Suffolk County

Published on: March 27, 2012

New York Appellate Court Orders New Trial in Birth Injury Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A pregnant woman who was receiving prenatal treatment at a clinic came to the emergency room of a university hospital on March 29, 1997 complaining of leaking amniotic fluid. The residents and interns attended to her by taking her medical history and interviewing her. A licensed obstetrician saw the pregnant woman and conducted tests on at vaginal fluid but found negative results. They also performed a test to determine if the amniotic fluid was sufficient and they found the amount of amniotic fluid to be normal. A fetal heart monitor was used to check if the baby was distressed but the fetus was active and its heart beat was normal. She was discharged. She was also advised to rest and go to the clinic on March 31, 1997.

When the pregnant woman went back to the clinic as she was instructed, they confirmed the findings of the university hospital staff that there was no leak in her amniotic fluid. All her vital signs were normal as were her fetus’s heart tones. A New York Injury Lawyer said she was ordered to return for an ultrasound after two days so that she can present her employer with a medical certificate for her two-day absence from work. She was told to return for her scheduled follow-up visits after a week or on April 7, 1997.

But a day after her visit to the clinic, on April 1, 1997, the pregnant lady went back to the emergency room. The obstetrician on duty determined that the lady’s bag of water had already broken. She was admitted into the hospital and given antibiotics to forestall any infection. She was also given medications to prolong the pregnancy. At that time, the pregnant lady had no fever. She stayed in the hospital for two more days. On April 3, 1997, she gave birth. Her placenta and her bag of waters were tested and the tests revealed that the pregnant lady had a mild infection of the amniotic lining.

Published on: March 20, 2012

Court Decides Case Regarding Medical Malpractice for Failure to Diagnose

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple, who are carriers of genetic mutations that cause cystic fibrosis were residents of the State of Colorado. When the wife became pregnant with triplets via in vitro fertilization, they decided to have a genetic test to determine the health of the fetuses. A doctor, who is the Chief of the Columbia Center for Genetics, Fetal and Maternal medicine gave the mother the option where to do the procedure, either to go to New York or to go to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The couple chose to go to Philadelphia.

The doctor performed a chorionic villus sampling (CVS) procedure on the triplet fetuses. This procedure involves taking a small sample of the placental tissue of each fetus to perform chromosomal and DNA analysis. A New York Injury Lawyer said the samples taken were split and labeled as belonging to fetus A, B and C. The results showed that they had one healthy fetus and two with cystic fibrosis. Based on the DNA analysis, Fetus C was a carrier of cystic fibrosis but did not have the disease. On the other hand, A and B had cystic fibrosis. On the belief that two fetuses had cystic fibrosis, the parents decided to have the doctor reduce those two fetuses, while allowing the pregnancy to continue as to the third fetus which believed to be carrier. However, the confirmatory studies done were incomplete due to the DNA insufficiency in the samples. The parents continue the pregnancy of the third fetus. When the baby was born, he was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis.

Now the parents are suing the doctor for damages based on the alleged “wrongful birth” of their son, who was born with cystic fibrosis. According to the parents, they consulted the doctor before the baby was born with the specific purpose of confirming whether the infant would be born with cystic fibrosis and with the intention to terminate the pregnancy if cystic fibrosis was confirmed. Due to the doctor’s medical malpracticeconnected with the pre-natal genetic testing and reduction of the two fetuses, they were not informed of the condition of the third fetus and would have chosen not to continue the pregnancy.

Published on: March 20, 2012

New York Appellate Court Denies Late Notice of Claim in Birth Injury Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Infant plaintiff alleges that he sustained injury due to respondent’s medical malpractice. The injury was in connection with his birth, pre-natal and post-natal up to his discharge. He sustained perinatal asphyxia, which manifested as a cognitive developmental delays, coordination difficulties, seizures, hyperactivity, and mental retardation.

According to General Municipal Law, for him to commence an action based on torts against a municipality or public corporation he must serve first a notice of claim upon the municipality or public entity within 90 days after the claim arises. But the notice of claim was served upon defendant Hospital for almost nine years past the ninety-day deadline for the filing of a notice of claim.

