Suffolk County

Published on: September 21, 2012

A lady was driving a Honda Civic on September 17, 2007 on the Jericho Turnpike. She was parked in

by Stephen Bilkis

A Nassau lady was driving a Honda Civic on September 17, 2007 on the Jericho Turnpike. She was parked in traffic waiting for the light to turn green when a Jeep hit her car from behind. The impact of the rear-end collision pushed her Honda Civic one car length away. Her Honda Civic struck the car in front of her.

The impact of the collision sent the lady driver of the Honda Civic in a lurching motion. She hit the steering wheel and was pulled back by gravity so that she hit her neck and back on the head rest. She claims that she twisted her neck and was in pain.

She claims that she sustained spinal injury in her cervical and lumbar spine. She claims to have discs that have been misaligned and resulted in swellings which brought about impingement of the nerves and great pain.

Published on: September 15, 2012

Defendant argued that plaintiff’s medical records establish that plaintiff

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case wherein the Court ruled that plaintiff’s injuries did not suffer a “serious injury” in the accident as defined by New York State Insurance Law which led for an order granting defendant summary judgment.

Plaintiff commenced the action against defendant allegedly for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of a car accident with defendant which occurred on November 20, 2009, at approximately 7:51 p.m., at or near the intersection of Guinea Woods Road and Jericho Turnpike, Old Westbury, County of Nassau, State of New York. The accident involved a 2008 Chrysler owned and operated by plaintiff and a 2003 Volkswagen owned and operated by defendant. It is plaintiff’s contention that the car accident occurred when defendant’s vehicle struck plaintiff’s vehicle in the aforementioned intersection when, defendant’s vehicle, while speeding, made a left turn in the intersection and failed to yield the right of way.

Defendant argued that plaintiff’s medical records establish that plaintiff had a preexisting medical history of lower back pain that pre-dates and is unrelated to the subject accident. Defendant submits that, on January 22, 2004, almost six years prior to the subject accident, plaintiff went to a physician with complaints of back pain from the proceeding year and admitted that the condition originated five to six years earlier. Defendant added that the medical records of plaintiff’s treating physician, further showed that plaintiff had pre-existing spinal injury, lumbar stenosis and pain of his lumbar spine for which he was treating from 2004 through 2006 and again in 2009 prior to the subject accident.

Published on: September 11, 2012

This involves a case where the court ruled that plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury”

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the court ruled that plaintiff did not sustain a “serious injury” contemplated under New York State Insurance Law § 5102(d).

A car accident occurred on January 30, 2008, at approximately 8:15 a.m., at or near the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Locustwood Boulevard, Elmont, Nassau County, New York. The accident involved a 2005 Suzuki Verona four-door sedan owned and operated by defendant. On that date, at that time, it was raining out and plaintiff, who is four feet ten inches tall, was holding an umbrella standing on the southwest corner of the aforementioned intersection waiting for the pedestrian light to change from red to green so she could cross Hempstead Turnpike. Plaintiff claimed that she looked before crossing and did not see any vehicles on Locustwood Boulevard making a turn onto Hempstead Turnpike. Plaintiff further claimed that, as she was crossing Hempstead Turnpike, she was struck in the rear, specifically her lower back, by the front of defendant’s vehicle. As a result of the impact, plaintiff was thrown to the side. Plaintiff commenced an action by the filing a Verified Complaint for spinal injuries sustained.

Defendant argued that the Suffolk plaintiff already crossed in front of her, but then due to wind catching her umbrella, plaintiff walked backwards into the defendants vehicle. Plaintiff denied that the wind turned her umbrella inside out. Clearly, the parties give conflicting testimony with regard to how the accident occurred and plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment.

Published on: August 31, 2012

As a result of the collision, plaintiff claims that he sustained the following injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

The action for damages stems from personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs as a result of a pedestrian knockdown/automobile accident with defendants which at Albany Avenue, Amityville, County of Suffolk, State of New York. At the time of the accident, plaintiff Mariano Lopez was a pedestrian and defendant Ronnell Davis (“Davis”) was the operator of a 2009 Dodge Charger that was owned by rental a company, defendant ELRAC. Defendant Davis’ girlfriend had rented the vehicle from defendant ELRAC.

