Articles Posted in Wrongful Death

Published on:

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.

Published on:

A man was killed in a motor car accident and his only asset is the cause of legal action for wrongful death. The attorneys for the administrators have received an offer of $12,500 in settlement of that claim. The two car accident in which the man was killed gave rise to suits by three different complainants and the $12,500 offer represents one-third of entire policy limits of the two opponent’s insurance coverage.

The administrators’ petition asks that the entire amount, after payment of attorneys’ fees and debts and expenses be paid to the man’s mother and father. However, the appointed guardian of the man’s out-of-wedlock son contends that his ward is entitled to the full amount of the recovery. The department of social services entered a claim against the estate in the amount of $6600 for the support of the man’s out-of-wedlock child. A Suffolk County Personal Injury Lawyer said the claims by the department of social services for payments made to support the child cannot be satisfied from the funds recovered in a wrongful death proceeding. However, the only assets of the estate is the wrongful death proceeds, the department of social services has withdrawn its charges. The recovery for pain and suffering belong to the man, his estate and recovery for wrongful death do not become estate assets, but bound to the benefit of those who lose financial support by the wrongful death. By a written agreement with the department of social services the man acknowledged paternity of his son. No evidence of financial injury on the part of the parents of the deceased man was introduced.

After all expenses, attorney’s fees and guardian fees there will be only approximately $6,000 left of the wrongful death settlement. The entire net amount is to be given to man’s out-of-wedlock child, as the only heir for the wrongful death settlement which suffered financial injury because of his father’s death.

Published on:

A man died and his two of his daughters were removed from the care of his wife and the children’s maternal grandmother by the City Children’s Services without a court order. The City Children’s Services filed neglect petitions against all the children’s father, mother and grandmother. A New York Injury Lawyer said the petitions allege that the mother and the father neglected the son by failing to provide adequate supervision and guardianship. Specifically, the petitions allege that when the couple together with their son left the grandmother’s home, they stayed in an abandoned building in Brooklyn. A New york he petitions allege that the building had no heat or electricity and access to the building was obtained through a window that the father broke on a prior occasion. The baby fell asleep in a stroller and the couple slept on the mattress on the floor.

When the baby started crying, his father woke up and gave him a bottle propped up with a tee-shirt and went back to sleep. The father woke up six or seven hours later and found the baby cold and stiff. He attempted to revive the baby but failed then told her wife to call 911 in a payphone. The child’s mother went out but returned without making the call and the father was the one to call 911. The baby was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

The petitions also allege that the children were neglected as a result of the failure of their mother, father and maternal grandmother to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter. Specifically, the petitions allege that the children were dirty and not adequately fed and that the home was dirty and infested with roaches and mice. The petitions also allege that garbage bags, dirty dishes and dirty clothing were observed throughout the residence. Finally, the petitions allege that the two daughters were derivatively neglected children by virtue of the neglect of their baby brother. On the day the petitions were filed, the Court granted the request of the City Children Services for a remand of the two girls.

Published on:

A man commenced an action against the City of Utica, five of its police officers and its chief of police, to seek damages for injuries he had sustained a year earlier when he was still under the age of 21. In his complaint filed in the District Court, he claimed that the officers attacked him, wrongfully detained him, delayed medical treatment, and charged him with assorted violations of the Penal Law without cause. He settled his claim after having reached his 21st birthday.

Thereafter, the Department placed an encumbrance against the man’s settlement proceeds in accordance with the Social Services Law. A New York Injury Lawyer said the law permits a public welfare official to attach the personal injury recovery of a public assistance recipient in order to recover benefits paid on and after the date the injuries were sustained.

The man commenced a proceeding to annul the findings of the Department and to vacate the encumbrance it had placed against his personal injury proceeds. He claims that inasmuch as the action against the city arose prior to his reaching his legal age, the encumbrance could not be properly attach. The man, however, did not challenge the Department’s ability to recover the medical expenses that it had incurred on his behalf. The Supreme Court ordered the man to reimburse the Department of the portion of his recovery that represented his medical and hospital expenses, but disallowed the remainder of the encumbrance. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the portion of the settlement that represented damages for the man’s personal injuries was not subject to the encumbrance. The Appellate Division stated that while the Department may have a claim for public assistance payments made after the man reached his legal age, it could not seek recovery by placing an encumbrance against the settlement proceeds.

Published on:

A personal injury lawsuit (private individual vs. 1st additional insured) was commenced in February 2006. The plaintiffs in the personal injury action allege that the private individual, a Connecticut resident, sustained serious bodily injuries (injury) in an accident which led to her death (wrongful death) on 2 April 2004, when she exited from an elevator (defective product) in a building located in Hamden Connecticut (the “building”).

The defendants in the personal injury action were the 1st and 2nd additional insured and the elevator company. The building was owned by the 1st additional insured on the date of the accident and the 2nd additional insured is a member of the 1st additional insured. The elevator company entered into an agreement with the 1st and 2nd additional insured to maintain the elevators in the building where they were required to name each entity as an additional insured under its insurance contract. A commercial general liability insurance policy (from the 1st defendant) was obtained by the elevator company providing Commercial Liability Coverage effective on the date of the private individual’s accident.

A New York Injury Lawyer said the personal injury action was settled for a total sum of $2.5 million. The settlement in the personal injury action was paid as follows: [1] Plaintiff, on behalf of the 1st and/or 2nd additional insured – $1,000,000; [2] 1st defendant on behalf of the elevator Company – $1,000,000; and [3] 2nd defendant on behalf of 1st and/or 1nd additional insured – $500,000. Plaintiff then commenced this action on its own behalf and as subrogee of 1st and/or 2nd additional insured to the extent that it was required to fund the settlement in the personal injury action and to pay for 1st and/or 2nd additional insured’s defense in the personal injury action.

