Published on:

The defendants in this case have motioned for summary judgment to dismiss the complaints made against them.

Case Background

The plaintiff filed an instant complaint against the defendants on the 22nd of May, 2000. The complaint alleges that the law firm defendant’s representation of him in an underlying medical malpracticeaction constitutes legal malpractice. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant insurance company breached its contract with him by failing to provide him with adequate representation in the underlying action.

Continue reading

Published on:

The plaintiff asserts that while he was a patient at the defendant hospital he was attacked and hit by another patient at the hospital who allegedly is known to possess violent and dangerous propensities. The patient claims that the hospital and its employees were negligent in permitting a known violent patient to be present around other patients.

Case Discussion

A compliance conference was held regarding the case and an issue arose as to whether or not a medical malpractice panel hearing should be conducted. The issue was made formal during the conference and the plaintiff is now moving for an order to dispense with the medical malpractice panel hearing on the grounds that within the cause of action is for negligence rather than medical malpractice.

Continue reading

Published on:

Malpractice 88

The plaintiff alleges that she was injured due to the negligence and malpracticecommitted by the defendant who is a licensed podiatrist. The action against the defendant was started by service of a summons and complaint. The plaintiff asserts at this point that all of the pretrial proceedings have been completed and now moves for trial. The plaintiff states that she is entitled to special preference under CPLR 3403.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s action is for podiatric malpractice, which is separate from the practice of medicine and because of this is not entitled to special preference under CPLR 3403. The defendant further argues that the motion is premature because the plaintiff has not filed a note of issue and statement of readiness.

Continue reading

Published on:

The defendants in this case have motioned for summary judgment to dismiss the complaints made against them.

Case Background

The plaintiff filed an instant complaint against the defendants on the 22nd of May, 2000. The complaint alleges that the law firm defendant’s representation of him in an underlying medical malpracticeaction constitutes legal malpractice. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant insurance company breached its contract with him by failing to provide him with adequate representation in the underlying action.

Continue reading

Published on:

The plaintiff is appealing an order made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that granted the defendant’s motion to leave to reargue their motion for summary judgment. Upon re-argument, the court vacated the previous amended complaint and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Case Background

The plaintiff noticed a lump in her left armpit and was referred for a CT scan and mammography. The CT scan was done at the hospital and the defendant is the radiologist that read the scan. The defendant read the scan as negative and reported his findings to the plaintiff’s referring physician. The mammogram was also interpreted as negative a few weeks later by a non-party radiologist.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a medical malpractice action. The plaintiffs are seeking damages, personal and derivative, for injuries that were allegedly sustained by the recipient plaintiff as a result of the care and treatment he received from March 30th, 2007 through May 17th, 2007. The recipient plaintiff underwent a kidney transplant in March of 2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants departed from accepted medical standards in the recipient plaintiffs care and treatment. The plaintiffs further alleges that the defendant physicians that were caring for the pediatric patient who was the donor departed from accepted medical standards when they failed to diagnose cancer in the donor while he was a patient at a non-party hospital. The plaintiffs further allege that the New York Organ Donor Network was negligent in failing to properly evaluate the suitability of the donor’s organs for transplantation.

Case background

Continue reading

Published on:

The Long Island plaintiff is appealing an order that was made in the Supreme Court of Orange County that granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.

Case Background

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant committed dental malpractice by cutting out tooth number 21 from her mouth and performing negligent bridge work. She further alleges that when she complained about pain, the defendant realized that he had committed malpractice and rather than disclose it he tried to conceal it by stating that the tooth just needed to be bonded and he performed the bonding. This occurred in November of 2003.

Continue reading

Published on:

The defendants have moved for an order to amend the caption that recently appointed the plaintiff as the administrator of the estate and upon the amendment to have the complaint against them dismissed.

Case Facts

The Westchester plaintiff both individually and as the administrator of the estate of the deceased, started this action against the defendants to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death. The plaintiff alleges that the care given to his mother was negligent up until the time that she passed away.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is an action to recover legal fees. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the counter claims made in the verified amended answer of the defendant. The defendant has filed a separate motion for leave to serve a second amended answer and to renew his prior motion to dismiss the complaint.

There are several counterclaims made by the defendant in his proposed answer including a counter claim for fraud, legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty. He also added two additional counter claims in his amended answer, breach of the plain language requirement and breach of judiciary law section 427.

Case Facts

Continue reading

Published on:

Defendants New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Dr. PN (collectively defendants) move for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint insofar as asserted against them.

In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff alleges that defendants deviated from accepted standards of medical care while he was being treated in the hospital for severe injuries he sustained in an automobile accident. The Manhattan plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defends its improperly and negligently positioned and restrained his wrists, failed to monitor the effects of the restraints, negligently failed to perform physical therapy on him, and negligently caused his arms to become paralyzed and non-functional.

On December 29, 2004, plaintiff, then age 62, was driving his vehicle when it struck trees, a fence and landed in a courtyard, ejecting him from the driver’s side window. Plaintiff sustained various injuries, including a hemorrhage of the head, a crushed left leg from his foot to hip, and multiple lacerations and abrasions. EMS brought plaintiff to Kings County Hospital emergency room, where plaintiff was described as alert, combative, and intoxicated. Plaintiff was intubated and x-rays and abdominal/pelvic ct-scans were performed. Plaintiff sustained fractures of the pelvis, left femur, and left tibia/fibula, and had internal bleeding.

Continue reading

Contact Information