A pregnant woman close to full term came to the emergency room for the third time in a week with complaints of headache. While in the ER she had what was believed to be a seizure. Our doctors were called in and treated her under the presumption that she had eclampsia, a life threatening condition for the mother and baby. Our clients stabilized her and delivered a healthy boy. They admitted her to the ICU and ordered a work-up including head CT scan.
A few hours later she had a hemorrhage and eventually died. It turned out she had hydrocephalus which could have been picked up with an MRI or CT scan and treated.
The ER doctors who saw her on the 3 occasions were found to be negligent for not getting scans. Plaintiff claimed our clients should have done it too. Ed Dondes argued on behalf of our clients that the presumption that she had eclampsia was proper and treatment was stabilization and delivery with the order of a head scan after delivery, which was appropriate given the emergent circumstances.
In this case for dental malpractice our client was alleged to have negligently replaced a lower right bridge with an ill-fitting lower right bridge, with unnecessary preparation of the tooth, restoration and implant costs, pain and suffering. Plaintiff claimed that the co-defendant dentists implemented a negligent treatment plan and failed to obtain his informed consent. Plaintiff alleged that our client, the dental group, was vicariously liable for the treatment and for allowing unlicensed treatment by a former dentist and technician.
Steve Mutz argued that the treating dentists were independent contractors and disputed that there was any unlicensed dental treatment. He contended that the lower right bridge required expansion due to the loss of an abutment tooth and that the informed consent was established by signed consent forms. Finally plaintiff’s expert conceded consent was “ideal” on cross-examination. Finally, Mr. Mutz stressed that plaintiff abandoned his treatment and negligently wore a temporary bridge made of acrylic for several years.
Result: The judge granted Mr. Mutz’s motion for a directed verdict at the end of the plaintiff’s and defendants’ cases.
Plaintiff was performing demolition work on the roof of a Manhattan skyscraper when the 300 lb. cart of debris he was pulling up a ramp tipped over and crushed his foot claiming a permanent disability. The plaintiff brought Labor Law claims pursuant to 240(1) and four separate 241(6) claims based on Industrial Code sections 23-1.7(f), 23-1.11(a) and 23-1.22(b) and (c)(1) against the building owner, the owner’s managing agent and the construction manager. Continue reading
Ed Dondes represented a hospital and an electrophysiologist who was seen by the plaintiff for a consultation on his atrial fibrillation. Mr. Dondes’ client recommended a procedure known as cardiac ablation after the plaintiff expressed a reluctance to go on lifetime medication for the condition. The plaintiff tolerated the procedure without any complications, however, one month later he experienced a rare but known complication – atrial esophageal fistula and stroke. Mortality rate for this complication is extremely high, however, our client timely responded and had plaintiff admitted to the hospital where he underwent surgery, essentially saving his life. Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital for a month followed by in-patient rehabilitation. He claimed permanent injuries including impotence, fatigue, neurological deficits. His wife claimed loss of consortium.
Plaintiff’s theory was that the proper standard of care required a trial of medication before performing the cardiac ablation and that had he been offered medication he would have tried it prior to electing to undergo the procedure. Our client maintained that plaintiff was offered medication, but chose to have the procedure instead. Unfortunately, our client’s records did not document that plaintiff chose to pass on the medication. Nonetheless, the jury accepted our doctor’s testimony.
In this dental malpractice action, plaintiff claimed lack of informed consent, negligent placement of dental implants and failure to take a preoperative CT scan and postoperative x-rays. Plaintiff claimed the implants caused her pain, swelling, infection and anguish. She alleged the dentist failed to explain the procedure’s risks and benefits and did not discuss the alternatives and thus failed to obtain her informed consent. She also asserted she could not read the Consent form without her glasses. Her CT scans confirmed two implants had passed the bony floor of the sinus.
