In December 2003, she had an abnormal chest X-ray following complaints of a persistent cough, blood in the sputum and a fever. Back never ordered any follow-up chest X-ray, blood work or other diagnostic tests. Adams continued to make complaints of upper respiratory problems and also experienced significant and unintended weight loss. Eight weeks later, she died from lung cancer. Her estate then filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit alleging a failure to timely diagnose her condition. Back contended that her allegations were time-barred based on the running of the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court, however, allowed Adams’ estate to strike the statute of limitations defense and denied Back’s motion for summary judgment. The case is now proceeding. (See Adams v. Back, 2009 WL 2177266).

Similarly, in early August, the appellate court denied another appeal from a defendant who sought summary judgment regarding a medical malpractice suit. In this case, the wife of the Farnoush Rezvani, now deceased, seeks recovery based on his doctor’s failure to timely diagnose a perforated colon and for lack of informed consent. The doctor performed a surgery on the Rezvani, during which his colon was perforated; he died one month later after multiple corrective surgeries.

The court held that the defendant’s expert witness failed to establish that the defendant detected the perforation in a timely manner; the court also held that the defendant did not meet her burden of proof to establish that she sufficiently informed the Rezvani of potential risks, benefits and alternatives prior to the surgery. Because the court affirmed the decision to deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the lawsuit is now still proceeding successfully (See Rezvani v. Somnay, 2009 WL 2394315).

These cases demonstrate that those who have suffered injuries from similar “failure to diagnose” medical malpractice situations – whether individually or through their loved ones – have a right to pursue such a cause of action. If you share a similar story, please let one of our attorneys know, and we will help you with the attention you deserve.

Trolman, Glaser and Lichtman: Don’t settle for less!

Although a school security guard was standing nearby, he was distracted at the time of the incident and subsequently did not respond immediately to Ramos’ assault.  Ramos had reported previous altercations with his bullies to school staff or security personnel, but “nothing [ever] happened” as a result of his reporting the situation.  In fact, the record indicates that the security guard himself had been warned by “[other] students” that “some kids were outside the school . . . to jump [Ramos],” and that he had even observed three suspicious individuals lurking around the school at the time of the incident but did not do anything about it.  Ramos alleges that his injuries were caused by the City’s negligent supervision of students at the school.  The case is therefore still proceeding.  (See Ramos v. City of New York, 2009 WL 2356877).

New York law recognizes a cause of action in a case where education officials negligently supervise in an assault between students.  The law itself is well-settled:  “In determining wither the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” (Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49 (1994)).  “[W]hether the actions of a school, or its board members, are adequate and reasonable and, if they are not, whether the negligence is the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, are almost always questions of fact” (Garcia v. City of New York, 222 A.D.2d 192, 194 (1st Dept.1996)).

Ramos stands a good chance for winning this lawsuit if a rational jury indeed concludes that based on the record, the school was negligent in failing to take measures to lessen the threat of an assault on a student.  For instance, the school could have ordered the suspicious students to disperse, called for additional security, or contacted the police.  As always, such questions of notice, foreseeability of danger, and the necessity for and adequacy of supervision, are generally for the jury.


Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t Settle for Less!

A six year old slipped from a wet ladder rung while climbing the slide when it was wet and fractured her elbow.  Her elbow healed in a misaligned fashion and will cause her pain, swelling, and episodes in which her arm will lock up almost every day.  The mother of the child filed suit against the City of New York for negligently failing to create slip resistant rungs on the slide.  The jury decided in favor of the child and her mother and awarded her $3,200,000 for both past and future pain and suffering.

The court found the City had failed to comply with its own specification calling for slip resistant rungs for the protection of the children.  Testimony of the architect established that the city not only had agreed on the protection standard but had approved of the plans for the playground that included slip resistant protection.  This was considered especially necessary because near the slide was a set of spray showers that the children often played in before enjoying the slide.  Therefore the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded damages to the child for the past and future pain that she would suffer from her injuries.  (Carrasquillo v. City of New York, 2008 NY Slip Op 28400).

Playground Accident: Monkeying Around:

On July 30, 2009, the parents of David M. Gray lost on appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit against their local school district.  Their six years old boy fell off the monkey bars and broke his elbow.  The parents claimed that the height of the bars was too high and that the cushioning underneath was insufficient to cushion the fall of their child.  In addition, the parents claimed that the school was negligent in their supervision of their child.

