After you received the notice of a malpractice or any harm through the medical department, you should hire a New York Personal injury attorney. You or a family member can become injured through no fault of your own from car accidents, medical malpractice, construction accidents, toxic exposures, faulty drugs, slip and falls, workplace events and elevators accidents. It doesn't matter how it happened; if you've been hurt because of someone else, contact a New York personal injury attorney.
Every state has their own unique legal standards regarding what suits can be brought for compensation before the court system, the monetary limit on remunerations, and the statute of limitations. A competent personal injury lawyer in New York is aware of how to work within the mandates of state law. New York personal injury attorney can mean the difference between obtaining a large settlement or verdict, and settling for too little or losing your case altogether.
It is hard enough just trying to deal with your - or a family member's - injury. Some times or many times it happens. You know very well that some one else is responsible for the accident. But you may have to pay for injuries and make up for lost wages. New York personal injury lawyer can achieve the largest possible settlement or verdict in these situations and make a trying time easier to handle.
Injuries can occur when driving, working, during medical treatment, and even when taken medicines to get better.
In most cases, the negligence or carelessness of another individual, business, healthcare professional, or pharmaceutical company can result in an injury to you or your family. If the worst case scenario comes to pass, a lot of people don't know how to start to seek compensation.
Thankfully, there's no need for you to go it alone. Your New York personal injury attorney will be aware of how to traverse the legal system and secure a victory for your claim.
Your attorney will be representing your interest every step of the way from the court filings, discovery, trial and arranging the terms of a settlement. Personal injury law may be very difficult to understand, but you will be able to obtain the assistance that you require. Get in touch with a seasoned New York personal injury attorney and get a free consultation, as most offer complimentary initial reviews for free. You can see if your suit will be approved by them after their evaluation.
In order to help you not only win your day in court and ensure that you receive the maximum amount of benefits and damages that you are entitled to, a New York personal injury attorney will use their extensive knowledge of New York state law.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Do I Need A New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer
If you are a victim of malpractice then do not wait another minute and consult a New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer. Medical malpractice is a very common mishap and the public is largely misinformed of their legal rights. You need to know your rights
and options, and a New York medical malpractice lawyer can help.
There are many kinds of malpractice. Some examples are delivery errors, hospital malpractice, surgical errors, failure to diagnose and medications errors. When unforeseen circumstances occur and you are unsure where to turn, look up a New York medical malpractice lawyer.
Medical malpractice claims are very complex so having a specialist lawyer will benefit you greatly. You should hire a New York medical malpractice lawyer to work on your case. You can't normally take this kind of case on by yourself. You have to talk to a lawyer once malpractice has occured, the sooner the better.
There are a lot of malpractice cases. However the majority of medical professionals won't want to acknowledge that an error made was due to their negligence. Insurance companies somtimes deny claims and instead of helping the victims, fight them. The victims and their families are left to face the financial turmoil brought about by these mistakes. Those are reasons why a competent New York medical malpractice lawyer is important. They have the ability to go after the insurance companies to make your case. Good lawyers
have experience with these types of cases and can help you to get the compensation that you deserve.
Be sure to carefully choose your New York medical malpractice attorney. You know that not any lawyer just take your case. Choose someone with a lot of experience and resources in bringing medical malpractice lawsuits. In choosing an attorney, find out their success rate and how many
cases they have actually taken to trial.
After all, you want to hire a lawyer that will win your case.
When deciding which lawyer to go with be sure to carefully examine their fee policies. Do they require a lot of fees up front If so, they may not be the best choice. Most lawyers only charge a percentage of the amount of money that you win so that you do not have to pay anything up front.
You will win your case if you choose a good New York Medical malpractice lawyer. Victims of medical malpractice deserve to be compensated for their pain and suffering and their financial losses. New York Medical Malpractice attorneys will fight for you and make sure your goals are accomplished.
and options, and a New York medical malpractice lawyer can help.
There are many kinds of malpractice. Some examples are delivery errors, hospital malpractice, surgical errors, failure to diagnose and medications errors. When unforeseen circumstances occur and you are unsure where to turn, look up a New York medical malpractice lawyer.
Medical malpractice claims are very complex so having a specialist lawyer will benefit you greatly. You should hire a New York medical malpractice lawyer to work on your case. You can't normally take this kind of case on by yourself. You have to talk to a lawyer once malpractice has occured, the sooner the better.
