Judge Negates $7.5 Million for Victim of Rape : Courts: Attorney did not prove paralyzed woman in nursing home suffered damage, judge rules. Hospital staff found not to be negligent.

A judge Wednesday set aside a $7.5-million jury award to a paralyzed woman who became pregnant after being raped at a North Hollywood nursing home, ruling that the woman’s attorney did not prove that she suffered damage from the incident.

San Fernando Superior Court Judge David M. Schacter also found insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that negligence by the staff of the Laurelwood Convalescent Hospital led to the rape of Andrea Nerpel, 38, who had lived there since suffering major brain damage in a car accident when she was 19.

“There was no basis for the jury’s finding other than mere speculation, sympathy, or compassion,” Schacter said.

“All of us are aware that a terrible wrong was done to Andrea Nerpel by an unknown person. Any rational person would have feelings of sympathy for the plaintiff, and disgust and rage against the unknown perpetrator. However, vengeance on the nursing home, which is the apparent basis for the jury verdict, is not the solution,” he said.

Nerpel’s family sued the nursing home for negligence on her behalf and a jury awarded her $7.5 million in damages after a month-long trial.

Unable to move or communicate meaningfully since the 1969 accident, Nerpel became pregnant in 1982. Her grandmother, Elian Rose, learned of the pregnancy about three months later during a visit to the nursing home. Nerpel, who is fed through a tube in her stomach, had an abortion and was sterilized. The rapist was never identified.

In his closing argument, the family’s attorney, Alan J. Schultz, said the cost-conscious nursing home did not provide security for its patients. He urged them to punish the nursing home’s parent corporation, Western Medical Enterprises Inc., by granting Nerpel substantial damages.

Explaining his decision to overturn the verdict, Schacter chastised Schultz for failing to produce evidence to support his contentions that the nursing home--where Nerpel continues to live--was negligent in caring for the patients, hiring reliable employees, or maintaining security on the premises.

The judge called Schultz’s closing argument “inflammatory” and said it violated the judge’s earlier order that he not ask for punitive damages. He also said Schultz offered no evidence that Nerpel suffered damage as a result of the incident. During the trial, nursing home attorney Richard B. Castle argued that Nerpel was totally unaware of her surroundings and did not know she had been raped.

“Even her grandmother admitted she did not know if Miss Nerpel knew or was aware what had happened to her, either at the time of the sexual activity or later,” Schacter said.

Schultz said he plans to appeal the judge’s ruling.