Articles Posted in Long Island

Published on:

by

A 35-year old woman came to an obstetrician asking him to care for her during her pregnancy. A New York Injury Lawyer said the obstetrician noted the advanced age of the mother and suggested that the woman undergo an amniocentesis to rule out any genetic abnormalities in the child. On July 30, 1980, when the woman was into her 16th week of pregnancy, the obstetrician performed the amniocentesis.

The amniotic fluid sample could not be processed by the laboratory because the fluid contained an excessive amount of blood. Weeks later during a routing pre-natal check-up, the obstetrician could not detect the fetal heartbeat.

The woman then went to another obstetrician who told her that her fetus died while in the womb. On September 6, 1980, the lady was induced to go into labor in order to expel the dead fetus. When the fetus was expelled, the second obstetrician noted that the body of the fetus had three puncture marks with blood clots. The second obstetrician then told the woman that it was his opinion that the puncture wounds on her baby was caused by the amniocentesis performed by the first obstetrician.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A woman is facing a case against her for causing the death of a child which was found in a plastic bag by the police inside her house. The child found was said to be given birth recently by the woman. An indictment is filed and she is being charged with murder in the second degree, man slaughter in the first and second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child.

A New York Injury Lawyer said that the defendant woman filed for the re-inspection by the court of the grand jury minutes to determine the admissibility of evidence since it was acquired through the violation of the physician-patient privileged communication and search warrant was properly obtained.

The judged, in an oral decision, agreed to the re-inspection of the minutes. This will determine if there is a probable cause to issue a search warrant of the defendant’s house, whether the evidence presented will be sufficient to support the charge of manslaughter in the first degree, which requires the “intent to cause an injury”, and lastly, whether the indictment should be dismissed.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff consulted defendant, a gynecologist, because she had not had a menstrual period for over three months and her “home pregnancy tests” were negative. A New York Injury Lawyer said that after a visual examination and with no blood or urine analysis, defendant informed her that she was not pregnant. Without explaining any of the attendant risks, he prescribed the hormonal drug Provera. When plaintiff had the prescription filled, she became aware–from the warning on the label and advice given by the pharmacist–that the drug was known to pose a serious risk of producing congenital defects in the child if ingested during early pregnancy. Relying on the defendant’s advice that she was not pregnant, plaintiff took the drug as prescribed. When menstruation did not occur, she consulted another gynecologist who ascertained from laboratory tests that she was indeed pregnant and cautioned her about the drug’s potentially harmful effects on a fetus in early stages. Fearing that these harmful effects had occurred, plaintiff and her husband elected to have the pregnancy terminated.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ negligence forced her either to risk having a congenitally defective child or to submit to an abortion in violation of her “personal, moral and religious convictions”. She seeks damages for her physical, psychological, and emotional injuries resulting from the abortion and from having to decide whether to undergo it.

The court rules that the complaint and affidavits sufficiently define a cause of action in medical malpractice for the physical and emotional injuries suffered by plaintiff as a result of defendants’ negligence in rendering medical services to plaintiff, and, thereby, breaching their duty of care owed directly to her.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The respondent in the case is the New York State Insurance Fund. The appellants in the case are Merchants Insurance Company of New Hampshire, Inc., and CPN Construction Corporation.

About the Case

The defendant in the case, Merchants Insurance Company of New Hampshire, seeks an inter alia for a judgment that was made by the Kings County Supreme Court which orders that the company is required to defend and indemnify the CPN Construction Corporation in a personal injury suit titled Salinas versus Briarwood Ave. Association. The defendant is appealing the order from the Supreme Court that granted the plaintiffs motion for a summary judgment and declared they are obligated to defend the defendants, CPN Construction Corporation and Building Block Contracting Corporation in the personal injury action.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiffs in the case are Elaine Klau and Marvin L. Klau. The defendant in the case is Belair Building, LLC. The third party plaintiff is Belair Building, LLC. The third party defendants are National Grid and LIPA.

Plaintiff Argument

In August of the year 2009, the plaintiff, Elaine Klau, was walking on the public sidewalk located in front of 325 Shore Road, in Long Beach, New York. As she headed towards the east, her foot struck a “blob” of concrete that was located directly on top of a metal gas valve cap. When her foot struck the sidewalk she lost her balance and fell to the ground. She allegedly sustained personal injuries from the trip and fall.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Kings County Personal Injury 122

The plaintiff in this case is Andrzej Drozdzal. The defendants in the case are Suzanne and Ruth Semel and Spoon Incorporated. The judge overseeing the case is Laura Lee Jacobson.

About the Case

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiffs in the case are China Rabalais, an infant and her mother Kysha Jones and Kysha Jones as an individual. The defendant in the case is Starrett City, Inc.

Case History

The defendant in the case has filed a motion on April 12, 2010, seeking a summary judgment in their favor to dismiss the complaint made against them.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Petitioner was born prematurely at about 31-weeks gestation at defendant hospital. He is alleging that because of defendant Hospital’s failure to properly diagnose the amniotic infection of his mother and failure to properly monitor and intervene with the labor and delivery process, he incurred development delay, cerebral palsy, and spastic diplegia. Petitioner filed to claim damages but defendant Hospital is argues that the action has already expired, and petitioner cannot claim anymore.

A New York Injury Lawyer said that according to General Municipal Law, the Legislature enacted a protocol for suing a public corporation a notice of claim should be first filed. Under the same law, it is provided that it is the discretion of the court to extend the time, which a petitioner can serve a notice of claim. However, the extension should not exceed the time limit for the commencement of the action against public corporation. The law requires that the notice should be served 90 days after the claim arises. The extension of time should consider whether it involves an infant, if the movant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, when the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and lastly, if the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits. A Manhattan personal injury lawyer said tha based on jurisprudence, the court shall consider other relevant facts and circumstances such as whether the claimant was an infant, mentally, or physically incapacitated, or died before the time limited for service of the notice of claim. If the claimant failed to serve a timely notice of claim by reason of his justifiable reliance upon settlement representations made by an authorized representative. Also, whether the claimant in serving a notice of claim made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should be asserted, and lastly, whether the delay in serving the notice of claim substantially prejudiced the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits.

Medical records show that petitioner was prematurely born. He was approximately 31-weeks gestation, low birth weight and in need of immediate oxygen resuscitation. A Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer said he was on oxygen for five days after his birth and was then transferred to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit or NICU and for a month, he remained hospitalized. ased on the medical records, there is no showing of substantial prejudice and there since there is no injury, the lack of a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve a notice of claim will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff in the case is Bierzo Construction Corporation, LLC. The Defendant in the case is The Everest National Insurance Company. The third party plaintiff in the case is The Everest National Insurance Company and the third party defendants are Port-Land Construction Corporation and Utica First Insurance Company.

Case History

A New York Injury Lawyer explained that this is an insurance action, which comes from the underlying action from a fatal accident that occurred on October 7, 2006. The fatal accident occurred at a construction site when Erasmo Sanchez Lopez was struck by a brick while working at the site.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The respondent in the case is the Allstate Insurance Company. According to a Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer, the respondent is represented by Charles F. Brady for counsel, from the Benjamin Purvin law firm located in Lake Success. The appellant in the case is Carlos Casanova. The appellant is represented by Kenneth Popper for counsel, from the Joseph Greene law firm located in Rego Park.

The case is being heard in the Second Department of the Supreme Court in the Appellate Division. The judges overseeing the case are Kunzeman, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper, and Balletta, JJ.

Court Memorandum

Continue reading

Contact Information