There are a lot of malpractice cases. However the majority of medical professionals won't want to acknowledge that an error made was due to their negligence. Insurance companies somtimes deny claims and instead of helping the victims, fight them. The victims and their families are left to face the financial turmoil brought about by these mistakes. Those are reasons why a competent New York medical malpractice lawyer is important. They have the ability to go after the insurance companies to make your case. Good lawyers
have experience with these types of cases and can help you to get the compensation that you deserve.
Be sure to carefully choose your New York medical malpractice attorney. You know that not any lawyer just take your case. Choose someone with a lot of experience and resources in bringing medical malpractice lawsuits. In choosing an attorney, find out their success rate and how many
cases they have actually taken to trial.
After all, you want to hire a lawyer that will win your case.
When deciding which lawyer to go with be sure to carefully examine their fee policies. Do they require a lot of fees up front If so, they may not be the best choice. Most lawyers only charge a percentage of the amount of money that you win so that you do not have to pay anything up front.
You will win your case if you choose a good New York Medical malpractice lawyer. Victims of medical malpractice deserve to be compensated for their pain and suffering and their financial losses. New York Medical Malpractice attorneys will fight for you and make sure your goals are accomplished.
Construction Accident Attorney - Do You Know Your Rights?
No one plans to get injured while doing construction. This is a risky line of work, but compensation is available for the victims who seek it out. This is not workers compensation, so do not let anyone tell you that if you are receiving workers compensation that is all you are entitled to. If you have be injured you need to go about finding a construction accident attorney.
Consider finding a construction accident attorney simply because it will be the best thing for your case. You will be able to recover medical expenses, lost benefits, compensation for pain and suffering, and any other types of damages incurred as a result of malpractice. Simply put, the burden of workplace safety lies squarely on the shoulders of the owner and those who represent him as contractors and agents.
The severity of the accident may differ. But it changes us in many different ways: emotionally, mentally and physically. It is a fact that everyday you spend working in construction exposes you to clear and present danger. But it's all part of the job. Sometimes, no matter how carefull you may be, accidents happen. And in these situations, our family and loved ones also share your pain.
To help protect people who work in construction, the federal government has made it a requirement, and states have made those requirements even more stringent. The reason for these mandates stem from research that shows the number injuries and death constructions workers sustain. In the 15 years between 1980 and 1995, 17,000 workers died from work related injuries. This will average out to 3 workers dying each and every day because of the work that they do.
We are not referring to explosions or large scale catastrophe as we are simply talking about everyday mishaps. Injuries and deaths happen due to construction-related tasks that workers do on a daily basis such as standing on a scaffolding cleaning windows, falling from a ladder, machinery malfunctions. If you are injured on your job as a construction worker, the state of New York has made statutes in the laws especially for this situation. The nature of construction work is such that workers in this industry are rated at a higher risk factor.
Find a construction accident attorney if you have been injured due to a scaffolding accident, fallen from a roof or other elevated surface, been hit by a falling object, injured due to a the collapse of a trench, electrocuted and due to industrial gases.
A construction accident attorney will know and explain the law to you. They will examine the specifics of your case and design a legal strategy to make sure you are justly compensated.
Consider finding a construction accident attorney simply because it will be the best thing for your case. You will be able to recover medical expenses, lost benefits, compensation for pain and suffering, and any other types of damages incurred as a result of malpractice. Simply put, the burden of workplace safety lies squarely on the shoulders of the owner and those who represent him as contractors and agents.
The severity of the accident may differ. But it changes us in many different ways: emotionally, mentally and physically. It is a fact that everyday you spend working in construction exposes you to clear and present danger. But it's all part of the job. Sometimes, no matter how carefull you may be, accidents happen. And in these situations, our family and loved ones also share your pain.
To help protect people who work in construction, the federal government has made it a requirement, and states have made those requirements even more stringent. The reason for these mandates stem from research that shows the number injuries and death constructions workers sustain. In the 15 years between 1980 and 1995, 17,000 workers died from work related injuries. This will average out to 3 workers dying each and every day because of the work that they do.
We are not referring to explosions or large scale catastrophe as we are simply talking about everyday mishaps. Injuries and deaths happen due to construction-related tasks that workers do on a daily basis such as standing on a scaffolding cleaning windows, falling from a ladder, machinery malfunctions. If you are injured on your job as a construction worker, the state of New York has made statutes in the laws especially for this situation. The nature of construction work is such that workers in this industry are rated at a higher risk factor.