Under the same law, according to a New York Injury Lawyer, the court is given the discretion to allow the filing of a late notice of claim within the period of limitation for commencing tort actions against municipality provided that the action must commenced within one year and ninety days after the date plaintiff’s cause of action accrued.

Published on: March 13, 2012

Plaintiff files for Slip and Fall at Construction Site, NY Appellate Court Says Insurance Company Obligated to Cover Accident

by Stephen Bilkis

A school district was constructing a new school building. It hired a construction manager and it also hired a general contractor for the school building project. The school district and the construction manager procured an insurance to indemnify them from any claim of damages for injuries sustained in the construction project.

The general contractor hired a sub-contractor to do structural steelwork on the project. A New York Injury Lawyer said the general contractor required the steel subcontractor to obtain a general commercial liability insurance that had a $1 million occurrence limit. The steel subcontractor, the general contractor and the school district (as project owner) were named as additional injured.

On January 19, 2006, an employee of the steel subcontractor slipped and fell from a wet deck on the second floor of the building project. He landed on the first floor and was seriously injured.

Published on: March 9, 2012

New York Appellate Court Decides Liability of Waste Disposal Plant

by Stephen Bilkis

The County of Columbia in New York established a solid waste disposal plant in the town of Claverack in 1981. To protect itself, the County procured comprehensive and general liability insurance policy. The insurers claimed in its advertising that it would pay all sums which the insured shall be legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage. Every insurance policy excluded from coverage those bodily injuries and property damage sustained from pollution or arising from the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of waste materials, contaminants and pollutants on land, atmosphere and water unless the discharge was sudden and accidental.

In 1986, the solid waste disposal system was charged with violations of the Environmental Conservation Law for it was found that liquid waste was leaching onto the soil and seeping into the groundwater which was the source of drinking water for the town of Claverack. A fine was assessed against the Town of Claverack but the payment of the fine was suspended on condition that the Town close down the solid waste disposal facility. It was closed in December 1988.

A New York Injury Lawyer said however, the County however, continued using the facility despite the order of the Town to close the solid waste disposal plant. The Town of Claverack sued the County. A hunting club that owned the land next to the solid waste disposal plant also sued the County in January 1989 for impairment of the soil, air, ground and surface water. The hunting club also alleged that the County’s continued use of the facilities was a continuing nuisance, a continuing trespass and that its activities in using the plant has caused the eviction of the hunting club from its premises.

Published on: March 2, 2012

Man Trips and Falls at Work, New York Appellate Court Grants Summary Judgment to Plaintiff

by Stephen Bilkis

A construction company and a building owner asked for judgment without proceeding claiming that the accused, an insurance provider of the subcontractor electrical company, has a duty to support and cover them with respect to the law suit filed against them. However, the insurance provider filed a move to dismiss the complaint.

In the underlying personal injury action of a law suit against the complainants, a man alleges that he was injured while working at the premises of the building as a journeyman-electrician. He was providing voice and data communication work for an electrical company. The accident happened when he was doing a data testing terminations on the ninth floor of the premises. While he was exiting the restroom, he tripped on tarp and fall on the corridor floor. The said action was allegedly settled for $600,000 with defense costs evidently acquired by the construction company.

A New York Personal Injury Lawyer said that the construction company was the general contractor for the renovation project of the premises. The renovation project was owned by the other complainant and an electrical company subcontracted the electrical work by means of a purchase order agreement. The agreement between the construction company and the electrical company states that as subcontractor, the electrical company shall hold harmless, assure and support by the construction company and others as requested by the general contractor from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees arising out of or occasioned by, or in any way connected with the work called for by the purchase order. The protection agreement will continue until the completion of the said project. The agreement also required the electrical company of commercial general liability insurance and it must name the construction company as an additional insured under the policy.