The Supreme Court found there to be no issues of disputed facts and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Both the lower and the appellate court held that the defendants presented a prima facie argument to merit a judgment as a matter of law.  The defendants successfully present that the playground met the safety standards.  In addition the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that there were any issues of material fact.  Therefore the court issued a summary judgment for the defendants finding that the playground met safety standards; also the court held that the school was not negligent because there was an afterschool counselor there supervising and the child had been on the monkey bars a few times prior to the injury.  The plaintiffs failed on appeal and the case has been dismissed. (Dean Gray, V South Colonie Central School District, 2009 NY Slip Op 6069)

Updates on Our Law Firm:

Recently Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman successfully appealed the dismissal of Nestor Perez’s suit against the City of New York.  The plaintiff slipped, fell, and broke his leg while playing soccer in a playground owned by the defendant city.  The Supreme Court had denied the plaintiffs request for a continuance and had dismissed the case because the plaintiffs had not continued with the commencement of trial.  However the plaintiffs and their counsel successfully appealed to the Appellate Division and had the order reversed.  The Appellate Division found that the continuance should be granted and the trial should continue because the plaintiffs had exercised due diligence in their trial preparation.  The appellate court found that the delay in the trial was actually caused by the defendant’s failure to promptly disclose all the requested documents during discovery.  Therefore the lawsuit could continue because of this successful appeal.  The action is still proceeding.  (Nestor Perez, v the City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 4270).

Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t settle for less!

On June 30, 2009, an appellate court affirmed, with costs, a decision allowing a recovery for personal injuries arising out of a slip-and-fall.  Plaintiff Andrea Rodriguez slipped and fell in the lobby of the building where she was employed, due to a puddle of water that had accumulated on the tile floor.  Rodriguez asserts that “[a] lot” of rain was falling that morning, and that there were no mats or rugs on the lobby floor. After the plaintiff and her husband, suing derivatively, commenced this action, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition.

The court noted, however, that “[a] defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie case that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it.” (Sloane v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 AD3d 522, 523 [internal quotations omitted]).  In this case, the defendants failed to meet their burden. Although they submitted the deposition testimony of their property manager and the plaintiff in support of their motion, they offered no evidence as to when the lobby floor was last inspected prior to the plaintiff’s accident.  Accordingly, the appellate division agreed with the trial court that the action could proceed and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
(Rodriguez v. Hudson View Associates, LLC, 2009 WL 1884844, N.Y.S.2d).

Workplace Injury:

A New York state appellate court recently affirmed a decision holding Duane Reade liable for a personal injury suffered by a mechanic working in one of its stores.  Mechanic Steven Weisman was injured when he fell from a beam he had been standing on in order to reach an inoperable heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit located on the roof of a store leased and occupied by the defendant Duane Reade, Inc.  Weisman had been dispatched to the store in response to a “no-heat” call.
(See Weisman v. Duane Reade, Inc., July 14, 2009 WL 2032106 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dep’t))

Summertime Injury:

The appellate division also recently recognized as valid a claim brought forth by a Brooklyn resident who was injured when an air conditioner fell from the window of a building owned by the defendants.  Although defendants attempted to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it was the tenant living in the apartment who caused the air conditioner to fall when he was removing it from the window, the court ruled that because they “offered no evidence, other than inadmissible hearsay, as to why the air conditioner fell from the window” and “failed to show that they were not negligent in their initial inspection of the air conditioner’s installation,” they could still be held liable for the plaintiff’s injury.
(See Saunders v. 551 Galaxy Realty Corp., N.Y.S.2d, 2009 WL 1957389).

Updates on our Law Firm:

Michael T. Altman of Trolman, Glaser and Lichtman is currently representing Luis Cueto against Walgreen.  The action concerns an altercation between Cueto and employees of Walgreen.  The appellate court recently affirmed the trial court’s decision denying defendants’ request to conduct a psychiatric examination of Cueto.  The action is still proceeding.
(Cueto v. Walgreen, 880 N.Y.S.2d 526, June 16, 2009)

General Information about Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman:

For the past 40 years, the attorneys at Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman have successfully represented victims of medical malpractice, automobile accidents, workplace injuries and other personal injury accidents.  The firm has recovered millions of dollars for its clients, including a $14 million verdict for a woman who was seriously injured in an automobile accident due to faulty roadway construction, a $12 million settlement for two children who were severely burned by an unsecured gas range in their own apartment, and $4.9 million for a construction worker who suffered a serious back injury due to inadequate safety at a worksite.

Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t settle for less!

New York City hospitals are the least reliable in the state at reporting preventable mistakes and adverse incidents for patients like heart attacks, blood clots, hospital infections and medication errors, according to a new report by the office of City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr.  This inadequacy prevents our hospitals from identifying their systematic issues and improving their individual medical practices.  Our state must be far more diligent in enforcing penalties such as fines against hospitals which have failed to report accurately.  My hope is that these hospitals properly report preventable mistakes and adverse incidents so that they can improve their services to prevent medical malpractice from occurring.

Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t settle for less!

This case is another example of the dangerous practices landlords participate in all across our state, especially here in New York City.  The landlord and former landlord of this Bronx apartment building illegally subdivided apartments in order to achieve more rent.  This illegal partitioning creates a serious threat to the residents occupying the building as well as firefighters.  In this incident, the two firefighters had to jump from a window to escape the blaze.  The partitions left the firefighters disoriented forcing them to jump - ultimately to their deaths.  Firefighters risk their lives everyday to protect the lives of others - when illegal actions such as this cause unnecessary risks it is time we take action.  The verdict found both the landlord and former landlord guilty of criminally negligent homicide.  Though the verdict won’t bring back the lives of the two firemen it will serve those who caused the deaths significant punishment for their actions.  Once again, this case is an example of how our antiquated New York Wrongful Death law prevents full measure of damages.  The law does not allow compensation for the emotional loss and grief of loved ones left.  Albany must act.

Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t settle for less!

This tragedy took the lives of a mother and her three children after they were trapped inside their second floor apartment by a fire which broke out on a nearby stairway.  The fire prevented their escape since the Landlord failed to have a required fire escape.  This is yet another example of when a landlord violated building code and as a result innocent lives are taken.  In this incident a summons was issued to the landlord after the tragedy happened.  Once again it was too late.  The City must take immediate action and properly inspect all buildings for violations such as this one in order to prevent these types of accidents from ever happening.  It is my hope that the City strictly enforces building violations and demands landlords to bring their properties up to code immediately.

Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t settle for less!

This is another tragic medical malpractice case that has been prolonged by our court system.  An already paralyzed man was put through tremendous torture because doctors took the law in their hands.  This paraplegic was pulled from his wheelchair, handcuffed to a hospital bed, and then forced to consume dangerous levels of laxatives for 27 hours.  He was then probed by doctors while police watched.  The hospital, Our Lady Of Mercy Medical Center in the Bronx, thought the man was a drug mule when he came in with stomach pain based on X-rays showing several spherical shapes they mistakenly identified as condoms stuffed with drugs.  They were gall bladder stones identified by a second radiologist later on.  After years of physical therapy the paralyzed man has still not gained full control over his own bodily functions.  After more than a decade this man will finally see his day in court.

Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t settle for less!

This is an unfortunate accident that took the life of a 26 - year old teacher in Brooklyn, which may result in a claim.  We don’t know the details of this case but New York’s antiquated Wrongful Death Law will limit family members recourse.  As a result of our Wrongful Death law family members of Hwi Wu will have limited recourse in the court system for emotional loss and grief.  Albany must take action now.  The law needs to change so family members get some form of compensation when tragedies such as this take place.

Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t settle for less!

This is another example of how our legal system attempts to address critical safety issues. The Buildings Department is now focused on new rules and regulations aimed at preventing another devastating crane collapse in New York City. The crane parts are finally going to be better tracked so that crane operators can be more confident that they are working a structurally sound machine. Last May, a crane collapse took the lives of Donald Leo (30) and Ramadan Kurtaj (28). The age and mechanical condition of the crane are the focus of a federal probe and lawsuit. It is my hope that the lawsuit and probe are successful in creating strict crane-oversight programs preventing these types of events from ever occurring.

Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t settle for less!