What a Cervical Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy May Be Worth in New York (2025)

When your neck is injured in a crash or a fall, the medical terms can make everything sound abstract. A “cervical disc herniation with radiculopathy” simply means one of the cushions between the bones in your neck has pushed out and is irritating a nearby nerve. That irritation causes pain that can shoot from your neck into your shoulder, arm, and hand, sometimes with tingling, numbness, or weakness. Doctors confirm it with MRI scans and nerve tests; treatment starts with physical therapy and medication, often moves to injections, and—if things don’t improve—can lead to surgery such as an ACDF, which stands for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Because this injury can affect sleep, work, and everyday tasks from lifting groceries to typing, New York juries and judges take it seriously. But they don’t just pick numbers from the air. On appeal, courts compare a verdict to what similar cases have been allowed in the past and adjust the amount up or down if it “deviates materially from reasonable compensation.” That is the standard written into New York law and it is why past appellate decisions are the best guide for estimating value ranges for a neck-herniation case today. FindLaw Codes

Before we talk numbers, there’s a threshold issue that only applies to motor-vehicle cases (car, bus, truck, Uber/Lyft). New York’s No-Fault system requires you to prove a “serious injury” under Insurance Law § 5102(d) before you can collect money for pain and suffering. There are several ways to qualify, such as a fracture, but for disc herniations, you usually prove either a significant limitation or a permanent consequential limitation of use, sometimes combined with evidence that you were substantially disabled for 90 out of the first 180 days after the crash. The definition is spelled out in the statute, and the state’s insurance department gives consumers a straightforward explanation as well. The practical takeaway is that if your case involves a car or bus, we must clear this legal bar; if we do, we can ask a jury to fully value your pain, suffering, and loss of normal life.

With that out of the way, the real driver of value in neck-herniation cases is how appellate courts have handled similar injuries over the last few years. New York’s appellate courts regularly review jury awards and either affirm them or modify them to fit within a range they consider “reasonable,” looking at injuries, treatment, permanence, and future time horizons. If you imagine each case as a data point, you can start to see bands where numbers tend to land. The decisions below come from 2021 through 2025 and give a grounded sense of those bands. The goal here is not to promise a result—no lawyer can—but to show you what recent New York courts have actually allowed to stand for this kind of neck injury. FindLaw Codes

Let’s start with the most recent year, because that’s what judges and insurers will look at first. In Morrobel v. Alicea (First Department, March 2025), a bus passenger’s damages were very much in line with what we see for significant neck injuries. The appeals court left in place $625,000 for past pain and suffering and $1,530,000 for future pain and suffering, and it also sustained a large award for future medical expenses. The court even discussed the award on a “per-year” basis, which is increasingly common—judges want to know whether the yearly value the jury implied makes sense given the medical proof. There was a technical wrinkle: because the New York City Transit Authority was a defendant, the court corrected the judgment to apply a 3% interest rate instead of 9%, which is a special rule for the Transit Authority. The bottom line for valuation, though, is that seven-figure combined pain-and-suffering for a substantial cervical injury stayed intact on appeal. Justia Law

Also in 2025, the Second Department decided Fuentes v. Ingram, a Nassau County case arising from a crash with a police vehicle. The appeals court affirmed $425,000 for past pain and suffering and $600,000 for future pain and suffering over 30 years, plus a derivative claim for the spouse, bringing the total judgment to $1.11 million. The record included cervical and lumbar herniations and a knee surgery; it’s a good example of a mid-range case where the future period is long, but the surgery history is not exclusively neck-fusion focused. For a reader trying to gauge a “middle lane” outcome when the proof is solid but not catastrophic, Fuentes is a practical comparator. Justia Law

The Second Department also issued Usoiani v. Dumbo Moving & Storage, Inc. in August 2025, involving two plaintiffs with serious spine injuries—one of whom underwent cervical spine surgery. The court required a remittitur of future pain and suffering to $1.5 million for each plaintiff, but it made a clarifying point that matters far beyond this one lawsuit: a jury does not need to make a separate finding of “permanent injury” in order to award future pain and suffering, so long as the serious-injury threshold is otherwise met under the No-Fault law. That is an important correction because defense lawyers sometimes suggest the opposite in their requested jury instructions. Usoiani gives you clean appellate language to keep the charge accurate and to defend a future-damages award on appeal. New York State Unified Court System