Published on: February 20, 2012

Plaintiff Seeks to Amend Complaint, New York Appellate Court Denies

by Stephen Bilkis

A student at the City University of New York was leaving the Performing Arts Center of Queens College at 11:30 p.m. when she stepped on a broken and raised part of the stairs which caused her to trip and fall. As it turned out, the student made a mistake when she mentioned in her complaint that she tripped and fell on the dangerous defect on the third set of stairs instead of the second set of stairs. She claimed that the stairs in front of the Performing Arts Center was poorly maintained and poorly lighted. She then asks for leave of court to amend her original complaint to reflect that she tripped and fell on the third set of stairs.

The City University of New York vigorously opposed the motion claiming that her mistake in the complaint is a defective flaw which fails to comply with the requirement of the statute. Under the Court of Claims Act, claims for personal injury must state the time and the place where the claim arose, specifically stating the nature of the claim and the injuries sustained.

According to a New York Injury Lawyer, the Claims Court is now tasked to determine whether the allegations contained in the student’s complaint is sufficient to comply with the requirements of the statute.

Published on: February 17, 2012

Woman Trips and Falls in Front of Cafe, Building Owner’s Motion to Dismiss Denied by New York Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

A lady was walking outside a restaurant located at 1396 Third Avenue in Manhattan. The restaurant had a permit from the City of New York to set up café tables and chairs on the sidewalk. On the sidewalk there was a tree providing shade for the café tables. Sometime on March 21, 2008 as the lady was walking past the café, she stepped on a raised sidewalk flagstone and that caused her to trip and fall.

She sued the owner of the premises and the owner of the premises sued the tenant (the café) and the insurance company. After the deposition of the lady, the building manager and the café manager, the plaintiff filed a motion for a partial summary judgment against the building owner and seeks that the building owner be declared as liable under the Sidewalk Law of New York. The building owner filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to dismiss the lady’s complaint against it. According to a New York Injury Lawyer, the insurance company asked the court for a summary judgment to dismiss the complaint of the building owner against it.

The Sidewalk Law of New York provides that the owner has the duty to maintain the sidewalk outside its premises in a reasonably safe condition and failing to do so, the building owner shall be liable for any injury. This duty to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition cannot be delegated. The Court held that since the Sidewalk Law clearly puts the duty on the owner to maintain the sidewalk, and there is evidence that the building owner owns the property which abuts the sidewalk where the lady tripped and fell, the lady’s motion for partial summary judgment against the owner declaring him liable for her injury is granted.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Accused Priests Accused of Child Abuse Appeared in Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The pre-preliminary hearing for five current and former priests and other church officials took place on March 14 in Philadelphia, learned a New York Injury Lawyer. While the hearing was supposed to have been a relatively simple matter, before the end of the hearing the judge was expressing her anger toward one of the defendants.

The hearing was the first hearing for the accused since they were all indicted by the grand jury. They each stand accused of sexually abusing children and endangering minors. The court heard arguments from prosecutors and defense attorneys, which lasted for about 75-minutes. While many of those arguments became heated at times, and left the judge exasperated, one particular incident led the presiding judge to address one of the defendants directly.

A Suffolk Personal Injury Lawyer was told that during the course of the grand jury hearing, one of the priests had approached the judge in tears because he could not afford an attorney. The judge then appointed an attorney for him. When he arrived at this hearing, he had paid for his own attorney to represent him. Upon learning of this, the judge required the defendant to rise to his feet and explain his actions. She further expressed to the former priest that he had lied to her. His attorney stated that his client paid for counsel by means of a loan obtained from his brother. He also stated that his client did not understand the question and had misspoken. The judge did not believe it. The priest in question stands accused of the rape of a 14-year old boy.

Published on: January 19, 2012

Mark Zuckerberg Does It Again

by Stephen Bilkis

Mark Zuckerberg, head of Facebook, has won yet another battle against his former classmates at Harvard who believe he stole the idea of the now-famous social-networking site from them.

The plaintiffs, twins featured in the movie about the ongoing conflict, “The Social Network”, are required to accept the settlement in cash and stock from Facebook, valued at $65 million, a federal appeals court ruled.

According to the twins, the deal should now be worth $160 million because of Facebook’s monumental success. They told a Suffolk County Personal Injury Lawyer that the deal was unfair because Facebook was not completely forthcoming with information as they negotiated the settlement.