Articles Posted in Nassau

Published on:

by

Cases of personal injury involve certain subtleties of the law that must be met in order for the complainant to have a case against the building or facility where the injury occurred. First of all, there must be an injury. A New York Injury Lawyer said if a complainant files a complaint against a company because they fell, they must show that they were injured in some way by that fall. They must also be able to show that the building owner or manager had prior knowledge that a hazardous situation existed at that location at a time prior to the accident for them to have taken steps to prevent the accident from happening. In most cases, some evidence that there was a defect or hazardous situation that most of the people who used that area were aware of and that they had complained to the building management about usually proves this portion of the law. That proof is provided by the complainant in most cases in the form of incident reports, memos, emails, or other evidence that may show that the hazard was there and that the property management knew that it was there, but had not taken steps to repair it.

In one case, which occurred at 200 Park Avenue in Manhattan, one of the janitors was responsible for mopping the floor of the lobby where a woman slipped on some spilled liquid on the floor of the lobby (skip and fall). She was injured and treated. She then filed suit against the building management because she claims that they were liable for the situation. She claimed that the floor cleaning rotation was not notated in reference to how often or even when the lobby would be checked for spills or other debris. Since there was no one responsible for checking the floors, she contends that her accident was the responsibility of the building maintenance department.

The building management filed a motion in Queens County Civil Court for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and all other claims against them in this case because they felt that the complainant had not made a case that they had been notified of a problem prior to the accident. The Civil Court denied their motion and they filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. A Manhattan Personal Injury Lawyer said the appeal was reviewed, and decided on February 28, 2007. The Supreme Court determined that the building management had failed to show that they should get a summary judgment on the case since there were no records presented that demonstrated a process by which the lobby floor was checked or monitored for hazardous situations. The Supreme Court clearly felt that this was a triable issue of fact in that they upheld the decision of the Civil Court and denied the summary motion request of the property management.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

On September 19, 1974, at 11:30 in the evening, a 41 year-old woman was admitted into the maternity ward at the hospital where she worked as a board certified physician, to deliver her second child. A New York Injury Lawyer said the woman was monitored upon her arrival by a nurse who determined that the infant was at -2 station and that his heart rate was 140 and regular. Her obstetrician was notified of her labor and advised that he would drive in to the hospital immediately. The nurse continued to monitor her labor. At 1:35 a.m. the nurse notified the obstetrician that the mother’s contractions were arriving at three-minute intervals and that the infant’s heart rate was 140 and regular. The obstetrician was not yet at the hospital, he prescribed several drugs to be administered to the mother over the telephone. One of those prescribed drugs was Demerol, a powerful painkiller.

The obstetrician arrived at the hospital at two in the morning. Her checked the woman and found that she was in her second stage of labor. At that point, the doctor noticed that the contractions had slowed and were four minutes apart. The woman had just been given the Demerol. He noted that the infant was at station -2. Station -2 means that the infant’s head is two centimeters above the pelvic spines that form the entrance to the birth canal. The obstetrician did not order an x-ray to determine if the infant’s head would fit through the woman’s pelvic spines. He ordered a Pitocin drip to speed labor. He testified in court that he had ordered the Pitocin because the labor had slowed from three minutes between contractions, to four minutes between contractions.

There was medical testimony at trial that Pitocin can cause the umbilical cord of the infant to be squeezed by the stronger contractions that it produces which can block the flow of blood and oxygen to the baby. A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer the law requires that if a physician prescribes Pitocin during a delivery, they must monitor the mother and child constantly while the drip is in progress. This monitoring is to ensure that the oxygen supply to the baby is not cut off which would cause a birth injury including cerebral palsy. The Pitocin drip in this case was on for more than an hour following the prescription to the actual delivery of the infant. According to the hospital delivery records, the Pitocin immediately increased the labor contractions to between two and three minutes apart and moderate in strength. At 2:30 a.m. the fetal heart rate was 136. All of the medical chart entries regarding this delivery were made by the nurse who stated that she was monitoring the woman every ten minutes, but that she had to leave the room several times to get items that would be needed for the delivery of the child.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In September of 1993, a woman entered the delivery room of Nassau County Medical Center to deliver a baby boy. The doctors determined that the woman should have no problem with a vaginal delivery and administered Pitocin to speed up her labor. However, after several hours, it was clear that the birth was not going to be the easy one that the doctors had anticipated.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the child began to show signs of fetal distress and doctors decided to use a vacuum extractor. They made two attempts to deliver the child with the help of the vacuum extractor to no avail. By that time, it was critical that the child be delivered as soon as possible. The doctors used forceps to grasp the child’s head and forcibly pull him into the world. After this traumatic delivery, the baby was shaking and injured. He had a broken clavicle and bruising all over his head and upper body. He weighed eight pounds, three and one half ounces at birth. His Apgar scores were normal with an eight at one minute after birth and a nine at five minutes.