Looking back to 2024, Vasquez v. Gilbane Building Co. is a Fourth Department construction-law decision that shows how surgery details move numbers. The plaintiff, age 57, underwent a three-level ACDF at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7, with testimony that the adjacent level (C3-4) was worsening and might need future surgery. The appeals court affirmed $1,250,000 for future pain and suffering, and the opinion references life-expectancy horizons, which helps explain why the future number was where it was. This is a clean, modern anchor for multi-level fusion with credible testimony about persistent radicular symptoms and likely future care. Justia Law

In the same time frame, the First Department decided Brown v. Voda Realty LLC in June 2024, which pushes the other way. There, the plaintiff had aggravations of degenerative cervical and lumbar conditions and did not undergo a neck fusion. The appeals court ordered a conditional reduction to $400,000 for past pain and suffering and $400,000 for future pain and suffering, reflecting a shorter projected future period and a less invasive course of treatment. Brown is a helpful reality check: when the record leans toward degeneration and conservative care, appellate panels tend to compress awards. Justia Law

If we step to 2023, one of the most frequently cited spine cases is Petit v. Archer from the Second Department. Petit involved a cervical fusion with durable limitations and solid proof of future medical needs. The jury awarded $600,000 past and $1,500,000 future over 25 years, along with significant future medical expenses. The trial judge reduced the future pain-and-suffering component to $1,200,000, and the appellate court affirmed that reduced figure and sustained $700,000 in future medicals. Petit is a workhorse comparator—the facts are common in serious neck cases, and the numbers have been road-tested on appeal. Justia Law

Also in late 2023, Angeles v. County of Suffolk shows the lower end of the spectrum when long-term impact is not as robustly proven. There, the Second Department sustained a future pain-and-suffering award of $111,000 over 10 years and pared back a higher past-pain figure. Angeles is valuable not because it represents typical results—it doesn’t—but because defense counsel will cite it to argue a conservative future number whenever surgery is absent and daily-life impact is less dramatic. If your case has better proof on function and medical necessity, Angeles is the decision you distinguish to explain why your client’s case sits in the higher band. Justia Law

If you’re wondering how high these cases can go when the proof is especially strong, consider Demetro v. Dormitory Authority of the State of N.Y., a 2021 First Department decision. There, the court reinstated a $3,000,000 pain-and-suffering award ($1.5M past and $1.5M future) after trial, reflecting a very serious spine injury with lasting consequences. While Demetro is not the norm, it’s a reminder that seven-figure totals are not outliers when the facts justify them and the record is well built. Justia Law

So what should an injured person take from all this?

First, the surgical versus non-surgical divide matters. Where there is a cervical fusion and the medical records document persistent radiculopathy, reduced range of motion, and a credible need for ongoing care, appellate-approved awards for future pain and suffering have commonly clustered around $1.2 to $1.5 million, with past pain and suffering in the $400,000 to $750,000 range depending on the timeline and the severity of symptoms. Cases like Petit (2013 crash; decision 2023), Vasquez (2024), Nieva-Silvera (2021), and Usoiani (2025) sit within that corridor, with Morrobel (2025) reinforcing that a seven-figure future component is sustainable when the record supports it.

Second, where the treatment course is conservative, imaging shows degeneration, and day-to-day limitations are less pronounced, appellate courts tend to reduce verdicts to low- to mid-six figures per component—Brown (2024) is a clear example—and sometimes even lower for future pain and suffering as in Angeles (2023).

Third, special rules can affect the math after the verdict: in cases against the Transit Authority, post-judgment interest is 3%, not 9%, which affects the total money paid over time. That interest rule doesn’t change what your injury is “worth,” but it does affect what the judgment accrues if the defendant appeals or delays payment.

