Articles Posted in Misdiagnosis

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division and First Department. The original judgment was made in the Supreme Court of New York County and awarded $61,478.40 against the defendants.

Case Background

The plaintiff in the case provided medical malpractice liability insurance for a dental center. The premiums for the insurance policy were based on the number of outpatient visits and adjusted by a stabilization fund charge. The policy was renewed twice and at the end of three years there was a premium balance of $40,795. The plaintiff sued for these premiums and obtained a judgment on liability.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Queens defendant is appealing an order that declared they had the obligation to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an action against him by the administratrix of the estate of the deceased. The order that is being appealed denied the cross motion for summary judgment and declared that the insurance policies in question were in full force and effect and invoked the duty of the defendant to defend.

Case Background

The plaintiff applied to the defendant insurance association for professional liability insurance coverage in January of 1981. The insurance association made an error that resulted in the policy not being issued until June of 1982. There were two policies issued at this time. The first policy was in effect from February of 1981 through February of 1982 and is referred to as the 1981 policy. The second policy was in effect from February 1982 through February 1983 and is referred to as the 1982 policy.

Continue reading

Published on:

The issue before the court has to do with the Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1986 that requires the Medical Malpractice Insurance Association to refund the stabilization reserve fund charges that had been collected for excess policies and applied by statute to offset deficits. The plaintiff in the case is challenging the constitutionality of the implementation and enforcement of certain provisions of this act.

Background Information

The Medical Malpractice Insurance Association or MMIA is a non-profit unincorporated association that is a legal entity separate from its members. The MMIA in NYC was created by chapter 109 section 17 of the laws created in 1975. The association was created after the insurer that covered the majority of surgeons and physicians for professional liability stated that they would no longer underwrite this type of insurance policy in the state of New York. The MMIA’s purpose was to provide a market for medical malpractice insurance that was not otherwise readily available.

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:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

On September 21, 1982, the Queens complainant 32-year-old woman visited her accused gynecologist for her annual check-up. At that time, the gynecologist made note of a one-centimeter mass on the outside lower quadrant of the woman’s left breast which he tentatively classified as a galactocele or a milk-filled cyst, but no further tests were performed. Ten months later, the woman returned to her Staten Island gynecologist complaining of a painful lump in her left breast and a swelling under her left arm. Following a mammography and other examinations, the mass in the woman’s breast was diagnosed as cancer which had metastasized or spread, to three ribs and two vertebrae. The woman died nearly two years later, as a result of the extensive metastasis of the cancer leaving as the sole beneficiary of her estate her then four-year-old daughter.

At the time her condition was first diagnosed, she was in the process of obtaining a divorce from her husband who contributed nothing toward her own or her child’s support. Although after the birth of her daughter, she had discontinued working outside the home, she was certified as a teacher for kindergarten through twelfth grade and had been a permanent substitute teacher in the Lawrence school district for one and one-half years prior to her daughter’s birth. She held undergraduate degrees in art education and psychology and was working toward obtaining an advanced degree in psychology in preparation for a child psychology program. She had always been a very self-sufficient and independent person. She had fully participated in the daily activities of her child. Because of her rapidly deteriorating physical condition and the negative effects of the medical treatment, the woman’s life changed to a tragically radical degree. She initially underwent two months of hormone therapy which was discontinued when she stopped responding. She began experiencing excruciating pain in her right leg which was determined to be caused by an additional lesion. She was then placed on a program of pain killers including morphine and methadone which her treating physician testified only dulled the recognition of pain in the brain but did not eliminate the pain. She also received a combination of five chemotherapy drugs which caused debilitating side effects. She became constipated, weak and tired, suffered from insomnia and began losing weight at the rate of two or three pounds per week. Her bones became very brittle and she was warned by her physicians to be very careful to avoid breaking them. In fact, she had to be hospitalized on three separate occasions for hypocalcaemia which is an elevation of calcium in the blood causing sleeplessness, lethargy, confusion, difficulty in walking, severe dehydration and ultimately death. The continuous vomiting caused by the chemotherapy resulted in dental infections and the loss of six teeth which she had to have extracted with only a minimal amount of novacaine due to the chemotherapy.

The woman became a virtual invalid. She relied on a homemaker, her friends and family to care for her child, to shop for her, to clean her house, to prepare meals and to drive her to the hospital. She had no physical strength. She was too weak to pick up her daughter or to perform any type of housework. Moreover, because of her weakened bones, she was afraid to go to any crowded places such as a train station or shopping mall for fear of being hit in her ribs or vertebrae. In any event, she was physically unable to shop for herself. Her social life became nonexistent.

Continue reading

Published on:

On 4 March 1986, plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice personal injury action against the defendant, a licensed physician, alleging that defendant was negligent in the care and treatment of plaintiff’s infant daughter and ultimately caused the child’s wrongful death.

In 1985, as part of a comprehensive reform of medical malpractice, the Legislature enacted CPLR 3406(a) which requires plaintiffs to file a notice of dental, medical or podiatric malpractice action within 60 days of joinder of issue. Plaintiff failed to timely file this notice. Thus, as a sanction, the Appellate Division dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint and reversed the lower court’s decision; the court found that plaintiff had failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for her eight-month delay in seeking an extension and had not demonstrated the merit of her claims.

The Issues:

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:

New legislation has been passed in the state of Florida to restrict the ability of patients to sue medical professionals who try to provide treatment to them explains a report.

Many republican lawmakers are trying to justify the cost of the state’s Medicaid program. They are trying to reduce costs to the hospitals by reducing the chances of lawsuit losses for hospitals in the state. This is designed as a way of encouraging cooperation between doctors, hospitals and insurance companies.

The House of Representatives recently passed new legislation that would restrict using expert witnesses in lawsuit cases explains a source. The bill first said that hospitals would not be held liable for negligence of contracted providers unless the hospital exercises complete control.

Continue reading

Contact Information