Articles Posted in Westchester County

Published on:

by

A woman together with her husband sued her prior physician for alleged medical malpracticein insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD), a birth control device. The IUD was recalled at the medical level by the federal food and drug administration prior to the date of insertion. The couple also joined in this action as party opponents of both the developer and the distributor of the IUD.

Consequently, the physician moved to dismiss the legal action filed against him. The physician further contends that he inserted the IUD, prior to the recall, that regardless of when the device was inserted, the three year law of limitations has long since run in either event, since the alleged medical malpractice occurred at the time of insertion.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the woman in opposition argues that the physician never advised her at any time that the device has been recalled or should be removed. She had no way of knowing that the IUD was causing injury to her until her severe infection. According to the complaint, the physician advised the woman at the time of insertion that the IUD would be safe and effective and would be good for a period of at least 5 to 6 years. However, the woman began to experience severe radiating abdominal pain, infection, discharge and temperature, for which she was admitted to the hospital. During her hospitalization she had to undergo surgery, including a complete hysterectomy and surgical removal of the IUD, all as a result of the unsafe birth control device.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Defendant-doctor and his professional corporation (defendant-one) rendered obstetric care to plaintiff-mother during her pregnancy with and birth of her baby. During the course of her pregnancy, she had four ultrasound examinations for which defendant-two rendered ultrasound reports. A New York Injury Lawyer said that based upon the reports and also the defendant-doctor’s examinations of the mother, it was determined that plaintiff-mother was carrying a large fetus for its gestational age. Defendant-doctor noted that plaintiff-mother should be watched for cephalopelvic disproportion.

On 17 January 1990, plaintiff-mother was admitted to defendant-doctor’s hospital for induction of labor by use of the medication Pitocin. Upon her admission, she was examined by an employee of defendant-doctor’s hospital, who determined that the mother’s pelvis was adequate to deliver the baby, and who administered the Pitocin, as ordered by defendant-doctor.

On 17 January 1990 at 5:00 pm, the mother began to deliver her baby. After emergence of his head, the head retracted back into the uterus, indicating that his shoulders were stuck. At this point, there was a strong fetal heartbeat, and pulsating in the umbilical cord. From 5:05 to 5:24 pm, eight physicians attempted to deliver the baby. Upon his full expulsion, the baby was no longer viable. At no time did he breathe on his own, outside his mother. Upon autopsy, the baby weighed 12 pounds, 12 ounces.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The respondent in the case is Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The appellants in the case are Aetna Casualty & Surety Company.

Original Case

A New York Injury Lawyer said the current action for a judgment to declare the four insurance companies stems from an accident that was subject to action to recover damages for personal injuries.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A man was walking on the sidewalk next to a house fenced by chain-link. He saw that a dog was unleashed and freely roaming the property behind the chain-link fence. The man paused in front of the chain-link fence and rested his hand on the top of the chain-link fence. The dog within the fence climbed some cinderblocks. It lunged at the man’s hand. A New York Personal Injury Lawyer said the man sustained an injury on his hand caused by the dog bite. After the dog bit the man’s hand, the dog backed away.

The man sued the dog owner seeking damages to compensate for the injury he sustained consequent to the dog attack. The man claims that the dog owner knew or should have known that his dog was dangerous, that the dog had a vicious propensity and was prone to bite or attack.

In the alternative, a Westchester County Personal Injury Lawyer said the man also brought a cause of action in the same complaint alleging that the dog owner was negligent. He left cinderblocks piled on the corner of his property which the dog climbed on and was the very reason why the dog was able to reach his hand and bite it.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Everyone who owns a dog in the United States should be aware of the many legal issues associated with having your pet. Most of us who own dogs, consider them four legged family members. When an incident arises that could jeopardize their survival, we become frantic. However, people are human and often make ill-advised choices. A New York Injury Lawyer says any animal, human or other, will bite if the situation calls for it. Responsible dog owners understand this. A responsible dog owner will not put his or her dog in a situation where the dog will feel that it is necessary to fight or flee.