Find a construction accident attorney if you have been injured due to a scaffolding accident, fallen from a roof or other elevated surface, been hit by a falling object, injured due to a the collapse of a trench, electrocuted and due to industrial gases.
A construction accident attorney will know and explain the law to you. They will examine the specifics of your case and design a legal strategy to make sure you are justly compensated.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Stunning Summary Reversal in Legal Malpractice Case
In a short, one line reversal, the Court of Appeals put to rest a very old legal malpractice case, Gotay v. Breitbart.. The Court of Appeals simply wrote: "Plaintiff's legal malpractice claim was not brought within the applicable statute of limitations period, and defendants-appellants established as a matter of law that the continuous representation doctrine does not apply."
This is a case that arose in the 1990's at a time when it was not necessary to purchase an index number, and cases were commenced by service of a summons and complaint. In this Erbs palsy case against the NYCHHC, we see several traps that personal injury attorneys feared at the time. Service of the complaint on NYCHHC rather than the hospital, loss of the files in a long intervening period, and failure to purchase an index number when the rules changed.
For a longer discussion of judicial activism and "fanciful" theories see Justice Friedman's dissent in the Appellate Division. This dissent, although not credited in the Court of Appeals decision, is the reason for reversal. It is interesting to note that Justice Lippman wrote the majority opinion in the Appellate Division, which his new court reversed.
From the Dissent:
"This legal malpractice action is the culmination of a long and convoluted chain of events that began three decades ago. Ultimately, however, the lawsuit's timeliness turns on an attorney's sworn—and entirely uncontradicted—account of what occurred at his meeting with plaintiff and her father on January 28, 1999, more than three years before the commencement of the action. The attorney (Mark Hankin) avers in his affidavit that, at the January 1999 meeting, he advised plaintiff and her father that his firm would not undertake plaintiff's representation in a medical malpractice matter arising from her birth in 1977.[FN1] Hankin further states that, in response to his rejection of plaintiff's case, "plaintiff's father requested the immediate return of the file."
In opposing defendants' summary judgment motion, plaintiff submitted no evidence of any kind—not in deposition testimony, not in an affidavit, not in a letter, not in a jotted piece of notepaper—controverting Hankin's account of the January 28, 1999 meeting. Indeed, Hankin's account of the meeting is not even challenged in plaintiff's appellate briefs. The majority nonetheless denies summary judgment to the appealing defendants, based on two theories never suggested by plaintiff. The majority's first theory is that plaintiff and her father (although neither [*6]makes this claim) were unaware that Michael Handwerker, the attorney who had accepted plaintiff's matter several years before, had joined Hankin's firm. The other theory the majority has devised is that Hankin's claim that plaintiff's father requested the return of the file at the January 1999 meeting is somehow placed in doubt by boilerplate language in Hankin's follow-up letter, dated February 22, 1999, offering to return the file "[i]n the event you require the whole or any portion thereof."
This is a case that arose in the 1990's at a time when it was not necessary to purchase an index number, and cases were commenced by service of a summons and complaint. In this Erbs palsy case against the NYCHHC, we see several traps that personal injury attorneys feared at the time. Service of the complaint on NYCHHC rather than the hospital, loss of the files in a long intervening period, and failure to purchase an index number when the rules changed.
For a longer discussion of judicial activism and "fanciful" theories see Justice Friedman's dissent in the Appellate Division. This dissent, although not credited in the Court of Appeals decision, is the reason for reversal. It is interesting to note that Justice Lippman wrote the majority opinion in the Appellate Division, which his new court reversed.
From the Dissent:
"This legal malpractice action is the culmination of a long and convoluted chain of events that began three decades ago. Ultimately, however, the lawsuit's timeliness turns on an attorney's sworn—and entirely uncontradicted—account of what occurred at his meeting with plaintiff and her father on January 28, 1999, more than three years before the commencement of the action. The attorney (Mark Hankin) avers in his affidavit that, at the January 1999 meeting, he advised plaintiff and her father that his firm would not undertake plaintiff's representation in a medical malpractice matter arising from her birth in 1977.[FN1] Hankin further states that, in response to his rejection of plaintiff's case, "plaintiff's father requested the immediate return of the file."