A Suffolk Lawyer said that, plaintiff alleged that at the time of the accident, he was a school security guard, and was struck by the front of defendants’ automobile when it was in the driveway in front of the school where he was working. It is alleged that defendants’ vehicle entered the school driveway to drop off a child and was unable to back out of said one-way driveway due to a school bus pulling behind it. Plaintiff contend that, when defendants’ vehicle was moving forward after being blocked by the school bus, it struck him in the area of his right knee, causing him to fall onto the hood of defendants’ vehicle. Defendant Davis argues that his vehicle never struck plaintiff and that the only contact between plaintiff and defendants’ vehicle was when plaintiff placed his hands on said vehicle to prevent defendant Davis from moving the vehicle any further.

As a result of the collision, plaintiff claims that he sustained the following injuries: Lumbar radiculopathy; Cervical radiculopathy; MRI of the lumbosacral spine reveals subligamentous posterior disc herniations at L4/L5 and at L5/S1 impinging on the anterior aspect of the spinal canal and on the neural foramina bilaterally; Right hip sprain; Right knee medial meniscus tear; Surgical recommendation for right knee arthroscopy; Lumbar spine lumbago;Lumbar spine HNP; EMG/NCV testing to the lower extremities revealed right S1 radiculopathy; MRI of the right knee revealed: synovial effusion knee joint, lateral patellar tilt and lateral patellar subluxation with patellofemoral chondromalacia spurring and narrowing lateral patellofemoral joint compartment, medial femorotibial joint compartment narrowing with chondromalacia, strain medical collateral ligament and motion artifact noted. Knee Chondromalacia; Knee internal derangement; Right joint effusion.

Published on: August 9, 2012

A woman was involved in a motor vehicle accident sometime on October 9, 2009

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was involved in a car accidentsometime on October 9, 2009 at the corner of Bellmore Avenue and Sunrise Highway in Nassau County, New York. The police arrived at the scene but no ambulance responded. The woman alighted from her car all by herself and after the initial investigation by the police the woman drove her car from the scene of the accident to her office.

The woman said she felt pain in her lower back and she experienced headaches. She went for an x-ray and consulted a doctor who recommended that she undergo treatment from a chiropractor. She went and saw the chiropractor for about a year and then she stopped seeing the chiropractor and went instead for physical therapy for a few months. She eventually stopped the physical therapy.

As of the time she filed this suit in damages, she was no longer receiving treatment for her injury. She claims that as a result of the accident, she lives in constant pain and she suffered spinal injury particularly, injury to her cervical and lumbar spine. She claims that she has lost significant motion in her spine and she asserts that this spinal injury qualifies as “serious injury.” She claims that the spinal injury has caused a limitation on her use of her spine which prohibits her from her customary daily activities.

Published on: July 30, 2012

A woman was involved in a motor vehicle accident sometime on October 9, 2009

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was involved in a motor vehicle accident sometime on October 9, 2009 at the corner of Bellmore Avenue and Sunrise Highway in Nassau County, New York. The police arrived at the scene but no ambulance responded. The woman alighted from her car all by herself and after the initial investigation by the police the woman drove her car from the scene of the accident to her office.

The woman said she felt pain in her lower back and she experienced headaches. She went for an x-ray and consulted a doctor who recommended that she undergo treatment from a chiropractor. She went and saw the chiropractor for about a year and then she stopped seeing the chiropractor and went instead for physical therapy for a few months. She eventually stopped the physical therapy.

As of the time she filed this suit in damages, she was no longer receiving treatment for her injury. She claims that as a result of the accident, she lives in constant pain and she suffered spinal injury particularly, injury to her cervical and lumbar spine. She claims that she has lost significant motion in her spine and she asserts that this spinal injury qualifies as “serious injury.” She claims that the spinal injury has caused a limitation on her use of her spine which prohibits her from her customary daily activities.

Published on: May 23, 2012

$7.6 Million Spinal Injury Awarded to Teen Paralyzed by Radiation Maltreatment

by Stephen Bilkis

A teenager’s spinal cordwas destroyed in 1978 after she received a lethal dose of radiation at a hospital she was receiving cancer treatment from. She was awarded $7.6 million by a jury.

