Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

Published on:

by

CPLR 1601(1) does not address situations, such as here, where the alleged non-party tortfeasor is the State of New York which cannot be joined as a co-defendant in the Supreme Court. The prevailing view, however, is that apportionment against a state joint tortfeasor, subject to suit in the Court of Claims, is appropriate in a Supreme Court action.

In addition, CPLR 1601 (1) permits a state defendant, in the Court of Claims, the benefit of Article 16 apportionment against a non-state, joint tortfeasor by exempting the State from the rule which excludes a non-party’s share when jurisdiction cannot be obtained over that non-party. In this case, the plaintiff has sued Downstate Hospital in the Court of Claims and the hospital in that action has raised as an affirmative defense the protection of CPLR, Articles 15 and 16. Thus, the state hospital may well seek apportionment against Dr. BK in the pending Court of Claims action.

It is noted that when two tort-feasors neither act in concert nor contribute concurrently to the same wrong, they are not joint tort-feasors; rather, their wrongs are independent and successive. Although the original wrongdoer is liable for all the proximate results of his or her own tortious act, including aggravation of injury by a successive tortfeasor, the successive tort-feasor is liable only for the aggravation caused by his own conduct. However, in order for a defendant to be considered an independent and successive tortfeasor and therefore liable only for such aggravated or additional injury caused by it there must be demonstrated two separate injuries, with the second injury not necessarily resulting from the first, and further, there must be demonstrated the capability of delimiting the injures caused by the successive tort-feasor.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The plaintiff in the case is Willie B. Sosa. The defendants in the case are Lorenzo Hines, Eddie Meyers, Harold Hall, and the Estate of Dessie Ree Meyers. The judge in the case is Arthur M. Schack.

About the Case

This is a case that involves a real estate dispute. The real estate in question is the property located at 363 Monroe Street, in Brooklyn, New York. A New York Injury Lawyer said the plaintiff moves to show cause for three branches of relief in the case. The first branch of relief is to stay the thirty-day notice of termination which is dated the 27th of April, 2006. The plaintiff states that this notice violates the notice requirements for ending a tenancy.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A woman was found to be pregnant and she went for an ultrasound. It was determined that she was carrying twins. The pregnant woman opted for a home birth instead of giving birth at a hospital. She wanted to be assisted by a midwife and nurses.

A New York Injury Lawyer said she nurse/midwife who had her own clinic and lying-in clinic diagnosed one of the twins to have a weak heart sound: the baby’s heart rate decelerated at times. The nurse/midwife recommended that a follow-up sonogram be done at a hospital. The hospital found that the baby’s heart rate had already stabilized. The woman wanted to give birth at the hospital but she also wanted to be assisted in the birth by her own nurse/midwife. The doctors at the hospital told her that her nurse/midwife did not have credentials or birthing privileges at their hospital. They told her that if she were to decide to give birth at the hospital, she would be cared for by one of the obstetricians on their staff.

The woman left and her pregnancy progressed. She stuck it out under the care of the nurse/midwife. She gave birth at her home on July 1, 2004. One of her twin babies was stillborn. The death certificate as filled out by the nurse/midwife listed the cause of death as undetermined.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A woman was pregnant with her second baby in 2003. She gave birth to her first baby in 1997 and all went well. She saw the same obstetrician regularly for her pre-natal check-ups. He found that she was suffering from gestational diabetes during her second pregnancy. He notified her that her baby may be bigger than her first baby.

A New York Injury Lawyer said this was the second pregnancy, the doctor had already established that the woman’s pelvis was sufficient and adequate to allow her to give birth normally. As the woman was delivering her second baby, she was lying flat on the delivery table and her legs were spread apart with her heels hitched onto the stirrups, the woman’s pelvis broke. The bones where the two halves of her pelvis met were relaxed by the hormones of childbirth but the doctor performed a hyper flexion-abduction maneuver after she was given an epidural. She delivered her baby vaginally but after the child’s birth, the mother was rushed for surgery in the same hospital to repair her fractured pelvis with plates and screws. The mother sued the hospital and her obstetrician for medical malpractice for the injury she herself sustained in the course of her delivery and childbirth.

