Articles Posted in Bronx

Published on:

The Bronx plaintiff in this case is appealing an order from the Supreme Court of Westchester County. The order from the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint made against the defendants, and granted portions of the cross motion of the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as it was alleged that the defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to interpose a claim in an underlying action of rescission based on a mistake.

Case Background

The plaintiff is a home builder and in 1999 he started negotiations for the purchase of a home that he was building. For the negotiations he retained the defendants to represent him. In January of 2000, the plaintiff was ready to sign a contract of sale as well as a separate basement construction agreement. This contract had been forwarded to the defendant’s offices. The plaintiff executed the basement construction agreement, but then discovered that the buyers had not signed the attached contract of sale. This contract included additional terms that were not previously agreed to in the parties’ negotiations. As a consequence the plaintiff did not sign the contract of sale and told the defendant’s that the deal with the buyers was off and to proceed accordingly.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Bronx appellant in this case is appealing by permission an order that denied his motion to vacate a finding of liability made by a medical malpractice panel. There are five main issues to consider on this appeal.

First, the court must consider whether an order that denies a motion to vacate a medical malpractice panel’s finding is appealable in this court.

Second, if the doctor member of the medical malpractice panel must be a specialist that practices in the same field of medicine as the defendant doctor who the malpractice is claimed.

Continue reading

Published on:

The case before the court is one of legal malpractice. The Bronx plaintiff had a bi-lateral mastectomy, which she claims was the result of being misdiagnosed. The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment against the defendants for negligently prosecuting a medical malpractice action on behalf of the plaintiff.

Case Background

In March of 2006, the law firm defendants filed a motion to have the complaint against them dismissed. In October of 2006 the court issued an interim order that directed all of the parties to provide a briefing on the issue of the bankrupt extension. The court reviewed the briefs and heard oral arguments. The court then made the decision to deny the dismissal of the complaint.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is an instant action brought forth by the plaintiff for herself, her deceased husband, and her four children. The case involves personal injury claims that arise from a car accident and medical malpractice claims in regard to the treatment that her husband received at the defendant hospital for the injuries that he sustained during the car accident.

Prior to this action the Bronx driver of the other vehicle that was involved in the accident began this own action for personal injuries that he sustained during the accident.

The plaintiffs have moved to consolidate both actions for a joint trial. The defendants in the second action have opposed stating that consolidating the actions will result in undue prejudice and jury confusion. In addition, the defendants in the second action have moved to sever the causes of action that pertain to the car accident and those actions that pertain to the medical malpractice action. The defendant is also seeking to have the venue moved to Albany County where the treatment was provided.

Continue reading

Published on:

The appeal before the court raises the question as to whether a patient of a medical group that has allegedly suffered from an injury caused by malpractice of the doctors that are associated with the group is entitled to the benefit of the continuous treatment doctrine against the doctors that have allegedly committed the malpractice where the patient has continued to receive treatment for the same injury, illness, or condition from other members of the same group after the alleged wrongdoing doctors have left the group.

Case Background

The defendants are two physicians who left the group. They have moved for summary judgment at Special Term on the basis of the alleged termination of the relationship of each of the movants with the other defendants that were their former partners. They argue that upon leaving the group the statute of limitations started to run for any acts of malpractice that they may have committed while a member of the group. As a consequence of this argument, the action in this particular case that was started in February of 1980 is time barred.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a medical malpractice case where it is alleged that the plaintiff suffered from injuries as a result of the still birth of her infant as a result of prenatal malpractice and negligence of the defendants.

The plaintiff sought prenatal care from the defendants starting in July of 2001 through November of 2001 for her pregnancy. The result was a still birth on the fourteenth of December. The plaintiff states that she was exposed to DES which increased her risk of having an incompetent cervix and that the defendants should have performed a cerclage procedure in order to tighten her cervix to prevent a still birth or miscarriage.

Case Background

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a claim for medical malpractice against the Manhattan health and hospitals corporation brought by a mother, individually and on behalf of her son. The infant was born at one hospital and allege that the infant sustained meconium aspiration syndrome and hypertonia as a result of the hospital’s mismanagement of the labor and delivery. Though the infant was transferred to another hospital and stayed for almost two weeks, he was then transferred back with the previous hospital where he received continuous treatment. It is also alleged that the infant suffers from brain injury and severe developmental delays.

At the beginning, the court had lack of authority to grant the leave to file a late notice of claim as to the mother’s individual claims because her application is made more than one year and ninety days from the accrual of the incident. As to the infant’s claims, based on the dates of the alleged malpractice, a notice of claim should have been served on the hospital corporations but the infant is the beneficiary of an infancy toll.

Further, entries in the medical records reveal that the infant was developing normally at the time of discharge and there is no indication of a long term injury. In the supporting affidavit, the mother admits to being aware of the conclusion by noting that at the age of three months her son had met all developmental milestones. A neurology visit note also supports the said conclusion. The mother also stated that about 17 months after her delivery, her son had once again met all milestones. The mother stated that she did not learn of her son’s alleged delays until some point and that it was not until more findings led her to believe that her son’s injury was in fact related to his birthing process. It is evident that the mother could not have been aware of any damages attributable to the delivery within 90 days of the date of accrual, or a reasonable time thereafter, as there was no indication that the infant experiences any alleged delays. Consequently, the subject medical records alone do not support that the mother, by its acts or omissions, inflicted injuries to the infant and that the mother should have been aware of same within the applicable 90 days, or a reasonable time thereafter.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Facts:

On 8 April 2005, the subject infant was born at a hospital. Allegedly, the infant sustained meconium aspiration syndrome and hypertonia as a result of the hospital’s mismanagement of the labor and delivery. Though the infant was transferred to another hospital on 9 April 2005 for almost two weeks, he was transferred back where he remained until 24 May 2005. Thereafter, he was treated at the same Hospital through 2006.

A claim for medical malpracticeagainst the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation thereafter ensued brought by the infant’s mother, individually and on behalf of her son, the subject infant. It is alleged that the infant suffers from brain injury and severe developmental delays.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Supreme Court in Ohio has recently changed the way that medical malpractice cases are handled. A Lawyer describes that the state will now consider emotional distress caused by the injury when deciding on the level of compensation to be awarded.

Between 1997 and 2004, a female patient attended Reflections Breast Health Center every year. This clinic was owned and operated by Radiology and Imaging Services Inc. She visited the clinic every year to have annually mammograms. All of the mammograms were inspected by professionals and decided that they were normal. A mammogram in 2003 was said to be clear of any signs of cancer explains a doctor.

However, in mid-2004 the patient discovered a lump in her left breast. She mentioned this to her physician. She was hen referred back to Reflections for tests. The film found that the mass was almost certainly cancerous. Expert witnesses from The Bronx and Staten Island said that between 2003 and 2004 he mass had grown from 1cm to 2cm. A biopsy of the mass was done and this found that it was malignant.

Continue reading

Published on:

Lawyers and doctors don’t generally get on very well. There are a number of reasons for this, but the most common is because of distrust between both doctors and lawyers. There are many medical malpractice stories floating around the internet comments the source.

Many doctors who charge Medicaid or Medicare for various medical procedures for tests that aren’t really necessary. This means that they are actually committing fraud according to Medicare and Medicaid programs.

The law has been made very clear to discuss this type of fraud, says the rep. When the issue was discussed at congressional hearings the doctors actually admitted the practice and then ended up trying to deny it when they were asked if they billed Medicare for the tests.

Continue reading

Contact Information