Articles Posted in Hospital Malpratice

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:

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 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.

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 Staten Island plaintiff in this case is appealing an order made in the Supreme Court of Kings County. The order that is being appealed by the plaintiff denied his motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint as made against the defendant. The entire case stems from an underlying medical malpractice suit.

Court Discussion

Under the plain language of the insurance policy in question the plaintiff is not covered for contractual liability that was assumed by entering into service agreements with the independent contractors in the case. However, the plaintiff could have been held vicariously liable for the actions of the independent contractors and for that reason the plaintiff is entitled to recover his legal costs for defending against his own liability.

Continue reading

Published on:

On January 1, 2004, a man was found almost dead by the New York City fire Department Emergency Medical Staff Officials on 178th Street and Jamaica Avenue in Queens County. He was taken to Mary Immaculate Hospital where he died the following day. There was no identification on his person and he was unresponsive and unable to tell hospital personnel who he was. The hospital staff were not provided with a telephone number for any next of kin and were unable to notify his family. Per hospital policy, the hospital notified the police department. The hospitalfrom that point depended on the police department to notify any next of kin.

On January 3, 2004, the hospital made contact with the Medical Examiner’s Office. It is hospital policy to inquire at the Medical Examiner’s Office if a patient dies within 24 hours of being admitted to the hospital. The Medical Examiner’s Investigator was advised and made notations to that effect in his notes that the decedent’s next of kin had not been located at that time. The hospital contends that at the time that they notified the Medical Examiner’s office, they were no longer responsible for locating the next of kin. They state that that responsibility was transferred to the Medical Examiner’s office.

The Medical Examiner’s office had the man’s body for two months, yet according to his family, made no efforts to identify him or to contact his next of kin during the time that they were in possession of his body. The Medical Examiner’s office also made not attempts to contact the police department to determine if they had identified the man or contacted his next of kin. The hospital maintains that it did all that it could do to find out who the man was and to notify the family. The hospital contends that the failure on the part of the Medical Examiner’s office to notify the family should not be their responsibility.

Continue reading

Published on:

This malpractice case was filed against defendant more than nine year’s after plaintiff’s birth. Accordingly, the medical malpractice was allegedly committed by defendant in connection with the birth of plaintiff on November 2, 1996, from pre-natal care up to his discharge from the hospital on November 9, 1996. Consequently, plaintiff sustained perinatal asphyxia affecting his brain which manifested as cognitive developmental delays, hyperactivity, coordination difficulties, seizures and mental retardation.

A condition precedent to commencement of a tort action against a municipality or public corporation is the service of a notice of claim upon the municipality or public entity within 90 days after the claim arises. The notice of claim herein was served upon defendant almost nine years past the ninety-day deadline for filing a notice of claim.

The Court has the discretionary authority to allow the filing of a late notice of claim within the period of limitation for commencing tort actions against a municipality. An action against a municipality or municipal corporation or entity must be commenced within one year and 90 days after the date plaintiff’s cause of action accrued, which is the date the event occurred upon which plaintiff’s claim is based. Where plaintiff is an infant, the statute of limitations on a medical malpractice action is tolled for a period not exceeding 10 years from the date the cause of action accrued.

Continue reading

Published on:

On or about 2 January 1975, defendant who is a physician commenced an action against the plaintiffs in the District Court, Nassau County, to recover the sum of $750 for professional services rendered on or about 21 May 1974, with interest. A default judgment was entered in that action against the plaintiffs on 7 February 1975.

On 22 March 1976, plaintiffs commenced the instant personal injury action against a doctor and a Hospital for medical malpractice (for the injury sustained as a result of the negligence in the care of plaintiff) allegedly committed during the period between 27 May 1974 and 22 June 1974, in which issue was joined by the individual defendant on 27 October 1976. Thereafter, the defendant doctor moved, inter alia, to amend his answer to assert the affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel and, in the alternative, a summary judgment. The plaintiffs then cross-moved for leave to serve a supplemental Bill of Particulars. The motion to amend defendant’s answer and the motion for summary judgment was denied. Thus, defendant doctor appeals the said judgment.

The Issues:

Continue reading

Published on:

When a family member dies, it is a heartbreaking time for the rest of the family. That is made especially true if they are not permitted to honor the memory of their loved one in accordance with their traditions and religious beliefs. In the case of New York, there are laws that are in place to ensure that when a loved one dies, they are placed in a situation that will ensure that every effort is made to locate the next of kin and return the body to them for burial. These laws refer to sepulcher. Sepulcher is the right of a family to inter their kin in the manner that they deem appropriate. It is a recognized right in the state of New York, but that is not the way that it was always done.

In the early 1800’s, medical schools and body snatchers ran amuck in the city of New York. Many families were faced with the loss of the body of a loved one. There was a demand for the legislature to create laws that made it illegal for a person to steal a body or otherwise interfere with the right of a family to possess the body of their loved one. The legislature was faced with a problem about how to word such a fundamental right. The question arose as to whether the theft of a body was a theft of property that belonged to the family. Initially, the laws were worded to reflect the body as the property of a family. However, as laws usually do, they evolved over the years so that the right of sepulcher for a family to possess the body of a loved one was viewed more as a violation of a right to seek the solace of the ritual of a burial than it was a question of a theft of property. That evolution caused a new factor to be raised as it regarded the loss of bodies in morgues throughout the state. The right of sepulcher became an issue of the emotional distress that is caused to a loved one when the body of their family member is not immediately available to them. It is from this evolution of legal statute that the present case came into existence.

On October 28, 2001, a famous playwright , Leonard Melfi died. He was famous for writing the one-act play the Birdbath and he was instrumental in the writing of the Broadway hit play, Oh: Calcutta! He had been a resident of a welfare hotel on the upper west side of Manhattan called the Narragansett Hotel at the time that he collapsed. The Emergency Medical Services personnel filed a report of their interactions at the scene of Mr. Melfi’s collapse. Their report stated that the famous author was in respiratory distress at the time of their arrival. They recorded his address, date of birth, social security number and his next of kin with her phone number on their report. Mr. Melfi was transported to Mt. Sinai Hospital where another report, this one by the emergency room patient registration team was filled out with the same information. The triage report that was filled out on Mr. Melfi only showed that he was fitted with an oxygen mask and that no further treatment was administered to him. The attending physician in the emergency room diagnosed Mr. Melfi with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation. He prescribed a drug to slow Mr. Melfi’s heart rate, but again, the record does not show that any other treatment regimen was provided to him. The billing statement of the hospital showed that Mr. Melfi was treated by nurses who did a pulse oximetry, catheter placement, and electrocardiogram, but there is no report of these actions being taken in the patient’s care records.

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

Contact Information