Steve Mutz argued that a preoperative CT scan was unnecessary since a panorex x-ray accurately demonstrated positioning of the bone level for placement of the dental implants. Mr. Mutz further contended that the implants were properly placed since stabilization was achieved and they had not pierced the Schneiderian membrane. Moreover, he asserted that implants protruding into the sinus was an accepted complication of the procedure. He negated plaintiff’s claim of the need for glasses to read the consent form by subpoenaing her eye doctor’s records showing 20/20 vision. Finally, Mr. Mutz argued that postoperative x-rays were taken during the next visit, and it would have made no difference if they were taken any earlier, since plaintiff declined removal.
Plaintiff sued our assured psychiatrist and other defendants asserting civils rights violations in connection with her role in a Family Court neglect proceeding which culminated in his loss of parental custody. Our client was appointed by the court to perform a forensic psychiatric evaluation of the plaintiff. Plaintiff asserted claims against our client for violating his civil rights pursuant to 42 USC 1983 of the 14th Amendment as well as claims for defamation. Continue reading
The plaintiff in this action worked for a coffee distribution company when with knowledge of a broken light, exited from work through the loading dock and tripped over the bottom of a concrete ramp that had been poured to elevate trucks to the surface of the dock, fracturing his patella which required surgery. He contended he fell due to a nonworking light and an improperly designed ramp which failed have handrails and yellow visibility paint.
Although he received Workers’ Compensation benefits, he sued his employer and his employer’s parent company as well as a defunct affiliated company, as well as his employer’s landlord and a company affiliated with the landlord that shared the building. G&S took over the defense of all five defendants. Only the contractor that built the ramp was not being defended by G&S. Continue reading
Dawn Adelson’s Cross-Examination Of Plaintiff’s Expert Leads To A Rare Discontinuance In The Middle Of The Trial, In A Claim That Our Client, An Eye Surgeon, Caused Plaintiff’s Retinal Detachment And Resultant Loss Of Vision. Supreme Court, Westchester County – 2016
Plaintiff, a 72 year old physician, underwent left-eye cataract surgery performed by our client. Plaintiff’s post-operative course was complicated by intermittent complaints of pain to the eye, blurry vision, inflammation and clouding of the posterior capsule. Our client treated plaintiff with a course of steroids and performed a YAG laser capsulotomy for the opacification seven weeks post-surgery. One and a half years after the cataract surgery plaintiff suffered a retinal detachment and permanent loss of vision. Plaintiff brought suit alleging the detachment was due to our client’s failure to diagnose and remove retained lens material from the eye. Plaintiff pointed to the post-operative inflammation as evidence of same and argued that the laser capsulotomy should not have been performed in the immediate post-operative period while plaintiff was still on steroids. Plaintiff argued this triggers an uncontrolled persistent inflammation, resulting in retinal detachment and permanent vision loss. Continue reading
Plaintiff, the General Counsel and Executive Vice President of a developer of Manhattan real estate, brought suit for serious personal injuries he sustained to his face after he was struck by a foul ball at a game between the New York Yankees and the Oakland Athletics in 2011. Plaintiff contended that defendants were negligent because they did not ban the umbrellas that were obstructing his view or cancel or postpone the game due to intermittent and sometimes heavy rainfall. Continue reading
Jon Lichtenstein Removes Case To Federal Court And Obtains Summary Judgment On The Grounds Of No Serious Injury. Court Makes Several Important Findings Making Mva Cases Easier To Defend. United States District Court, Eastern District, Honorable John Gleeson
The plaintiff livery driver was hit in the rear while at a red light. He brought suit against the operator, the employer and the lessor of the vehicle claiming serious injuries to his low back, left knee, right shoulder and neck. We represented all the defendants. Plaintiff brought the case in Kings County, but we removed it to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction in order to 1) put plaintiff’s attorney at a disadvantage; 2) to obtain a more defense oriented jury pool; 3) for a faster resolution of the case; 4) and to access a judge with the time and ability to sift through the thicket of factual and legal issues necessary to win on summary judgment on the grounds of the serious injury threshold of the New York No Fault law. Continue reading