Articles Posted in Suffolk County

Published on:

On October 31, 1958, a little girl was waiting in a mobile x-ray truck to be x-rayed. She was unaware that just behind the truck, a panel van was attempting to pull away from the curb. The panel van’s rear bumper became interlocked with the bumper of the car that was parked behind him. As the driver pulled around the x-ray van which was also parked against the curb, it pulled the car that was hung onto the bumper forward. The car was forced into the back of the x-ray van. The car accident caused the child to become injured. Her guardian filed a lawsuit against the driver of the van and the company that he worked for.

The driver of the panel van died of natural causes before the case came to court. The company that employed him and owned the panel van that he had been driving on that date admit that the van was there. They admit that the accident was reported to them. They do not know the specifics of the accident because the driver is no longer available to testify. The company asked the court permission to not be held to as high a standard of proof for their case because they are unable to know the details that led up to the accident. The court points out that following the accident, the company asked for and obtained a statement from the now deceased driver in reference to the circumstances surrounding the accident. A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer said the court also contends that the company is in fact in possession of an affidavit made by the driver and a copy of the accident report.

The company states that it is their understanding that the vehicle that became hung up on the panel truck was parked illegally. They maintain that there was no contact between their truck and the x-ray truck. They feel that they should not be blamed for the accident. They contend that the driver of the vehicle that was illegally parked and thus was the proximate cause of the accident.

Published on:

On 3 July 1970, an infant was born at the General Hospital. Allegedly, as the result of the defendants’ negligence, the infant suffered permanent neurological injury or brain injury, resulting in mental retardation and cerebral palsy. She was discharged from the General Hospital on 10 July 1970, and the hospital’s discharge record contained a notation to the effect that no further treatment was needed. A New York Injury Lawyer said during the ensuing 20 months, the infant received periodic outpatient medical care, including treatment for an apparent heart murmur, at another Hospital, a private facility, and, during that same period, she was treated on several occasions at the General Hospital emergency room for medical problems that were unrelated to the injuries caused by the alleged malpractice.

On 29 February 1972, the infant was admitted to the private Hospital for evaluation, and she remained there through 13 March 1972. During her stay at the private Hospital, the infant was diagnosed, for the first time, as suffering from psychomotor retardation.

On 17 March 1972, four days after she had been discharged from the private Hospital, the infant was seen as an outpatient at the pediatric clinic of the General Hospital. Significantly, the purpose of this visit, i.e., for treatment of fever, vomiting and diarrhea, was unrelated to the infant’s newly-diagnosed retardation, although the hospital’s record of the visit described the infant as obviously retarded and contained a suggestion that perhaps an ear, nose and throat evaluation should be made in order to assess the 20-month-old infant’s speech difficulties.

Published on:

The Facts:

In March 1983, plaintiff was admitted to the labor and delivery unit of defendant Hospital. During the course of her labor, plaintiff’s attending physician, defendant-doctor, prescribed pitocin to stimulate her contractions. A New York Injury Lawyer said the drug was administered intravenously to plaintiff and, as a result, her contractions increased in intensity and frequency. Subsequently, plaintiff gave birth to a baby boy. The infant was in respiratory distress at birth and died approximately 6 1/2 hours later (a birth injury or birth injury accident).

Plaintiff and her husband commenced an action alleging negligence and medical malpracticeagainst the hospital, doctor and nurse, who attended to plaintiff throughout her labor and delivery.

Published on:

In 2005, the family of a woman who had died of lung cancer filed a civil suit against four cigarette manufacturing companies for her untimely death. The family stated that the woman had been enticed to start smoking at just 14 years of age and that she had smoked heavily throughout her life. A New York Injury Lawyer said the suite claimed that cigarette manufactures that were named in the suit had enticed her with attractive advertising that displayed cigarettes as harmless and in some situations in the early years of her addiction, the advertisements portrayed cigarettes as a healthy way to prevent illness.

Her family maintains that she was always concerned about her health and that she had taken several steps over the years to improve her risks based on more advertising by the tobacco companies. When the tobacco companies marketed lite cigarettes, they implied that these cigarettes had less tar and carcinogens than regular cigarettes. She switched to lite cigarettes to be more healthy. The family testified that she had tried unsuccessfully to stop smoking on numerous occasions and that she was not successful because she had become addicted to the cigarettes.

