Published on:

by

In a medical malpractice case where the patient dies, both wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering claims are relevant and often pursued simultaneously. The wrongful death claim addresses the long-term impact on the surviving family members, providing them with financial compensation for their loss. Meanwhile, the conscious pain and suffering claim focuses on the decedent’s experience, compensating for the distress and pain endured before death. By pursuing both types of claims, the decedent’s estate and family can seek full compensation for the broad spectrum of losses and suffering resulting from the medical malpractice.

In In re Delmoro, the New York Surrogate’s Court addressed the distribution of proceeds from a wrongful death settlement. The case involved the estate of Ronald A. Delmoro, who passed away in 2009 due to medical malpractice. The court’s decision highlighted the complexities in applying the Kaiser formula, a standard method for distributing wrongful death proceeds, and emphasized the need for equitable considerations in such matters.

The Kaiser formula, established in Matter of Kaiser, 198 Misc. 582, 100 N.Y.S.2d 218 (1950), is a method used in wrongful death cases to allocate proceeds among a decedent’s surviving spouse and children. It calculates each distributee’s share based on their years of anticipated dependency. The formula’s denominator is the sum of these years for all eligible distributees, while the numerator for each distributee is their individual years of anticipated dependency. This fraction determines the proportion of the settlement they receive. The formula aims to simplify distribution but may not always yield equitable results, as it doesn’t consider each distributee’s unique circumstances.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Informed consent and apparent authority are two important legal concepts that are relevant in the healthcare industry. Informed consent refers to the right of patients to receive adequate information about their medical treatment options and to make informed decisions about their care. Apparent authority, on the other hand, refers to the legal doctrine that holds hospitals and other healthcare providers responsible for the actions of their employees or agents, even if those actions were not explicitly authorized.

In Johnson v. New York Methodist Hospital the plaintiff alleged that she did not give informed consent for a medical procedure and that the hospital was liable for the actions of an independent contractor who performed the procedure.

Background

by
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information