Bicycle Accident Attorney Wins | Plaintiff Awarded $57,000,000 in Personal Injury Claim

#injurycompensation #personalinjury #personalinjuryattorney #injuryclaims #injurynews #personalinjurycourt

👉Bicycle Accident Attorney Wins Big!
The plaintiff was struck by a railroad tie while riding a bicycle through a construction zone, resulting in severe injuries.
The jury found the defendant negligent and awarded the plaintiff over $100 million in damages, which was later reduced to approximately $57 million, including $40 million for future medical expenses.
However, there’s an important catch you should know about, all explained in the full video below. If you sustained personal injury of any kind and are looking for a personal injury lawyer, watch the full video on this case study.

_________________________________

👉Parties:
Robert Liciaga, respondent, v. New York City Transit Authority, etc., appellant.

👉Lawyers:
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY (Carmen Ciparick, Robert J. Kirshenberg, and Andrea N. Chidyllo of counsel), for appellant (Defendant).
Block O’Toole & Murphy, New York, NY (David Scher and Christina R. Mercado of counsel), for respondent (Plaintiff).

👉Field of practice: Personal Injury, Bicycle accident lawyer, Bicycle accident attorney

👉Main topics: Personal Injury Lawsuit, Bicycle Accident Lawsuit, Construction Zone Injury, Track Replacement Accident, Spinal Cord Injury Lawsuit, Fractured Vertebrae Compensation, Negligence in Construction Zones, Future Medical Expenses Lawsuit, Pain and Suffering Damages, Personal Injury Verdict, Collateral Source Hearing, Affordable Care Act Insurance, Future Medical Expenses Award, Jury Award Reduction, New York Injury Law Verdict, Bicycle accident lawyer, Bicycle accident attorney.
_________________________________

👉Disclaimers: The content on this YouTube channel and/or related web sites (collectively: "the Sites”) are for general education. The Sites are not a law firm and not a lawyer referral service; nor are they a substitute for hiring an attorney or law firm. Any information displayed or provided on the Sites is for personal use only. This Sites offer no legal, business, or tax advice, recommendations, mediation, or counseling in connection with any legal matter, under any circumstances, and nothing we do, and no element of the Sites or the Sites’ call connect functionality ("Call Service") should be construed as such. Some of the attorneys, law firms, and legal service providers (collectively, "Third Party Legal Professionals") are accessible via the Call Service by virtue of their payment of a fee to promote their respective services to users of the Call Service and should be considered as advertising. The Sites do not endorse or recommend any participating Third-Party Legal Professionals. Your use of the Sites or Call Service is not intended to create, and any information submitted to the Sites and/or any electronic or other communication sent to the Sites will not create a contract for representation or an attorney-client relationship between you and these Sites or any of the Third-Party Legal Professionals.
This video is based on written decisions by US courts that are publicly available. The characters, events, places, and names depicted in this video are taken from the corresponding court decision. However, the images in this video are entirely fictitious and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead is purely coincidental.
________________________________________
👉Notice: Some case summaries available in this channel were written with the help of AI, which may produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.