Articles Posted in Long Island

Published on:

Respondent was born with Down syndrome in 1964 and began receiving medical assistance under the State Medicaid plan on July 1, 1992. On July 14, 1997, he suffered an injury during corrective spinal injury surgery, which resulted in his partial paralysis such that he was no longer able to ambulate. A Lawyer said that, a medical malpractice action was commenced by respondent’s sister on his behalf against the hospital where the surgery was performed and several Long Island doctors. Respondent continued to receive medical assistance from the DSS, and the DSS filed a lien pursuant to Social Services Law § 104-b (hereinafter the Medicaid lien) for recovery from any award made in the medical malpractice action, for such assistance for which the third-party tortfeasor was found to be liable.

A assistant said that, the parties to the medical malpractice action reached a settlement. Based upon the proposed settlement, the DSS agreed to accept the sum of $102,423.56 to settle the Medicaid lien. The amount necessary to settle the Medicaid lien was premised on a letter from the DSS stating that it would accept that amount on the Medicaid lien against the proceeds of the personal injury lawsuit, based on the proposed settlement of the lawsuit for the sum of $1,600,000. The letter further provided that the DSS reserved the right to collect any unpaid balance of the Medicaid lien if Ruben reached a further settlement that provided additional proceeds or if he should receive funds from another source such as the lottery; neither of those circumstances eventuated.

A reporter said that, the settlement of the medical malpractice action was approved by the Supreme Court, Kings County, in an amended order dated August 23, 2002, with the direction that payment be made to the DSS in the amount of $102,423.56, in full satisfaction of the Medicaid lien to the date of the order. Pursuant to regulation, the Medicaid lien was required to be satisfied or otherwise resolved in order for the remaining funds received by Respondent. To be disregarded, for purposes of eligibility to continue receiving Medicaid benefits, by placement in a supplemental needs trust. As will be discussed herein, the Medicaid lien was limited to the medical assistance respondent received as a result of the third-party tortfeasor’s negligence. The lien was not and could not have been asserted in connection with any medical assistance provided to respondent as a result of his Down syndrome condition; whether such assistance was provided prior to or subsequent to the medical malpractice. The settlement of the medical malpractice action and settlement of the lien did not in any way address the other assistance that had been correctly paid to respondent.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Long Island plaintiff in this case started this action as the administratrix of the estate of her deceased mother. She is seeking to recover money damages for the personal injuries her mother sustained while under the custody of the defendant hospital. The plaintiff has now moved for leave to submit a belated notice of medical malpractice. The defendant is cross moving for the action to be dismissed on the ground that it is time barred by the statute of limitations for medical malpractice.

Case Facts

The mother of the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant Queens hospital with end stage liver disease and end stage renal disease on dialysis. On the 27th of August, 2001, the decedent fell on the floor of the transplant unit. She fell again on the third of September, 2001 and sustained a blunt impact to her head. Two days later a CT scan was performed. The patient fell again on the 22nd of September and allegedly as a result of all of these falls she sustained severe head injuries. Ultimately, the mother lost consciousness and had to be placed on a ventilator. She then died on the 23rd of September, 2001.

Continue reading

Published on:

The petitioner in this case is seeking a judgment to require the Superintendent of Insurance to hold a hearing in regard to a decision that he made that reduced the petitioner’s proposed rate increase by approximately 85%. The Superintendent has cross moved to have this petition dismissed.

Case Background

The Long Island petitioner is a non-profit entity that is comprised of insurance companies that write personal liability insurance policies in the state of New York. Membership with the petitioner is required of companies that have the authority to write this type of insurance policy in the state. The petitioner is required to provide medical malpractice insurance to any physician or surgeon that is licensed in the state of New York. The amount of the policy is up to an aggregate limit of $3,000,000.

Continue reading

Published on:

Petitioner minor child, represented by his parents is permanently and substantially brain damaged as a result of alleged medical malpracticeon the part of respondent physician and respondent medical center, as well as other medical providers. The petitioner parents filed suit in circuit court against their obstetrician, respondent, his professional association, respondent Hospital, and numerous other defendants. A Florida Medical Malpractice Lawyer said that, the trial court abated the circuit court proceedings for a determination by the Division of Administrative Hearings as to whether the infant’s injuries qualified for coverage under the NICA Plan. In the petition for determination of NICA coverage, petitioners alleged that long after the post-delivery period had ended, the minor child’s medical providers committed numerous errors, including administering too much IV fluid and failing to test for serum electrolyte derangements until numerous days after the delivery. As required by statute, NICA was served with the petition in the administrative proceedings. NICA intervened and took the position that he did not suffer a “birth-related neurological injury” within the scope of section 766.302(2).

A Lawyer said that, in a narrow category of cases in which a “birth-related neurological injury” occurs, parents’ common law rights to sue on behalf of their children for medical malpractice are eliminated and replaced by an administrative remedy that provides limited compensation on a no-fault basis. “Birth-related neurological injury” is defined by statute as “injury to the brain caused by oxygen deprivation occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired.” § 766.302(2), Fla. Stat. (2001).

A Lawyer said that, the First District held that the petitioners were limited to the administrative remedy provided by the NICA Plan, reversing the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ), who found that the minor child did not suffer a “birth-related neurological injury” as defined by the NICA Plan.