The child himself filed a medical malpractice claim as soon as he reached an age to file. In New York, one of the reasons that a medical malpractice claim is allowed to be filed late is called infancy. That means that the child was not of an age to understand or to file on his own behalf until he was older. This child appeared normal at birth with the exception of the obvious trauma. He maintains that by the time that he was two years old, he had begun to experience epileptic seizures and delayed development as a result of the head trauma that he suffered during the traumatic birth. He states that in 1995, he had an electroencephalogram test to check his brain waves and it came back normal. In 1998 and 1999, his doctor repeated the test and the results showed abnormality. When the child was ten years of age, his counsel sent the hospital notice that they were filing a lawsuit alleging that the child had suffered brain damage because of the hospital’s malpractice at the time of his birth that had resulted in the physical trauma that caused him to suffer from epilepsy. He contends that the size of his mother’s pelvis and the size of his head, should have precluded the use of Pitocin to increase labor. The chances of his mother being able to deliver him without serious intervention was slim if not impossible.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In 1980, plaintiff had a copper 7 (CU-7) IUD inserted into her uterus by a physician who is not a party to the action. In January 1982, plaintiff came under the care of defendant Medical Group (“Medical Group”). Later that year, plaintiff and her husband decided to have the IUD removed so that they could have children; plaintiff stated that she wanted to give her son, a brother or a sister.

A New York Injury Lawyer said that on or about 5 November 1982, plaintiff was examined by defendant, an employee of The Medical Group. The defendant conducted an internal examination of plaintiff and, when he did not detect the IUD, ordered x-rays of plaintiff’s lower abdomen. The defendant reported, after the x-ray was conducted, that no intrauterine device is noted in the central portion of the pelvic cavity.

On 17 December 1982, plaintiff returned to the Medical Group and was informed by defendant that no IUD was detected by the x-rays and that she could attempt to become pregnant. The records of the Medical Group for that date bore the notation, “no evidence of IUD in pelvis or abdomen. Plan will attempt pregnancy.” Although plaintiff tried to conceive, her efforts were fruitless.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A woman went to a fast-food burger joint and ate there. After finishing her meal, she went to use the bathroom. She waited a while to use the bathroom as another lady was still using the bathroom when she got there. When she entered the bathroom, as she passed the sink to go to the toilet, she had a slip and fall because of a puddle of water.

After her slip and fall, she cleaned up herself and limped out of the bathroom. As she left, she saw a yellow caution (wet floor) sign outside the bathroom area. The sign was folded near the wall of the men’s bathroom.

She reported her slip and fall to the store manager. From the store manager the lady learned that the bathroom had just been mopped not half an hour before her slip and fall. She also learned that there was no regularly scheduled cleaning of the bathrooms; any regularly scheduled inspection of the bathrooms. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the store manager informed her that he had not received any information that a puddle of water existed near the sink in the ladies’ bathroom.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Slip and fall cases have become synonymous with fakery in our society. Most of the time, this is not the case. A New York Injury Lawyer said real injuries that are painful and life changing can come as the result of a slip and fall anywhere. When it happens as the result of another person’s negligence, it needs to be handled in a court of law. However, it is important that the person who was injured is able to explain what happened and why the incident was not just a simple accident. In order for the slip and fall to be heard in a court of law, the person who fell must be able to show that there was negligence involved concerning the property owner, manager, or their trustee. Without that ability, there is not a case.

One case that occurred in a New York building in Queens County on May 26, 2010, involved a man who fell going down the stairs in the building. He filed an action to recover damages for the personal injury that he sustained. However, when he testified under oath, he stated that he did not know what happened when he fell. He stated that one minute he was putting his foot down and the next that he was flying up into the air. He stated that he did not remember the fall and could not state if his foot hit the stair before he fell or not. All that he was able to recall was that he had been going down the stairs and then he tripped and fell (trip and fall).

They were able to show in court that the engineers report stated that there were unsafe conditions in the staircase where the accident occurred. However, the defendant did not connect these unsafe conditions to his accident. Because he failed to connect the unsafe conditions with any reason as to the cause of his accident, the court is unable to presume that the unsafe conditions were the cause of the accident. The law states that it is the complainant’s responsibility to show the court that the accident was a result of negligence or treachery. A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer said that in this case, when the complainant gave his deposition to the court, he did not make that connection. Merely presenting a situation that might have been the cause is not enough to raise a triable issue of fact in a court of law.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A dad came to watch his son play baseball in the ball field of North Hempstead. He was walking to the bleachers when he had a slip and fall. His foot fell into a hole that had a water main valve. The dad claimed that the hole may have had a cover but that it had slid off when he stepped on it or, the cover did not fully cover the hole. He claims to have sustained personal injury as a result of the slip and fall.

The ball field was maintained by the town of North Hempstead. The town hired a team of groundskeepers whose job was to inspect the ball field and to maintain it. Records produced by the town government show that on the morning of May 14, 2007, the groundskeepers inspected the ball field and did not see any cover of any water main valve as loose or as having slid off or missing. There were no reports of any uncovered holes around the ball field. There was no report or notice of any hole around the ball field.

