This case was tried and won despite a vigorous defense which blamed the victim. We were able to show that the defendants were negligent in the maintenance of their building through expert testimony and cross examination of witness. We showed the severity of our client’s injuries to the jury. Which made this the ninth highest verdict in the State of New York for 2011.
The defendants contented that the police vehicle had a green light and slowed down before entering the intersection. We were able to show that the police vehicle was driven at an imprudent speed considering the time of day and amount of traffic. This was the 7th highest verdict for a motor vehicle accident in 2002.
The driver of the bus claimed that a car had cut him off requiring him to stop short. We were able to show that even if that were the case, there was still sufficient time to stop safely and avoid the happening of this incident.
The defendants had argued that the injuries were not severe and that he should be able to return to work. However, we were able to show, through the retention of the appropriate experts, that there was significant injuries and lost wages. We were able to show the defendants violated Labor Law Sections 240(1) and 200 and we were granted Summary Judgment on the issue from Court.
The defendants claimed that our client should have used the handrail and would have avoided falling. We were able to show that the plaintiff tried to grab the handrail but was unable to do so. Additionally, contrary to what the defendants claimed, that our client achieved a good recovery. We were able to show that she in fact continues to have residual problems.
The victim died due to the defendants failure to recognize a pulmonary embolism, which ultimately led to a stroke and her death.
Our client sustained serious spinal injuries which require surgical intervention. Defendants contended that the accident involved a light impact and could not have caused the injuries to our client. Defendants claimed that the injuries stemmed from pre-existing conditions that occurred as a result of two prior car accidents. We were able to show that the injuries were as a result of this accident and that our client was unable to return to work as a school teacher as a result.
The 67-year-old had a nerve severed in her dominant arm causing her to lose some use of that arm which required a further surgery to transplant a nerve for her to regain use of the function in that arm. The defendants argued that there was no departure from good and accepted practice and that this was simply a risk of the surgery. However, we were able to demonstrate, through the use of experts, that in fact the defendants’ surgeon was unaware that he had transected the nerve causing the damage, and thus, departed from good and accepted medical practice.
As a result there were serious spinal injuries which necessitated surgery.
As a result, he sustained fractures to his arm which necessitated surgical intervention.
Kostantinos Mallas, the partner in charge of the personal injury department and senior trial attorney, proved that the defendant committed malpractice by failing to provide blood thinners to his patient who injured her knee on Christmas day in 2009. The defendants argued that the medical standard did not indicate the need for blood thinners in this instance. Through expert testimony, Mr. Mallas was able to convince the jury that it was a deviation from good an accepted medical practice not to prescribe blood thinners. The decedent ultimately developed a deep vein thrombosis (blood clot) which led to a pulmonary embolism, causing her death on January 20, 2010.
He broke his ankle, necessitating surgical intervention.
As a result, she sustained a herniated disc in her spine.
As a result, she suffered injuries to her wrist, shoulder and back which prevented her from returning to her job.
Prior to trial the man died of complications from his injuries. The 86 year old man never testified the proof was entirely circumstantial evidence of how he tripped and fell.
