denied damages, and it does not state a final disposition of the underlying case. Judge Barbara Moses signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.