Westchester County

Published on: March 7, 2013

Misdiagnosis of lung cancer leads to malpractice charge

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: February 7, 2013

Summary Judgment Denied

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: January 28, 2013

An Appeal Brings Up Questions in This Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is appealing an order that was made by the Supreme Court of Nassau County. The order directed the defendant to comply with a request for information prior to a hearing for medical malpractice.

Case Background

The plaintiff in the case alleges that she was a patient at the Westchester defendant hospital that had been notified by her personal physician that she was unable to go to the bathroom without help. She states that a nurse that worked at the hospital allowed her to go to the bathroom without help in order to provide a urine specimen. While the plaintiff was walking to the bathroom she fell down and suffered from serious injuries which included a broken hip.

Published on: January 8, 2013

Liability Insurance is Under Investigation

by Stephen Bilkis

The case before the Westchester court is an action for a declaratory judgment that the defendant insurance company is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff under a lawyers professional liability insurance policy. The plaintiff is an attorney whose practice is concentrated mainly in criminal defense.

Case Background

The plaintiff attorney was retained to represent a defendant that had been indicted by the Nassau County Grand Jury and charged with various counts of sodomy in the first degree as well as several other forcible sexual conduct crimes with his daughter. The alleged acts were said to occur between March of 1995 and December of 1998. The victim was between 10 and 13 years old at the time the acts took place. The defendant was indicted in New York County for similar activity as well.

Published on: January 3, 2013

The Plaintiff in this Case is a Lawyer

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a legal malpractice action being heard in the Supreme Court in New York County. The plaintiff is a lawyer who has brought forth this action against his former law firm partner. There are three causes of action being considered in this case. The first is professional malpractice, the second is breach of contract, and the third cause of action is a breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The Westchester defendants have moved for an order to dismiss the complaint as time barred by the statute of limitations, as time barred by the doctrine of laches, and for failure to state a cause of action.

Case Background

Published on: November 30, 2012

A Lawyer said that, plaintiff is a provider of no-fault automobile liability insurance policies

by Stephen Bilkis

A Lawyer said that, plaintiff is a provider of no-fault automobile liability insurance policies in New York City and defendants are professional corporations (hereinafter “PCs”) which were owned and operated by medical doctors. According to the pleadings, from 1998 until mid-2001, defendants rendered treatment to persons covered under no-fault policies issued by plaintiff. The covered insured patients were treated by licensed acupuncturists who were employees of defendant medical corporations. The covered insured patients executed facially-valid assignments of their no-fault benefits to defendant corporations. Defendant corporations submitted bills for the treatment provided by these licensed acupuncturists to plaintiff. Plaintiff paid the bills submitted by defendant corporations.

A Westchester source said that, plaintiff filed this action, alleging that defendants had improperly employed acupuncturists and that, based upon this organizational flaw, were operating illegally and were not entitled to the payments that plaintiffs made during the time period cited in the Complaint. The Complaint demands that defendant corporations refund all payments made by plaintiff for services provided by the licensed acupuncturists.

Another source said that, defendants move pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, while other defendants cross-move pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes these motions and filed a cross-motion seeking dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim.

Published on: November 10, 2012

In this case the plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case the plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages for medical malpractice. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants cared for the plaintiff while she was pregnant and that one of the twins died in utero as a result this care.

Case Background

The plaintiffs of the case are seeking to recover damages for alleged malpractice by the defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants cared for the plaintiff while she was pregnant and that one of her twins died in utero as a result of this care. The plaintiff states that she sustained personal injuries, emotional distress, and pecuniary loss.

Published on: September 22, 2012

Sometime in August of 2002, plaintiff hired a law firm to represent her

by Stephen Bilkis

Sometime in August of 2002, plaintiff hired a law firm to represent her in a medical malpractice (personal injury) and wrongful death action concerning the death of her husband. According to the law firm hired, a lawyer, who was then an of counsel lawyer of the firm, was assigned to handle plaintiff’s case.

In early 2003, the underlying action for medical malpractice was commenced against defendants: the Medical Center, the Westchester County Health Care Corporation, and certain doctors.

Thereafter, plaintiff’s lawyer severed his relationship with the law firm hired. Plaintiff then opted to continue to be represented by the lawyer and discharged the law firm. However, sometime after, the lawyer also severed his relationship with the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff’s son continued to handle the case which was later continued by another law firm.

Published on: September 17, 2012

On April 6, 2007, the New York State Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: September 12, 2012

On 19 October 1970, a doctor performed a surgical excision of a node

by Stephen Bilkis

On 19 October 1970, a doctor performed a surgical excision of a node from plaintiff’s neck. Allegedly, during the operation on plaintiff’s neck, the surgeon negligently injured a spinal-accessory nerve in her neck and also injured branches of her cervical plexus. Following the operation, plaintiff told her surgeon that she was experiencing numbness in the right side of her face and neck and that it was difficult and painful for her to raise her right arm. The physician was allegedly aware of the negligent manner in which he had performed the surgery and, as a result, plaintiff suffered a potentially permanent personal injury; that the physician willfully, falsely and fraudulently told plaintiff that her post-operative problems, pain and difficulties were transient and that they would disappear if she would continue a regimen of physiotherapy which he had prescribed and which was then being given by another doctor. Consequently, plaintiff continued with the physiotherapy prescribed by the subject doctor until October 1974. Meanwhile, she had moved to Syracuse, New York, where she sought further medical advice. In January 1974, she was first apprised by the Syracuse physician of the true nature of her injury and that it probably had been caused at the time of her surgery. This doctor’s diagnosis was substantially confirmed in October 1974 by a professor of medicine, specializing in neurology, at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, who also advised that reanastomosis of the sectioned nerve four years after the surgery would not be a physiologically successful procedure. Allegedly, the doctor who performed the surgery on plaintiff had intentionally withheld information as to the true nature and source of her injury, thus, she was deprived of the opportunity for a cure of her condition.

Sometime in April 1976, the present personal injury action against the surgical doctor was commenced. Prior to service of an answer, the doctor moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211 on the ground that the cause or causes of action alleged were barred by the Statute of Limitations. Plaintiff then cross-moved for leave to amend her complaint to include a cause of action for malpractice.

The Supreme Court in Westchester denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, as requested. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff thereupon appealed the said decision.