She maintains that her pelvis would not have fractured if the doctor had done his job (medical malpractice) and determined the baby’s delivery weight. The baby was huge because of her gestational diabetes and the mother’s pelvis would not have fractured if the baby were delivered via a cesarean section.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

On September 4, 1998, a pregnant woman was admitted to St Charles Hospital with complaints of severe, headaches swollen legs, fatigue and decreased fetal movement. She was promptly transferred to the University Medical Center at Stony Brook, in Stony Brook, New York. She was a lupus patient and had a history of preeclampsia with a prior pregnancy. The doctors at the University Medical Center at Stony Brook, were concerned because she was only at 24 weeks gestation. They administered some steroids in the hope that they could encourage better lung development in the infant in the event that the infant would have to be delivered prematurely.

In 1998, the administration of steroids to encourage lung development was a standard practice. A New York Injury Lawyer said the steroids were delivered in two doses normally. The first dose would be delivered and then the doctors would wait 12 hours before delivering the second dose. Following the second dose, another 12 hours would go by before they would deliver the infant. In the case of this particular woman, the infant was showing signs of fetal distress and lowered heart rate. The doctors made several attempts to determine the exact cause of the issues that the woman and child were suffering before taking any action. The doctor waited one hour in particular so that the father of the child could arrive at the hospital. At this point, the lives of both the mother and the severely premature infant were at risk. Nine hours after arriving at the University Medical Center at Stony Brook, the child was delivered by caesarian section. The infant showed relatively good Apgar scores at the time of delivery. However, within the first few years of birth, he suffered from obvious signs of fetal hypoxia and other issues related to the delay in his delivery.

The hospital maintained that the child was so severely premature, that any issues that he developed were tempered by the fact that they are obvious expectations of a premature infant. They state that the parents were advised that these were possible risks to early delivery at the time that the delivery was done. A Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer said they also advise that any delays were necessary and within proper treatment guidelines based on the situation. They stated that the fact that the woman suffered from other medical conditions had at first blurred the fact that she was preeclampsic a second time. They contend that most of the delay was an attempt to give the infant as much of the benefit of the steroid as possible, to allow a neonatal specialist to be called in, and to ensure that a team of neonatal intensive care specialists were standing by to help the infant when he was born.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

This case is being heard in the Bronx County Supreme Court in the state of New York. The case involves the deceased infant, Kayla Kesse Madison Charles. The plaintiffs are the administrix of the estate of the deceased infant, Dionne Charles and Dionne Charles on her own. The defendants in the case are Doctor Chaisurat Suvannavejh, Doctor, Fergal D. Malone, Doctor Michael J. Orfino, Elizabeth Riley, R.N., Susan Zucchero, R.N., and the Lawrence Hospital Center.

Case Background

The plaintiff on behalf of herself and her deceased daughter is suing the defendants for medical malpractice that resulted in the wrongful death of her daughter. A New York Injury Lawyer said the defendants of the case, Suvannavejh, Zucchero, and the Lawrence Hospital Center all separately move for a summary judgment that dismissed the claims made by the mother in regard to emotional distress, and loss of comfort and affection. Additionally, the defendant Suvannavejh seeks for the claim made by the mother in regard to lost support, services, and protection be dismissed.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The petitioner for this case is Lena Bagels, Inc. The respondent of the case is The City of New York and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs. The case is being heard in the New York Supreme Court. The judge overseeing the case is Philip G. Minardo.

Case

Lena Bagels operates a corporation and the main place where business occurs is located on Richmond Avenue in Staten Island, New York. The company is authorized by the state to transact business. Lena Bagels was incorporated in 2001. A New York Injury Lawyer said the petitioner, Lena Bagels has been found guilty of selling tobacco products to a minor. The petitioner states that the fine of $3500 is void and requests the renewal of their application for their tobacco license. The petitioner is seeking to annul the recommendation made by Judge Mitchell B. Nisonoff.

Continue reading

Contact Information