Spinal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: July 1, 2024

Anesthesiologist accused of failing to maintain adequate anesthesia levels. Cucalon v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 32590 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

Cucalon v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp is a medical malpractice case that started off with the patient being diagnosed with a herniated disc and after treatment ending up with paraplegia. A herniated disc, also known as a slipped disc or ruptured disc, occurs when the soft inner core of a spinal disc pushes through a crack in the tougher outer layer. When a disc herniates, the inner core (nucleus pulposus) can press on nearby nerves or the spinal cord, causing pain, numbness, or weakness in the area of the body where the affected nerve travels. Symptoms can vary depending on the location of the herniated disc and the amount of pressure it puts on surrounding structures.

Paraplegia is a condition characterized by impairment or loss of movement and sensation in the lower half of the body, including both legs and often the lower trunk. It results from damage to the spinal cord, typically at the thoracic (chest) level or below. This damage disrupts the communication between the brain and the parts of the body below the injury site, leading to paralysis. Paraplegia is usually caused by traumatic injuries such as spinal cord trauma from accidents, falls, or sports injuries. However, it can also be caused by medical malpractice. That plaintiff in this case alleges that his paraplegia was due to mistakes made by the anesthesiologist.

Background Facts

Published on: July 1, 2024

Expert testimony conflicted on the adequacy of neurological care provided. Arrington v. Okesanya, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 30116 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Arrington v. Okesanya, the defendant moved for summary judgment under CPLR § 3212. The motion sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s medical malpractice complaint, arguing that Dr. Valsamis did not deviate from accepted medical practice during Reyes Pellot Jr.’s hospitalization at Brooklyn Hospital Center (“TBHC”) in 2014.

In a medical malpractice case, summary judgment dismissing the case requires the defendant to demonstrate convincingly that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any such departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries. If the plaintiff presents evidence contradicting the defendant’s assertions, the court must carefully weigh the merits of both sides before reaching a decision. However, if the plaintiff presents evidence contradicting the defendant’s assertions, the court will likely deny summary judgment and leave it up to the jury to determine which argument is stronger.

Background Facts

Published on: June 30, 2024

Delayed aortic transection surgery allegedly led to paraplegia. Lee v. Westchester Cnty. Health Care Corp., 219 A.D.3d 1509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case concerning alleged medical malpractice, the Supreme Court of Westchester County ruled on a motion for summary judgment involving issues surrounding the treatment of a patient following a car accident. A motion for summary judgment to dismiss a medical malpractice lawsuit is a legal maneuver where the defendant argues that the plaintiff’s case lacks merit based on undisputed facts and legal principles. It aims to resolve the case without a full trial by demonstrating that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This motion is common in medical malpractice cases because it allows defendants to challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence early in the litigation process, potentially saving time and resources by avoiding a lengthy trial if the court agrees with their arguments.

Background Facts

Following a car accident in the early morning hours of August 19, 2014, the plaintiff was transported to Westchester Medical Center by ambulance. There he was attended to by several medical professionals. The plaintiff was diagnosed with an aortic transection around 2:45 a.m., though he remained hemodynamically stable initially. Due to concerns over potential complications, the attending cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr. Ramin Malekan, delayed surgical intervention until around 5:30 a.m. Subsequently, the plaintiff experienced a critical deterioration in blood flow to his lower extremities, prompting Malekan to proceed with aortic transection repair. Surgery commenced at 9:52 a.m., successfully addressing the aortic injury but resulting in the plaintiff’s permanent paraplegia.

Published on: June 30, 2024

Plaintiff’s lawsuit dismissed; defendant argued lack of serious injury. Peart v. Carreras, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 2600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

by Stephen Bilkis

Peart v. Carreras, originating from a motor vehicle collision, focused on the complexities of proving the severity and causation of injuries. As with any personal injury case, the plaintiff must show that the injury suffered was serious. A serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) refers to an injury meeting statutory criteria, such as permanent loss or significant limitation of bodily functions, permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, significant disfigurement, or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature.

Background Facts

The lawsuit stemmed from an incident in which the plaintiff claimed to have sustained severe injuries to multiple areas of his body, including the cervical spine, lumbar spine, thoracic spine, left shoulder, and other limbs, following a motor vehicle accident. Central to the defendants’ defense was the presentation of medical reports and expert testimony. Their orthopedic surgery expert’s evaluation indicated normal ranges of motion in the plaintiff’s claimed injury sites, with no signs of tenderness or other abnormalities. Additionally, analysis of the plaintiff’s MRIs suggested no acute injuries to the spinal areas or left shoulder, instead identifying degenerative conditions unrelated to the accident’s impact. Moreover, a biomechanical engineering expert suggested that the low impact of the collision was insufficient to cause the injuries alleged by the plaintiff.

