Articles Posted in Cosmetic Surgery

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
The defendant contends that he has resided in the state of Florida since 2000 and his son lives with his mother in New York. From April of 2002 through February of 2006 a partner of the plaintiff performed legal services for the defendant pursuant to a representation agreement in connection with matters that related to the defendants son and mother.

When the representation period ended the Queens defendant refused to pay the balance of the plaintiff’s legal fees. The defendant submitted a fee dispute to the fee dispute resolution program. A hearing was held and it was determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a portion of the claimed legal fees. As the defendant had already made payments to the plaintiff the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant $4,943.09 as an arbitration award.

The plaintiff was unsatisfied with the arbitration award and started this instant action for a trial de novo. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of arbitration and award, collateral estoppel and res judicata pursuant to CPLR section 3211. The defendant’s motion was denied in its entirety and the plaintiff was found to be within his rights to pursue a trail de novo.

The defendant has now moved to amend his answers again and also to renew his previous motion to have the complaints against him dismissed.

Court Decision
The court has reviewed all of the documents as presented in the case and will grant the defendant’s motion to leave to serve the plaintiff with the second amended answer in regard to his first, second and third counterclaims. The fourth and fifth counterclaims are denied.
The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaims in the amended complaint in regard to the second and third counterclaims that are made within the amended answer is granted.

The defendant is ordered to serve a copy of this order with a notice of entry to all of the parties involve within twenty days of the orders being entered.
Continue reading

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.

The defendants received a copy of the contract of sale from the buyers, but at this point the plaintiff was no longer interested in proceeding. In March of 2000, the defendants sent a package of documents that included the signed basement construction agreement and the contract of sale signed by the buyers, but not signed by the plaintiff.

The buyers then started an action against the plaintiff and defendants for performance of the contract of sale. The plaintiff retained a new law firm to represent him in that underlying action. The other law firm successfully moved to dismiss the complaint in the underlying action. However, this motion was reversed on appeal and specific performance was awarded to the buyers.

While the underlying action was still pending the plaintiff started this legal malpractice suit against the defendants. The legal malpractice case was dismissed as premature, but the plaintiff was given leave to start a second action should the buyers be awarded damages in the underlying action. The plaintiff is now seeking to recover damages from the defendants.

Court Decision
The court is granting the application to leave for appeal for the portion of the order that directed the dismissal of the complaint against the defendants. The original order from the Supreme Court of Westchester County is modified by deleting the portion of the order that denied the motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants and substituting a provision that grants that branch of the motion. A bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff and will be paid by the defendants.
Continue reading

Published on:

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
The plaintiff started this legal malpractice action against the defendants based on alleged failure of the defendants to schedule a deposition of one of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses in connection with a products liability breast implant action that was pending in the United States District Court for the northern district of New York. The plaintiff in the case allegedly suffered from injuries as a result to the exposure from silicone gel from breast implants that ruptured and were made by Baxter Healthcare. The plaintiff retained the defendants as trial counsel to prosecute in this action.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and/or for a stay of the proceedings. In April of 2003, this court issued an opinion that stated the complaint was a nullity because the plaintiff’s counsel was based in New Jersey and did not have an office in New York and was therefore not authorized to file a complaint on behalf of the plaintiff.

Case Discussion and Decision
The defendants argue that the action should be dismissed because the statute of limitations for the malpractice claim has expired. They also argue that the instant action is time barred by the doctrine of laches.

The statute of limitations to recover on a claim of legal malpractice is three years. This is regardless of whether the theory is based in contract or tort. In this particular case the legal malpractice occurred on the 28th of September, 1999, when the defendant’s allegedly failed to produce the expert witness for the case.

The plaintiff brought forth the action in September 2002 because they were worried about the statute of limitations. The action was timely and therefor there is no legal basis to assert the statute of limitations in this case.

The defendants are now contending that because the 2002 action was dismissed as a nullity, the reasoning for the dismissal was paramount and therefore the action should be dismissed. However, the dismissal was a mere technical defect that could have been fixed by the plaintiff seeking counsel in New York or by the counsel of the plaintiff seeking pro hac vice admission.
The court had reviewed the facts that have been brought up in this case and has found that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. For this reason, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.
Continue reading

Published on:

A study explains that many medical malpractice suits are giving many doctors reasons to be cautious. Not all too long ago, if a patient was experiencing chest pains, the doctor would do some routine checks to rule out a heart attack and if they were ok they would be sent back home. This was normally seen as good practice; however everything is different these days.

Many states have implemented strict medical malpractice laws. These give people the right to sue if medical care is thought to be inadequate or not provided in time. The study indicated that this has actually backfired. Many doctors are now overly cautious about their liabilities and so will practice defensive medicine. Rather than just doing the tests that are actually required, they may be going over the top just to make sure that all the bases are covered.