The family further stated that the tobacco companies knowingly manufactured these cigarettes that are dangerous, even though there were less dangerous alternatives that they could have produced. The suit specifically stated documentation that showed that the tobacco companies were aware of several options that could be less hazardous to the health of persons who chose to smoke and negligently dismissed producing them. These options included cigarettes made with coarser tobacco so that less of the tar is ingested. Another option that had been dismissed was manufacturing cigarettes without tar or other chemicals that are specifically dangerous. The family noted that the woman had specifically chosen filtered and lite cigarettes in an attempt to make her habit less damaging to her health. That was used as an example of the strength of her addiction as well as her desire to not harm herself with the use of cigarettes.

Published on:

A mother and her child filed a medical malpractice legal action against a hospital and three doctors. The mother allege that the hospital and the doctors basically failed to timely schedule a cesarean section as well as her delivery to her infant which was in double footling breech presentation. A double footling presentation is a condition whereby the fetus’ both feet are the presenting part. As a result, it caused the infant to suffer a spinal injury during delivery, produce bleeding and swelling, and ultimately segmental spinal cord atrophy resulting paralysis and severe low muscle tone to the lower extremities, hydronephrosis, neurogenic bladder transverse myelopathy, and a marked spinal kyphosis. A neurogenic bladder transverse myelopathy is a condition indicating that there is something wrong with the spine. The mother claim that her infant, now four years old, was unable to walk, suffers from frequent urinary tract infections, requires continuous antibiotic therapy and urinary catherization. The mother further states that all of her infant’s injuries are permanent.

A New Injury Lawyer said the mother alleges that the hospital and the three doctors failed to perform a cesarean section when an external version was unsuccessful. Bases on records, an external version is known as a procedure used to manually turn a fetus from a breech position into a vertex position which is a normal presentation wherein the fetal head is the presenting part before labor begins. It is usually done to make vaginal delivery possible. The mother claims that the hospital and the doctors were negligent in performing the external version. She further claims that they failed to perform pelvimetry studies. A pelvimetry refers to the measurement of the diameters of the pelvis and it also recognizes a footling breech caused by a frank breech to become a footling breech. A frank breech has been described as the position of the fetus whereby the fetus’ buttocks are present at the maternal pelvic inlet, legs are straight up in front of the body, and feet are at the shoulders. Additional, she claims that they failed to perform vaginal exams at 36 weeks.

During the mother’s pregnancy, she went to the said hospital for a prenatal visit. Thereafter, an ultrasound revealed a pregnancy and the estimated due date was calculated. The mother appeared for her scheduled prenatal visits until the time of birth. The mother then visited the hospital for a prenatal check-up at 37 weeks gestation wherein she was checked by a doctor. At that time it was noted that the baby was in breech presentation. The doctor advised the mother about her options of external version, a cesarean section, or vaginal delivery. The mother opts to attempt an external version.

Published on:

A mother and her child filed a medical malpractice legal action against a hospital and three doctors. The mother allege that the hospital and the doctors basically failed to timely schedule a cesarean section as well as her delivery to her infant which was in double footling breech presentation. A double footling presentation is a condition whereby the fetus’ both feet are the presenting part. As a result, it caused the infant to suffer a spinal injury during delivery, produce bleeding and swelling, and ultimately segmental spinal cord atrophy resulting paralysis and severe low muscle tone to the lower extremities, hydronephrosis, neurogenic bladder transverse myelopathy, and a marked spinal kyphosis. A neurogenic bladder transverse myelopathy is a condition indicating that there is something wrong with the spine. A New York Injury Lawyer said she mother claims that her infant, now four years old, was unable to walk, suffers from frequent urinary tract infections, requires continuous antibiotic therapy and urinary catherization. The mother further states that all of her infant’s injuries are permanent.