Published on: June 30, 2024

Court assessed whether injuries were serious as required by insurance law. Massillon v. Regalado, 176 A.D.3d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

A 90/180-day claim typically refers to a type of claim under New York’s No-Fault Insurance Law (Insurance Law § 5102(d)). It involves an assertion by a plaintiff that they suffered a qualifying injury that impaired their ability to perform substantially all of their daily activities for at least 90 out of the 180 days following a motor vehicle accident. This claim is significant because it can affect the determination of whether a plaintiff meets the threshold for “serious injury” under New York law, which is required to bring a lawsuit for damages beyond basic no-fault benefits.

In the case of Massillon v. Regalado, the Supreme Court of Bronx County considered issues related to the 90/180-claim rule as well as whether the plaintiff suffered a serious injury as defined by insurance law.

Background Facts

Published on: June 30, 2024

Court ruled claimant’s spinal injury was not work-related. Nock v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 75 N.Y.S.3d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

Nock v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 75 N.Y.S.3d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018) is the result of the Workers’ Compensation Board ruling against a claimant seeking benefits for a spinal injury allegedly sustained while performing her duties as a school lunch helper. The case, filed on August 24, 2016, involved a claim of injury to the spinal cord, lower back, legs, feet, and thighs. The claimant argued that these injuries were a result of her work activities, including standing, cleaning tables, and lifting heavy pans. However, the Board denied the claim, citing a lack of proof of a causal relationship between the injury and her employment.

Background Facts

The claimant, employed as a school lunch helper, filed for workers’ compensation benefits, claiming that her job duties had caused significant injuries. According to her, the repetitive tasks of standing, cleaning tables, and lifting heavy pans resulted in damage to her spinal cord, lower back, legs, feet, and thighs. She sought compensation for these injuries, which she asserted were directly related to her work environment.

Published on: June 30, 2024

Plaintiffs claimed serious spinal injuries from motor vehicle accident. Morales v. Calcano, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 34615 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

A common issue when it comes to personal injury cases is whether the injury suffered was a “serious injury.” In Morales v. Calcano, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 34615 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020), a motor vehicle accident case, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs did not suffer a “serious injury” as defined by New York Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Background Facts

On April 1, 2016, plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident. The accident led to injuries for both plaintiffs, who then commenced a personal injury action to recover damages. The defendants, in turn, filed motions for summary judgment, asserting that neither plaintiff sustained a “serious injury” under the law.

Published on: June 30, 2024

Plaintiff suffered a spinal injury from a dislodged parking sign. Honer v. McComb, 6 N.Y.S.3d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Honer v. McComb, 6 N.Y.S.3d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015), the County of Monroe appealed a decision denying their motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint against them. The incident involved a parking sign that became dislodged and struck the plaintiff, resulting in a catastrophic spinal injury.

Background Facts

On May 3, 2006, a vehicle driven by John Doe and owned by Kelly McComb struck a parking sign on a sidewalk. The sign, after being hit, detached from its base and flew through the air, hitting the plaintiff, who was standing nearby. This caused the plaintiff to sustain severe spinal injuries.

Published on: June 30, 2024

In a car accident case, defendants argued plaintiff didn’t meet the serious injury threshold. Martinez v. Hillard, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 32204 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

When it comes to recovering damages in a personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff must be able to prove that they suffered serious injuries. In the case of Martinez v. Hillard, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to recover damages for injuries she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff failed to meet the “serious injury” threshold defined by New York Insurance Law §5102(d).

Background Facts

Manuela Martinez, the plaintiff, was involved in a car accident on July 12, 2019, while traveling on City Island Road near Park Drive in Bronx, New York. She was driving a vehicle that was rear-ended by a bus operated by John A. Santana and owned by Lorinda Enterprises. Martinez claimed she sustained significant injuries to her right shoulder, cervical spine, and lumbar spine due to the accident.

Published on: June 30, 2024

Plaintiff alleged injuries to lumbar spine, cervical spine, left shoulder in car accident. Diarra v. City Bronx Leasing Two Inc., 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 34011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the case of Diarra v. City Bronx Leasing Two Inc., the plaintiff, Ibrahima Diarra, alleged injuries from a motor vehicle accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss Diarra’s complaint, arguing that she failed to meet the “serious injury” threshold as defined by New York Insurance Law §5102(d). The plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants.

Background Facts

Ibrahima Diarra was involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 18, 2018, while traveling southbound on Bronx River Avenue and East 174th Street in Bronx, New York. Diarra’s vehicle was struck from the rear by a vehicle operated by Nelson M. Sanchez. At the time of the accident, Diarra had an automobile insurance policy with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, which included coverage for bodily injury and Supplementary Uninsured Motorist (SUM) benefits.