Continue reading

Published on:

Appellant Hospital appeals an order issued by an administrative law judge [“ALJ”] finding that claimant was not subject to compensation under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan [“the plan”], because she was not permanently and substantially “mentally impaired” within the meaning of the plan. Appellants contend that, based on certain undisputed facts, she was permanently and substantially mentally impaired as a matter of law.

The minor child was born at Florida Hospital in Altamonte Springs, Florida, on November 28, 1997. She was deprived of oxygen during birth and sustained serious birth injuries. An expert said that, her parents filed an action for medical malpractice in Seminole County circuit court against the appellant Hospital, as well as the two physicians who provided obstetrical services to the child’s mother, and Mid-Florida OB/GYN Specialists, Inc. Both obstetricians were “participating physicians” under the plan and the hospital was a participating hospital, but the parents did not file or pursue a claim for benefits under the plan.

An Injury Lawyer said that, the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association [“NICA”] intervened in the circuit court action, claiming that the child’s birth injuries were subject to the plan. The circuit court abated the action and required the parents to file a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings to resolve whether the child was covered by the plan. The NICA statute defines “birth-related neurological injury” to mean an injury which, among other things, renders the infant both “permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired.” The parents’ position was that the child did not meet the criteria for coverage under the plan because, although she had suffered significant physical impairments, she had not sustained a permanent and substantial mental impairment.

Continue reading

Published on:

An action to recover damages for medical malpractice was filed. The defendant was found by the court, on the issue of liability, to be 75% at fault and the plaintiff 25% at fault in the causation of the plaintiff’s injuries; and, on the issue of damages, that the plaintiff sustained damages in the sums of $150,000 for past mental distress, $50,000 for future mental distress, and $134,000 for loss of past financial support, and awarded the plaintiff the sum of $166,000 in punitive damages.

Defendant then appeals from the aforesaid decision and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict on the issue of liability as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial or, in the alternative, to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $416,500, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from stated portions of the same judgment.

The Ruling:

Continue reading

Published on:

On April 6, 2007, the New York State Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded to a call just before ten at night to an apartment on Colonial Road in Brooklyn. The call was related to a twenty-five year old woman bleeding vaginally. Upon their arrival, the EMS team noticed that there was blood in the shower area and that the young woman who was seated on the commode was bleeding from her vagina. She was cold and clammy and was transported immediately. The EMS team asked her if she was pregnant or if she could be pregnant. She stated that she was not. However, upon admittance into the hospital at Lutheran Medical Center, the doctors discovered that it was clear that she had recently given birth to a child. The woman refused to admit that she had delivered a baby.

The Long Island hospital personnel contacted the police department to locate the baby. The police officers returned to the apartment and questioned the sister of the woman who was in the hospital. They told her that the hospital had said that there was a baby and that they needed to check on the welfare of the child. They repeatedly asked the sister where the baby was. She denied that there was a baby, but finally told them that there were several garbage bags outside in the cold night air behind the apartment. When the officers examined the contents of the garbage bags, they discovered the body of a newborn infant girl in the trash. She was still alive, but showing no signs of life other than being pink in color. She was intubated and transferred to the hospital for emergency medical care. The infant died shortly after arrival. Her cause of death was from exposure to the cold and hypoxia brought on by being tied up in a garbage bag.

The young woman was charged with homicide in causing the death of her newborn infant. The defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence that was collected by the police officers because they contend that it should be excluded from the case under the exclusionary rule. Their contention was based on the idea that the police officers had responded to the location without a warrant and had located the infant based on confidential medical information that was illegally obtained.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Facts:

Petitioner was diagnosed with stomach cancer by hospital-one after undergoing an endoscopy and after staff at hospital-two and hospital-three who saw petitioner on many occasions through 2009 failed to make that diagnosis or perform any diagnostic testing. Petitioner claims that the delay in diagnosing her cancer allowed the cancer to progress and adversely affect her prognosis. Thus, an action for medical malpractice ensued.

Petitioner moves for leave to serve a late Notice of Claim, pursuant to the General Municipal Law. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) opposes the petition, contending that there has been at least a six month delay in filing the Notice of Claim against NYCHHC, and, more than one year ninety day delay in filing the Notice of Claim against the individual respondent, who NYCHHC claims, and petitioner does not dispute, last saw petitioner on 9 May 2008.

Continue reading

Published on:

The standard of healthcare in some of Yorkshires best hospitals and clinics has been called into question. This problem has become so serious that it is costing taxpayers over £150 per minute. Almost a third of this money will go directly to lawyers.

The NHS has had to pay out for various medical negligence cases. This costs the NHS over £80 million per year. This is money that could be better off spent providing better medical treatment.

Clinics in Yorkshire have experienced over 1,280 cases against them. These cases include medical malpractice and medical. The number of cases seemed to be increasing every year, with a 10% increase in the number of cases in 2010.

Continue reading

Published on:

The University of Miami has been trying to protect its doctors from malpractice suits for years. They finally managed to do this explained a well-known Medical MalpracticeLawyer. Florida lawmakers have agreed to extend the lawsuit protection to university doctors when they are working in a public hospital.

It’s suspected that the bill will become law. The state protects all hospital employees who are employed by the government from any major malpractice judgment. However, University of Miami school doctors who teach are not protected in the same way.

University of Miami officials have been trying to get the same benefits for their employees for over two decades. The university argues that many patients will sue the university instead of the hospital because the university is less familiar with these cases and more likely to pay out.

Continue reading

Contact Information