The mother alleges that the hospital and the three doctors failed to perform a cesarean section when an external version was unsuccessful (medical malpractice)l. Bases on records, an external version is known as a procedure used to manually turn a fetus from a breech position into a vertex position which is a normal presentation wherein the fetal head is the presenting part before labor begins. It is usually done to make vaginal delivery possible. The mother claims that the hospital and the doctors were negligent in performing the external version. She further claims that they failed to perform pelvimetry studies. A pelvimetry refers to the measurement of the diameters of the pelvis and it also recognizes a footling breech caused by a frank breech to become a footling breech. A frank breech has been described as the position of the fetus whereby the fetus’ buttocks are present at the maternal pelvic inlet, legs are straight up in front of the body, and feet are at the shoulders. Additional, she claims that they failed to perform vaginal exams at 36 weeks.

During the mother’s pregnancy, she went to the said hospital for a prenatal visit. Thereafter, an ultrasound revealed a pregnancy and the estimated due date was calculated. The mother appeared for her scheduled prenatal visits until the time of birth. The mother then visited the hospital for a prenatal check-up at 37 weeks gestation wherein she was checked by a doctor. At that time it was noted that the baby was in breech presentation. The doctor advised the mother about her options of external version, a cesarean section, or vaginal delivery. The mother opts to attempt an external version.

Published on:

A medical malpractice action is premised upon the alleged negligence of the physicians relating to the care and treatment rendered to a mother and her infant son during their hospitalization at the hospital. It is alleged that the physicians negligently departed from good and accepted standards of care in treating the infant, commencing with his birth and continuing through his discharge proximately causing the infant to suffer serious and permanent injury.

The pediatrician seeks summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the bases that he appropriately evaluated the infant for hypoglycemia or abnormally low sugar level and that he appropriately ordered treatment and that he did not depart from the hypoglycemia protocol. He also claims that he fully complied with the standard of care during his treatment of the infant. It is further asserted that his care and treatment of the infant was not the cause of the infant’s alleged birth injuries.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the obstetrician seeks order without trial to dismiss the complaint as asserted against him on the bases that there is no evidence that he participated in the prenatal care and treatment of the mother, and therefore, the claims asserted against him pertaining to the prenatal period should be dismissed. He also contends that there is no evidence that he participated in the care and treatment of the mother other than between approximately 11:15 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on May 23, 2003, and that any claims pertaining to any other time period should be dismissed. A fellow obstetrician contends that there is no evidence that he participated in the mother’s prenatal care other than one office visit on February 13, 2003, and a consultation on April 10, 2003, and therefore, all other claims asserted against him should be dismissed. Both obstetricians contend that the prenatal care and treatment provided to the mother was appropriate and within good and accepted medical practice, and that there is nothing that they did or did not do that proximately caused the infant to suffer the injuries claimed in the legal action.

Published on:

A mother took her two children to a pet store so that they can buy pet supplies on January 23, 2006. At that same time, a retired gentleman was also shopping at the same pet store. He had with him his 9 month old Rottweiler puppy. He adopted the puppy from an animal shelter just ten days before the incident.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the retire gentleman had adopted a similar Rottweiler puppy years before from the same animal shelter and he had no problems with that adopted dog. This new dog exhibited a great disposition and the retired gentleman was training with the puppy.

After coming from the animal shelter, the puppy had contact with children. She had visited the pet store before the incident and the Rottweiler puppy had not exhibited any aggressiveness of territorial barking.

Published on:

This case is being heard in the Queens County Supreme Court. The case involves Sonia Coto, etc. as the plaintiff and Mary Immaculate Hospital as the defendant. The attorney for the plaintiff is Christopher J. Albee. The attorney for the defendant is Jodi Ritter. The judge for the case is Phyllis Orlikoff Flug.

Case

A New York Injury Lawyer said the plaintiff is seeking damages that are related to the defendant failing to promptly notify her when her Roger Coto, her brother, died. The defendant is moving for a summary judgment in the case stated that the efforts they made in order to locate the decedent’s relatives were sufficient and reasonable in relation to the situation and that the plaintiff did not suffer emotional harm from the delay of notification or alternatively any emotional harm suffered by the plaintiff was not caused by the defendant Mary Immaculate Hospital.

Published on:

One of the defendants is a domestic corporation that owns and operates a residential condominium located at 333 West 56th Street in Manhattan (Premises). Each of the remaining defendants, all of whom being domestic corporations located at 340 West 57th Street in Manhattan, are the managing agents of the Premises.

Plaintiff is a New York City resident.

The Facts of the Case:

Contact Information