Unfortunately, even the best-intentioned dog owners have a tendency to assume that a dog understands all human actions. What they should be doing, is attempting to understand how your dog will view any given situation in order to avoid an encounter that could jeopardize your dog. Early dog training classes are good for dogs. A dog is never too old to learn. The earlier the dog starts learning how to communicate with humans and vice versa, the better the chances are that the dog will not get into trouble with the law later in his life. When a dog is placed into a situation where he feels threatened, he will bite. When a dog bites a person, the dog is usually the one who is killed. It doesn’t seem fair that a dog can be put to death for defending itself, but there is no self-defense plea in dog bite cases.

The laws of New York state that in order for the owner to be charged for the vicious actions of his or her dog, they must have knowledge of the vicious propensity of the dog. If the owner has never been in a situation to suspect that the dog might bite, New York law says that the owner is not responsible. If an animal has teeth, they can bite. A Westchester County Personal Injury Lawyer said that most domesticated animals make the conscious choice not to bite. However, there are many situations where dogs have gone years with their owners never showing a desire to bite a person and then one day they bite someone.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Dog owners have many responsibilities. Sometimes, they do not make appropriate choices either because they are hurried, or just out of ignorance. One common bad choice that some dog owners make involves tying their dog up outside of a business while they go in. A dog that is tied up in a strange place if frightened. It does not have an area of safety in which to retreat. This is a bad situation waiting to happen. Further, when a dog owner leaves their dog unsupervised in a public area like the front of a business, they are trusting that everyone who passes the dog will make good judgments. I find that this is rarely the case.

There are certain rules to dealing with dogs. A New York Injury Lawyer said most Americans are taught not to approach a strange dog. When you approach someone’s dog, you ask if you can pet the dog. Then you extend the back of your hand for the dog to sniff. Never go face to face with a dog, the dog will consider this to be an aggressive move and could instigate an attack. I find that people rarely abide by these rules. When they don’t, it will always go worse for the dog than the person who did not use good sense.

In one such case, a dog owner tied his dog in the parking lot of a business and left the dog unattended. The business was an ice cream shop that was closed. The owner was inside preparing the business to open for the season, but had no knowledge of the dog’s owner, or why he chose that parking lot in which to tie his dog. A Suffolk County Personal Injury Lawyer said the mother and her three year old child went into the parking lot, and the child was bitten.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff in this case is J. Leonard Spokek. The defendant is the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

The Case

A New York Injury Lawyer said that the plaintiff filed an action declaring that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company must defend and indemnify the plaintiffs from Cohen V. Spodek, Index Number 3456/87. The defendants from the initial case were Nevin Cohen and Kenneth Skrudna. Index Number 3456/87, was filed in the Civil Court of Kings County, and included Liberty Mutual (the defendant) appealing a judgment dated September 27th, 1988 from the Supreme Court of King’s County which granted that relief.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this case, Patrick Balsamo is the respondent. The City of New York is the appellant and defendant.

Original Ruling

A New York Injury Lawyer said the city of New York originally filed a cross motion which asked for a summary dismissal of a case. This case was based upon a violation of Labor Law, and the action for damages sought was originally ruled upon in the Supreme Court of Kings County on March 28th, 2000.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The petitioner in this matter is Kenneth Daniel. The respondent is the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation.

Request

Kenneth Daniel requests that an action against MVAIC, the respondent, be allowed under the terms of article 52 of the Insurance Law.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A New York Injury Lawyer said the plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Nicolas Pierre Louis.

Case History

This case begins on or around February 22, 2010. A New York Injury Lawyer said the deposition from the plaintiff states that while employed as an Assistant District Attorney in the Nassau County District Attorney’s office, he began receiving voice mails from the defendant, Nicolas Pierre-Louis. The voice mails that were left on his phone were derogatory in nature and included statements such as “I’m coming at you with fury,” and “Bitch, you will lose your fucking job,” as well as many other profanities and offensive statements.

Continue reading

Contact Information