In opposing defendants' summary judgment motion, plaintiff submitted no evidence of any kind—not in deposition testimony, not in an affidavit, not in a letter, not in a jotted piece of notepaper—controverting Hankin's account of the January 28, 1999 meeting. Indeed, Hankin's account of the meeting is not even challenged in plaintiff's appellate briefs. The majority nonetheless denies summary judgment to the appealing defendants, based on two theories never suggested by plaintiff. The majority's first theory is that plaintiff and her father (although neither [*6]makes this claim) were unaware that Michael Handwerker, the attorney who had accepted plaintiff's matter several years before, had joined Hankin's firm. The other theory the majority has devised is that Hankin's claim that plaintiff's father requested the return of the file at the January 1999 meeting is somehow placed in doubt by boilerplate language in Hankin's follow-up letter, dated February 22, 1999, offering to return the file "[i]n the event you require the whole or any portion thereof."
The False Premises of Medical Malpractice "Reform" (Response to Richard Epstein in WSJ)
There's an old saying, "garbage in, garbage out." If you use a false premise to substantiate an argument then the result will be worthless. And that is exactly what University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein does today in the Wall Street Journal (via PofL).
His column How Other Countries Judge Malpractice pretends to support the "reform" of problems in the medical malpractice system. But he supports his arguments with some whoppers and fallacious arguments that don't hold water.
Whopper #1, Epstein writes:
"American courts commonly think it proper for juries to infer medical negligence from the mere occurrence of a serious injury."
This is just flat out false, and every competent lawyer that tries malpractice cases for either the plaintiff or the defendant knows it. Litigants must show -- at least in NY, where I practice, and where Epstein is now a visiting professor at NYU -- specific deviations from care. The jury gets a special verdict to decide if the exact deviation from practice occurred. Epstein does not identify even a single jurisdiction that allows a court to commonly infer negligence from a bad outcome. Not even one.
Whopper #2, Epstein writes:
American plaintiffs are sometimes spared the heavy burden of identifying particular acts of negligence, or of showing the precise causal connection between a negligent act and an actual injury.
Once again, Epstein misses the mark, at least in New York. For a jury must not only return a verdict regarding a specific act of negligence, but they must also find that that specific departure was a substantial cause of injury. If Epstein knows of jurisdictions that allow verdicts without showing a casual connection he should mention them. He does not.
Epstein has an impressive resume. He teaches. He writes. But nowhere in that lengthy summary of ivory tower achievements does he discuss how many juries he has picked or how many times he's tried to convince a jury to bring back a verdict based on the silliness he propounds.
Epstein also identifies four "procedural features that drive up malpractice costs." They are:
The first is jury trials, which can veer out of control and in any case introduce significant uncertainty.
This "procedural feature" is called a constitutional right. The Seventh Amendment's right to jury trials in civil actions is what Epstein is actually complaining about. I reprint it here so that he doesn't have to look far for it:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Epstein's real problem isn't with some procedural feature, it's with the Bill of Rights and our nation's founders and the desire to disperse power away from power-hungry governmental types and put it in the hands of the people. And as to uncertainty with jury verdicts, an alternative system does not ameliorate that issue. Someone somewhere still has to decide the issue. And that person (or people) will come with biases.
The second "procedural feature" is the:
"contingency-fee system, which allows well-heeled lawyers to self-finance litigation."
Of course, if the lawyers didn't fund the litigation, no one except the rich could bring a suit. Allowing others to fund the litigation when they see a cause worth fighting -- and risking their own money for -- is what keeps the courthouse doors open. Does he want to force those that have already been victimized by malpractice to fund the lawsuit as they also wrestle with paying the mortgage while incapacitated? That's a great way to give immunity to those that were negligent.
The third "procedural feature:"
"...is the rule that makes each side bear its own costs. This induces riskier lawsuits than are undertaken in most other countries, such as Canada, England and most of Europe, where the loser pays the legal costs of the winner."
We return again to the concept of keeping the courthouse door open. If you want to strip away the rights of the citizenry, this is the way to go. Those of modest means simply won't be able to bring suit. (And it also may end out rewarding those that are less than honest on the witness stand, causing the injured party to be victimized yet again.)
Epstein trumpets the fact that in other countries there are fewer lawsuits as a result of "loser-pays." But that just means that victims can't afford to bring the suits and they are forced to bear the costs and burdens of the negligence of others.
The fourth is:
"...extensive pretrial discovery outside the direct supervision of judges, which occurs far more readily here than elsewhere."
I've never heard of discovery that didn't have judicial oversight in the event of abuses. Epstein doesn't provide a single reference to any jurisdiction where this allegedly occurs.
