X hits on this document

PDF document

$19,550,157 VERDICT – Product Liability – Asbestos Expsoure – Carpenter contracts ... - page 10 / 32





10 / 32



The defendant denied that she transected the cervix or perforated the uterine wall. The defendant con- tended that if such an event had occurred, the signs would have included dysfunctional vaginal bleeding. The defendant noted the absence of such bleeding in an exam five days following the cone biopsy.

mary care physician, for complaints of abdominal pain, fever, elevated white blood cell count and positive pelvic signs.

The jury found that the defendant was not negligent.


The defense used a digital projection system, which displays records in a large, motion picture-like format on a screen facing the jury. The defendant argued that these entries supported the defense position that there was no objective evidence that these injuries were caused by the defendant, or indeed present, until after plaintiff had undergone a number of ma- nipulations of the cone biopsy site days later at a subsequent hospital, following a referral by her pri-

Plaintiff’s ob/gyn expert: Marc Englebert, MD from New York, NY. Defendant’s gynecological pathology expert: Khush Mittal, MD from New York, NY. Defendant’s ob/gyn expert: Henry Prince, MD from New York, NY.

Ramirez vs. Wu. Index no. 106586/08; Judge Saliann Scarpulla, 02-03-11.

Attorney for defendant: Andrew Garson of Garson DeCorato & Cohen, LLP in New York, NY.



Medical Malpractice – Orthopedics – Plaintiff suffers a fracture at the site of a pedicle screw during a lumbar laminectomy and fusion – Plaintiff claims a lack of informed consent and calls the surgery too extensive given his age and condition.

non-operative treatment had been unsuccessful. The defendant also argued that X-rays taken subsequent to the procedure and the discovery of the fracture provided no radiological evidence that the fusion did not heal properly.

Bronx County, NY

The plaintiff brought this medical malpractice action after undergoing a lumbar sacral laminectomy and fusion which he claimed was an inappropriate procedure considering his age and osteoporosis. During the procedure, the plaintiff suffered a fracture at the site of one of the pedicle screws in his sacrum. The plaintiff claimed approximately $ 750,000 in pain and suffering related to the fracture. The defendant contended the plaintiff gave informed consent for the procedure and that a fracture at the site of one of the screws is an accepted complication.

The 75-year-old male plaintiff underwent the laminectomy and fusion on July 28, 2006 after unsuc- cessful non-operative treatment. He claimed the op- eration was too extensive given his advanced age and the presence of osteoporosis. He additionally de- nied giving informed consent to the procedure.

The defendant claimed there was no evidence the plaintiff had osteoporosis, and contrarily, the defen- dant contended the plaintiff was an appropriate can- didate for the surgery given the fact that previous

The plaintiff did attempt to introduce post-surgery medical records from two different physicians, with- out having disclosed them prior to trial. The court ex- cluded these records based on the lack of disclosure. As this trial developed, a principle issue became the lack of informed consent, yet the plain- tiff professed a lack of recollection of much of the details surrounding the surgery.

The jury therefore found the plaintiff’s credibility lack- ing and rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant.


Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert: Dr. Gregory Shankman, M.D. from Uttica, NY. Defendant’s orthopedic surgeon expert: Dr. Christopher Michelsen, M.D. from New York, NY.

Harvey Yancey vs. Yong H. Kim, M.D. Index no. 301562/2007; Judge Howard H. Sherman, 02-08-11.

Attorney for plaintiff: Chad Young of Sinel & Associates, PLLC in New York, NY. Attorney for defendant: Bruce Brady of Callan, Koster, Brady and Brennan, LLC in New York, NY.



Medical Malpractice – Surgery – Plaintiff undergoing fusion surgery involving L5-S1 and S1-S2 levels contends defendant neurosurgeon negligently opts for minimally invasive surgery notwithstanding alleged vulnerability of small S1 pedicle invasive fusion to treat herniations to injury – Permanent need for cane to walk.

Richmond County, NY

The plaintiff, in his late 30s, who had suffered herniations at L5-S1 and S1-S2 while employed as a construction worker approximately ten months earlier, contended that the defendant neurosurgeon negligently recommended that the patient undergo minimally invasive surgery. The

Volume 28, Issue 9, September 2011

Subscribe Now

Document info
Document views108
Page views108
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 21:47:21 UTC 2017