Published on:

Four separate actions were commenced against the defendant, City of New York, plaintiffs from over 40 families sought to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death based on allegations that the diseases they suffered from were caused by exposure to toxic substances at the Brookfield and Fresh Kills landfills on Staten Island. The plaintiffs are residents or former residents of neighborhoods located near the landfills. The four separate actions were later consolidated into one case.

Each of the plaintiffs served a notice of claim on the defendant in May or June 1992. A New York Injury Lawyer said that the notices of claim alleged, inter alia, that the defendant was negligent in allowing health hazards to exist at the landfills and that the plaintiffs or their decedents were exposed to toxic emissions from the landfills into the air, water, and ground. All of the notices of claim of the plaintiffs stated that each plaintiff discovered the cause of his or her injury in March 1992, except one plaintiff’s notice of claim, which did not indicate when the cause of her injury was discovered. In August 1992, the plaintiffs moved to amend their notices of claim to allege that the landfills continued to present health hazards and that the time when the claim arose is a question of fact to be determined by the jury.

The defendant concedes that, for Statute of Limitations purposes, the plaintiffs’ action was commenced on June 1, 1993. In June 1994, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims of 19 plaintiffs, belonging to the 1st action as time-barred under the provisions of CPLR. A Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer said that subsequently, in its reply papers, the defendant withdrew the motion with respect to three of the 19 plaintiffs.

Published on:

The accused moves to dismiss the complainant’s amended objection by reason of the complainant having been added as an accused following the expiration of the law of limitations. For the reasons set forth, the accused person’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

The complainant was diagnosed with asbestosis in February of 1994. He filed a lawsuit to recover for damages arising from his condition in August of 1994. The accused Kitchen and Bath Company was not named in that complaint. More than fourteen years later, the complainant was diagnosed with lung cancer. He passed away shortly thereafter. On July 12, 2011, the complainant’s family filed an amended complaint alleging new causes of action both as against the accused named in the original complaint, against the Kitchen and Bath Company, and others as new accused.

A New York Injury Lawyer said that in the motion, the Kitchen and Bath Company argue that the complainants were lawfully time barred from amending the original complaint to add it as an accused because the applicable law of limitations had long since run. The Kitchen and Bath Company submits that since the complainants are time-barred from suing for personal injuries, the deceased man’s estate is also time-barred from suing wrongful death. The complainant concedes that their claims are time-barred. However, they argue that the injury claims are governed by a different limitations period and are therefore duly pled. In general, the two claims are materially different.

Published on:

A complainant man sought to recover damages for legal malpractice and filed an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which granted the lawyers’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

It started when the counsel of the complainant represented him in a personal injury action resulting from injuries apparently sustained by the complainant.

A New York Injury Lawyer said that the complainant obtained a default decision against one of the lawyers in the personal injury action. Subsequent to the investigation on the issue of damages, the Supreme Court entered a money judgment in favor of the complainant. The complainant retained the law firm to collect on the money judgment. However, the lawyer subsequently signed consent to change attorney form in which the firm replaced him as the complainant’s counsel in the personal injury action. The lawyer then filed an action to vacate the money judgment entered against him on the ground that he had not been properly served with process in the said action. In an order, the Supreme Court granted the action to vacate the money judgment and dismissed the action as asserted against the lawyer.

Published on:

The deceased woman was seriously injured in an accident. She died from such accident injuries and was survived by her husband and twelve children, seven of whom were infants at the time of her death.

From 1966 to 1972, the Department of Social Services furnished AFDC (Assistance for Families with Dependent Children) to the deceased and her infant children in the sum of approximately $36,000. Since all assistance and care of whatever nature was furnished before the injury then no lien may be attached to any personal injury recovery.

The administrator of the deceased woman’s estate commenced a combined action for personal injuries and wrongful death. The combined action has been settled for $100,000. The Court allocated $12,500 to the personal injury cause payable to the estate for the 4 3/4ths days the woman survived.

Published on:

A pedestrian was fatally hit by a drunken driver on Route 35 earlier in the month. One New York Injury Lawyer says a strong case exists as the driver left the scene, though he later returned and stated that a pedestrian had been hit.

At around 1:35 A.M. the California Highway Patrol and Pacifica police department responded to a call. The report stated that someone called in to report a possibly deceased pedestrian that had been hit on the Sharp Park Road and Route 35. A New York Injury Lawyer reflects on the fact that a resident of Leopoldo Tobilla showed up shortly after the police to say he was driving and hit the pedestrian. The resident was immediately arrested and was found to be intoxicated. His DUI arrest was for DUI resulting in fatal injury and leaving the scene of an accident.

It will be interesting to see how the charges will play out since the man seemingly turned himself in. The arrested is being held at San Mateo County jail in Redwood City. He is currently charged with vehicular manslaughter, leaving the scene of a vehicle collision resulting in fatal injury, and driving while intoxicated. The suspect was arrested on scene after he returned explaining to officers that he had hit someone walking on the roadway. Any witnesses to the accident are asked to contact the local police to explain what happened. Though the pedestrian was declared dead on the scene it has not been released whether death was immediate upon impact. The accused is a fifty seven year old male and the level of his intoxication has not been released to news sources.

Contact Information