Epstein also complains about the cost of litigation. Here is one way to put the brakes on it in New York: Let interest on the judgment run from the date of the malpractice. As it stands now, interest only runs from judgment, which is usually years later. Defendants, their lawyers and the insurance companies profit by dragging the lawsuit out and running the meter. (See: No, your medical malpractice case will NOT settle fast) If they knew they would have to pay interest from the time of the malpractice, they would likely take a different view of things.
His column How Other Countries Judge Malpractice pretends to support the "reform" of problems in the medical malpractice system. But he supports his arguments with some whoppers and fallacious arguments that don't hold water.
Whopper #1, Epstein writes:
"American courts commonly think it proper for juries to infer medical negligence from the mere occurrence of a serious injury."
This is just flat out false, and every competent lawyer that tries malpractice cases for either the plaintiff or the defendant knows it. Litigants must show -- at least in NY, where I practice, and where Epstein is now a visiting professor at NYU -- specific deviations from care. The jury gets a special verdict to decide if the exact deviation from practice occurred. Epstein does not identify even a single jurisdiction that allows a court to commonly infer negligence from a bad outcome. Not even one.
Whopper #2, Epstein writes:
American plaintiffs are sometimes spared the heavy burden of identifying particular acts of negligence, or of showing the precise causal connection between a negligent act and an actual injury.
Once again, Epstein misses the mark, at least in New York. For a jury must not only return a verdict regarding a specific act of negligence, but they must also find that that specific departure was a substantial cause of injury. If Epstein knows of jurisdictions that allow verdicts without showing a casual connection he should mention them. He does not.
Epstein has an impressive resume. He teaches. He writes. But nowhere in that lengthy summary of ivory tower achievements does he discuss how many juries he has picked or how many times he's tried to convince a jury to bring back a verdict based on the silliness he propounds.
Epstein also identifies four "procedural features that drive up malpractice costs." They are:
The first is jury trials, which can veer out of control and in any case introduce significant uncertainty.
This "procedural feature" is called a constitutional right. The Seventh Amendment's right to jury trials in civil actions is what Epstein is actually complaining about. I reprint it here so that he doesn't have to look far for it:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Epstein's real problem isn't with some procedural feature, it's with the Bill of Rights and our nation's founders and the desire to disperse power away from power-hungry governmental types and put it in the hands of the people. And as to uncertainty with jury verdicts, an alternative system does not ameliorate that issue. Someone somewhere still has to decide the issue. And that person (or people) will come with biases.
The second "procedural feature" is the:
"contingency-fee system, which allows well-heeled lawyers to self-finance litigation."
Of course, if the lawyers didn't fund the litigation, no one except the rich could bring a suit. Allowing others to fund the litigation when they see a cause worth fighting -- and risking their own money for -- is what keeps the courthouse doors open. Does he want to force those that have already been victimized by malpractice to fund the lawsuit as they also wrestle with paying the mortgage while incapacitated? That's a great way to give immunity to those that were negligent.
The third "procedural feature:"
"...is the rule that makes each side bear its own costs. This induces riskier lawsuits than are undertaken in most other countries, such as Canada, England and most of Europe, where the loser pays the legal costs of the winner."
We return again to the concept of keeping the courthouse door open. If you want to strip away the rights of the citizenry, this is the way to go. Those of modest means simply won't be able to bring suit. (And it also may end out rewarding those that are less than honest on the witness stand, causing the injured party to be victimized yet again.)
Epstein trumpets the fact that in other countries there are fewer lawsuits as a result of "loser-pays." But that just means that victims can't afford to bring the suits and they are forced to bear the costs and burdens of the negligence of others.
The fourth is:
"...extensive pretrial discovery outside the direct supervision of judges, which occurs far more readily here than elsewhere."
I've never heard of discovery that didn't have judicial oversight in the event of abuses. Epstein doesn't provide a single reference to any jurisdiction where this allegedly occurs.
Epstein also complains about the cost of litigation. Here is one way to put the brakes on it in New York: Let interest on the judgment run from the date of the malpractice. As it stands now, interest only runs from judgment, which is usually years later. Defendants, their lawyers and the insurance companies profit by dragging the lawsuit out and running the meter. (See: No, your medical malpractice case will NOT settle fast) If they knew they would have to pay interest from the time of the malpractice, they would likely take a different view of things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