Here’s how lawyers translate those decisions into a practical estimate for you. We start by matching your medical story to the appellate cases: Do your MRI and EMG show nerve-root involvement that lines up with your symptoms? If the radiology and nerve studies confirm compression at the same level where you are experiencing pain, tingling, or weakness, your case moves into the category of “objective proof.” That matters enormously, because appellate courts in New York are clear that objective evidence is the backbone of any serious-injury claim under Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Next, we look at the treatment path. A typical story that resonates with courts involves an injured person who started with conservative care—physical therapy, chiropractic, or medications—then moved to epidural steroid injections when the pain didn’t resolve, and ultimately underwent surgery such as an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when nothing else worked. Judges view that trajectory as proof that the person didn’t “jump to surgery” but instead exhausted reasonable alternatives. That was exactly the situation in Petit v. Archer (2023), where the Second Department upheld a reduced but still significant award of $600,000 for past pain and suffering and $1.2 million for future pain and suffering over 25 years. The clear sequence of escalating treatment, combined with credible testimony about daily-life limitations, persuaded the appellate panel that those numbers did not “deviate materially” from what’s reasonable under CPLR 5501(c).

If your case involves a multi-level fusion—for example, surgery at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7—the courts have recognized even higher values, particularly if your surgeon testifies that you are likely to need additional procedures down the line. In Vasquez v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (2024), the plaintiff underwent a three-level fusion and had medical testimony about worsening problems at an adjacent level. The Fourth Department affirmed $1.25 million for future pain and suffering, noting a life expectancy of 28 years. That case illustrates how future surgical needs can push the valuation higher, because the law compensates not just for the pain you feel today, but also for the hardship you will endure across your expected lifespan.

On the other hand, when the record shows no surgery and evidence leans toward degenerative changes rather than acute trauma, appellate courts have been quick to cut down jury awards. In Brown v. Voda Realty (2024), the First Department reviewed a claim involving cervical and lumbar aggravations without fusion. The plaintiff relied mostly on Tylenol, physical therapy, and testimony about discomfort. The court reduced the jury award to $400,000 for past and $400,000 for future pain and suffering over a ten-year span . That is a stark reminder that without surgical proof and strong evidence of daily-life impairment, awards in neck-injury cases tend to shrink.

Another angle lawyers analyze is the time horizon of the award. Appellate courts increasingly express pain-and-suffering damages in per-year terms. For example, in Morrobel v. Alicea (2025), the First Department upheld $625,000 for past pain and suffering and $1.53 million for future pain and suffering, but explained that this worked out to roughly $90,000 per year for the past and $45,000 per year for the future. By framing the numbers this way, the court made it easier to compare across cases. For you as a plaintiff, that means your lawyer should be ready to argue not only total dollars but also a per-year justification tied to your expected life span.

Future medical needs are another pillar of case valuation. In Morrobel, the plaintiff’s life-care planner laid out anticipated costs for additional imaging, pain management, and possible revision surgery. The court affirmed $1.2 million in future medical expenses, rejecting the defense argument that no-fault fee schedules under Insurance Law § 5108 limit tort recoveries. That decision is important for anyone with a cervical fusion, because it establishes that juries can award the full cost of future care as long as there is competent medical testimony to support it.

Finally, we look at the outliers on both ends. On the high side, cases like Demetro v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y. (2021) show that when the facts are strong, appellate courts will sustain $3 million in pain and suffering ($1.5 million past and $1.5 million future) . On the low side, Angeles v. County of Suffolk (2023) demonstrates that weak proof can leave a plaintiff with as little as $111,000 in future pain and suffering over ten years . These bookends illustrate why every case is fact-driven.

So what does this mean for you? If you have undergone a cervical fusion with documented radiculopathy, sustained daily-life restrictions, and medical proof that future care is likely, appellate courts in New York have approved total pain-and-suffering packages in the $1.5 million to $2.2 million range, with additional hundreds of thousands (or more) in future medicals. If you have herniations without surgery but credible ongoing symptoms, the band narrows to $700,000 to $1.1 million. If you have only mild radiculopathy and a record that looks degenerative, numbers closer to $200,000 to $400,000 are more realistic.