The Town of Hempstead moved for summary dismissal of the cause of action filed by the Dad on the ground that there was no proof that the Town was negligent; that its negligence created or exacerbated the dangerous condition claimed by the Dad to have caused his slip and fall or his injury. There was no proof offered that would show that the Town of Hempstead had constructive or actual notice of any dangerous condition which they negligently ignored.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

On September 16, 2006, a woman and her daughter were shopping in a sporting goods store at 606 West 181st Street in New York. They both got on the escalator to go to the second floor to shop. The daughter got off of the escalator and walked toward the gym clothes. She was almost at the clothes when she heard her mother fall and cry out. She turned and ran to her mother. A New York Injury Lawyer said her mother was laying on the floor of the store at the top of the escalator. Next to her on the floor were some pieces of Mango that were old, brown and mashed down onto the floor. It was evident that her mother had stepped on one and slipped causing her to fall(slip and fall).

The manager of the store ran over and began to yell at the cashiers that they should have cleaned up the mango mess. He berated them for not seeing the problem and taking care of it. He stated that it was part of their jobs to watch for spills and to clean them up as fast as possible. The cashiers claimed that they had not noticed the mango slices on the floor in spite of the fact that the mango was just a few feet away from the cash registers. When the store manager was notified of the incident, he was advised by the attorneys to secure any videotaped footage of the incident that might be on the store’s surveillance cameras. The store was equipped with numerous cameras covering the second floor where the accident occurred. The store manager verified that he had the incident on tape and was told to preserve it for court. He stated that he secured it in the safe. However, a few months later, he advised that it was not available for court because the tape had been destroyed.

The destruction of the evidence on the tape was disconcerting to all involved. The court is left to presume that the tape showed where the dropped fruit had come from and how long it had been on the floor before the accident occurred. A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said it would also have shown the accident itself. The fact that the tape has been destroyed raises more questions than it answers. The store manager maintains that it does not matter how long the fruit was on the floor because no one employed by the store was aware that the problem existed. Since there was no constructive notice given to the store employees about the damaged fruit on the floor, the manager maintains that he is not liable. Both parties agreed that sliced mangoes are sold outside of the store on a regular basis. They are served pierced on a stick so that they are easy to carry. The store has a policy that prohibits food or beverages inside the store. However, none of the employees saw anyone enter the store with the mango stick.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

On December 7, 2006, a bricklayer was working on a scaffold more than 20 feet off of the ground. A New York Injury Lawyer said it was late in the day and the bricklayer maintains that he needed to use the bathroom. He informed his foreman and requested permission to lower the scaffold. He had lowered the scaffold on previous occasions so that he could use the bathroom and the foreman had not had an issue with it. However, the complainant advised that on this particular date, when he asked permission to lower the scaffold, the foreman told him that it was too late in the day and that it would put them behind on the job. He told the bricklayer to use the materials basket and have the helper lower him down in it.

The materials basket is a canvas basket that is used to raise and lower tools when they are needed. The helper told the foreman that it would not be a good idea, but the foreman ignored him. The bricklayer got into the canvas basket and the helper began to lower him to the ground. A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer said he was lowered about one half of a building story before the ropes gave way and the basket fell two stories to the ground below. The bricklayer was wearing a safety harness that was attached to the scaffolding, but it did not stop his fall. He sustained significant injury in the fall and filed a lawsuit against the construction company and the foreman.

This lawsuit is based on the fact that the foreman used negligence in insisting that the bricklayer use the materials basket to get to the ground to go to the bathroom rather than lowering the scaffold. This is a clearly dangerous practice and one that a reasonable man would consider hazardous. The construction company foreman disagreed.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

On 13 April 1992, three month old baby boy (the baby) was found by his mother, respondent to have an injured leg. Respondents, the mother and father, immediately took the baby to St. Luke’s Hospital, where it was discovered that the child’s tibia was fractured. An investigation was commenced which resulted in the within petition charging respondents with abuse and neglect of both the father and his sister.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the fact finding hearing, the caseworker testified that she first interviewed respondents at their home on 15 April 1992, at which time they informed her that the father had informed the mother at the hospital that, earlier in the day on which the baby’s injury had been discovered, he had been playing with the child and had accidentally fallen on him. The mother informed the caseworker that she had not told the hospital personnel how the incident had occurred because she did not find out about it until after the child was admitted.

After the aforesaid interview, further investigation was undertaken by the hospital which revealed that the child had two healed fractures, one of the rib and one of the skull. Two days later, after learning of the infant’s healed fractures, the caseworker interviewed the respondents again, at which time she informed them that the child had prior injuries and asked them if they could explain them. They stated that they had no specific explanation for the rib fracture but that maybe the child had fallen off the bed. The only explanation they proffered for his fractured skull (head injury) was the possibility that he had knocked his head against a hair dryer which they had placed in his crib hoping that its noise would stop his crying. The mother also mentioned that she did not know how the child had been hurt because she had been ill after his birth and had not been caring for him at that time. She also stated that she felt that the father was rough in his treatment of the baby and that she had told him not to play so roughly with the child. The father admitted that he “played rough” with the child, including holding him high in the air and shaking him.

Continue reading

Contact Information