Doctors in Queens and Staten Island are desperate to show that they have done everything they possibly can to prevent an expensive suit. The problem is that this doesn’t actually work. If any mistakes are made reading the large number of tests then this could still lead to a medical malpractice suit against the doctor.

Because many doctors are so worried about medical malpractice claims, many are starting to practice medicine in other areas of the country. Doctors generally care a lot about their patients, and sometimes bad outcomes will happen even with the best intentions. Modern medical techniques are very sophisticated, but there are still risks which can endanger patients even if everything is done properly.

Americans spend millions of dollars every year hiring Lawyers to take their cases on. There is some debate as to whether or not this is beneficial. Many people believe that doctors should be giving the very best care to their patients, and if they do make any mistakes or mistreat their patients that they should be responsible. These medical malpractice claims also help to provide for patients who are left unable to work or requiring medical treatment.
Continue reading

Published on:

An observer reported that a woman in Carrollton has taken the initiative to file a federal lawsuit for compensation from the U.S. government. The woman alleged that she was not given the correct size implants that she had ordered for her breast implantation. Her lawsuit states that she had wanted a much larger sized implant.

According to the evidence, the woman has alleged to have traveled miles away from home to have the procedure done. It was at that time that she found out that there was a terrible mistake in what she had ordered compared to what she was getting.

The evidence indicates that the woman’s lawsuit is for $150,000 in which the woman is seeking pain and suffering damages, mental agony as well as her travel costs.

It was after her surgery that the woman decided to file this lawsuit as she was probably given advice by an expert in medical malpractice . The woman is not alone in cases of medical malpractice when it comes to surgical operations with breast implants. The media reported the story and many from the public were shocked that this kind of lawsuit would be permitted especially in a Federal jurisdiction. Cases like this are not uncommon in places like this Nassau and Suffolk.

The woman was adamant in getting the amount in settlement that she claimed for. She believed that she was deserving of every cent because of the emotional damage that it had caused her. She felt betrayed by her doctors and felt that the legal system should prevail in her medical malpractice case.
Continue reading

Published on:

Who would have thought that going for lipsuction would result in a sudden death? That is what happened in this wrongful death case which resulted in a medical malpractice lawsuit said a New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer.
The 28-year old woman went to see the liposuction center and spoke to the surgeon who indicated her bill would be $8,000 for liposuction on her upper arms and abdomen. Unfortunately, when the surgery was done, the doctor didn’t keep track of how much Lidocaine he used on the patient. His medical assistant could not even remember how many bags of the solution were used.
Additionally, the investigation into this death revealed that the doctor also did not monitor the patient properly or check on the amount of nitrous oxide used explained the case investigator. When the operation was done, the doctor left the clinic and didn’t check to see if the patient was stable. She did not get replacement fluids and there was no record of the amount of fat actually removed during the procedure. The only person left in the clinic, was the medical assistant and when no one came to pick the patient up, she was put in a cab, but was not given any contact numbers if she experienced an emergency.
The patient died the next day from acute Lidocaine poisoning and the lawsuit indicated that the ads for the liposuction were deceptive in that they stated it was safe and just about painless reported the NY City Medical Malpractice Lawyer. Neither of those claims was found to be true. The doctor will be facing medical disciplinary action by his state board. He would face the same action in Manhattan and Long Island.
Continue reading

Published on:

Medical malpractice cases are costing doctors and hospitals millions of dollars every year. A New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer explains that this is making it much less desirable to become a doctor in the first place. Many doctors will also leave states which have high cases of medical malpractice cases because of the high costs.

The doctor says that people have been trying to revise the healthcare malpractice cases for a very long time. Around 30 years ago a Law professor suggested a series of alternatives which could be used to manage the liability of medical providers.

The idea proposed by the lecturer was liability by contract. This was a much safer condition for patients and doctors alike. The liability by contract should work by deciding exactly what will happen if there are any problems with the treatment before anything begins. This means that it will be much easier to resolve the cases.

This is a very common feature of many other types of contracts and relationships. However, when it comes to the medical industry this type of contract is never heard of. By mentioning dispute resolution procedures in the contract it would be much easier to manage any problems as and when they arrive. Cosmetic surgery is the cause of many malpractice suits.

The New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer mentions that hospitals have tried similar things in the past. They have asked many patients to sign disclaimers which waved the patients right to sue the hospital if anything went wrong. However, these were said to be worthless because judges frequently dismissed them from court. The basis for dismissing these was because the judges decided they were not informed about what they were signing.

People have suggested voluntary contracts which doctors and hospitals can decide whether or not to use. These no fault contracts will allow families and patients to be compensated for deaths and injuries. Lawyers and doctors in Brooklyn and The Bronx have discussed these no fault contracts for some time.

At the moment, if a person feels that they have had poor medical treatment and want to get compensation then they will have to sue them and file a case in court. However, by implementing these contracts it will be much easier for people to get the compensation if they deserve it.
Continue reading

Contact Information