Why Every Case Is Unique

While it is tempting to look at these numbers and try to plug your case neatly into one of the bands, the truth is that no two cases are ever exactly the same. The law in New York makes it clear that compensation depends on the specific way an injury affects a person’s life. Two people could have the same MRI showing the same herniated disc, but if one is a 35-year-old construction worker who can no longer lift, and the other is a 70-year-old retiree who was already living with arthritis, the value will be dramatically different. Courts consider age, occupation, lifestyle, and even credibility. That is why lawyers emphasize building a strong record that demonstrates exactly how the injury has changed your day-to-day life, from the way you work to the way you care for your family.

Venue Matters

Another important factor is where in New York your case is heard. Juries in the Bronx may view damages differently than juries in Nassau County or Westchester. Even within New York City, verdicts can look very different depending on the county. Although appellate courts try to keep things consistent across the state by applying the “deviates materially” standard in CPLR 5501(c), the starting point is still the jury verdict. That means the local jury pool, and how they perceive pain and suffering, plays a role in how high or low a verdict comes in before it ever reaches an appellate panel.

The Role of Liability and Fault

The strength of your liability case matters just as much as the seriousness of your medical injury. If the defendant is clearly at fault—for example, in a Labor Law § 240(1) “fall from a height” case—your damages are not reduced for comparative negligence. On the other hand, in a car accident, if the jury finds you partly at fault, your recovery is reduced by your percentage of responsibility. That means even if you have a $2 million verdict for pain and suffering, if the jury decides you were 40% responsible for the accident, your actual award is $1.2 million. For many clients, this comes as a surprise, but it is a critical part of the valuation process.

How Long These Cases Take

It is also worth remembering that these appellate decisions are not snapshots taken a few weeks after an accident. These are the end results of cases that often take years to wind their way through the courts. A jury may issue a verdict, but the defense will almost always appeal, especially in higher-value cases. That appeal process can reduce or sustain the award, and it adds years to the life of the case. Petit v. Archer (2023) and Morrobel v. Alicea (2025) are good examples of how awards are trimmed and then affirmed, but only after multiple rounds of litigation. When clients ask why their case is taking so long, this is the reality: high-stakes cases involve delays, appeals, and persistence.

No Caps on Damages in New York

One area where New York differs from many states is that there are no caps on damages in personal injury cases. Some states limit the maximum amount a jury can award for pain and suffering, but New York does not. That does not mean the sky is the limit, however. Instead, the appellate courts act as the guardrails, reducing awards that they find excessive compared to prior cases. That is why you see numbers in the $1.2 to $1.5 million range for future pain and suffering in fusion cases—because those are the levels the appellate courts have repeatedly affirmed as reasonable.

The Takeaway for Clients

When you put all of these factors together, the takeaway is straightforward: appellate cases give us a reliable set of “guardrails,” but they are not a formula. A good lawyer looks at the facts of your medical history, your future medical needs, your daily limitations, your job, your age, the strength of liability, and the venue to estimate where your case fits within those guardrails. The ranges cited above—whether $1.5 to $2.2 million for fusion cases, $700,000 to $1.1 million for non-surgical herniations with ongoing symptoms, or $200,000 to $400,000 for degenerative-looking cases—are not promises. They are examples of what New York appellate courts have recently sustained. The real question is how your own story, with its unique details and proof, matches up to those comparables.

---

Disclaimer:

The information contained in this blog is provided for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Every case is different, and the value of a personal injury claim depends on many unique factors, including the facts of the accident, the nature of the medical treatment, the impact on daily life and work, the jurisdiction where the case is filed, and the evidence presented in court. While the appellate cases and figures discussed above provide examples of how New York courts have valued certain injuries, they should not be taken as predictions or guarantees of future results. Reading this blog does not create an attorney–client relationship. If you have suffered an injury and would like legal advice about your specific situation, you should consult with an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.