Some believed at the time that it was the single, largest payment awarded in a malpractice suit in the U.S.

After the trial, the 18-year-old said that the jury was full of “wonderful people and now I have a chance for my life.”

Published on: May 5, 2012

August 6, 2006 he noticed that O’Brien’s car was haphazardly parked along Church Lane

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a Lawyer this is a case of driving while intoxicated involving minor accident. Robert O’Brien, according to Officer Wenzler who was also the sole witness to everything that happened testified that at about 8:45pm on August 6, 2006 he noticed that O’Brien’s car was haphazardly parked along Church Lane. He also noticed that O’Brien was asleep behind the wheels so he decided to take a closer look to investigate. Upon reaching O’Brien’s car, Officer Wenzler noticed that there was a half empty bottle of Smirnoff vodka in between O’Brien’s legs. He also noticed a couple of empty cans of Budweiser beer on the car floor, at O’Brien’s feet.

The driver’s window was half opened and upon reaching the driver’s side, Officer Wenzler immediately smelled the strong scent of alcohol from inside the vehicle as well as from O’Brien. He also noticed the strong smell of urine, evident from the soiled pants of O’Brien. Officer Wenzler also noticed that the front bumper of O’Brien’s car appeared to have “touched” the rear bumper of the car immediately in front of O’Brien. Upon inspection, there appear to have no major damage on both cars except from evident scratches and a minor dent on O’Brien’s car.

According to further investigation, a source said that when questioned by Officer Wenzler, O’Brien admitted that he was driving while drinking. Officer Wenzler asked for any identification, as well as license and registration which O’Brien was able to provide only after 5 minutes of looking for his wallet which was all along in the back pocket side of his pants. When O’Brien was asked to step out of his car, it was obvious from the way O’Brien moved while exiting his car that he was very much hung over or possibly still drunk. Further, according to Officer Wenzler, O’Brien had glassy stare and blood shot eyes which is very common to people who are overly intoxicated.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Could Chiropractic Alignment Lead to Better Health?

by Stephen Bilkis

One of the most fascinating things about the human body is the central nervous system. Although when speaking of the central nervous system, there are many whom almost automatically think of the brain. While the brain is an integral part of this system, it is in almost constant communication with the rest of the body by means of the spinal cord.

The spinal cord could be considered as the body’s super highway since this is where all of the body’s signals must pass either going to or from the brain. It is also on this highway that some massive congestion could occur if any of the roads are damaged for any reason. While there may be some obvious signs of damage, much of it actually occurs over time. From the time, we are infants making our way through the birthing process our spines are subjected to trauma. Each time we fall down the stairs, or from our bicycles, we experience trauma. Most of this trauma remains unknown and unfelt until we begin to accumulate some age under our belts.

If you have noticed how the aged slumps over with their backs bent crooked, have you thought that old age had just crept upon them? Have you wondered why the seniors spend so much time at a doctor’s office or require so much pain medication for their joints that just do not seem to work right anymore? These are the evidence of spinal damagethat has been accumulating since the moment of our births. This is the damage that has both weakened and thrown our systems out of focus. Unfortunately, the only sure remedy for continuing to grow older is death. For most that is something to be delayed as long as possible.

Published on: April 3, 2012

A motion for rehearing was petitioned by Daniel Schmidt with the Court of Appeals

by Stephen Bilkis

A motion for rehearing was petitioned by Daniel Schmidt with the Court of Appeals. This is with the personal injury case filed by Charles Van and his wife Rilla Van against Mr. Schmidt. According to sources, the Vans were claiming that the jury verdict should not be upheld by the court as the jury’s conclusion was against the weight of the evidence. A retrial was granted by the Circuit Court in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Van.

The Vans were looking to get compensation for personal injuries they had allegedly sustained from a vehicle accident in October 2007. They said that because of the accident, Mr. Van had to undergo a cervical spinal fusion surgery in September 2009. Mr. Schmidt is not disputing his liability in the 2007 accident. He is contesting that the injury was not caused by the accident. He is said the accident was minor and would not have had Mr. Van require a medical treatment. He also pointed out to the court Mr. Van’s prior medical records, said a doctor. Mr. Van already had a cervical spinal fusion surgery done in 1991. There was also the 1998 car accident that he was involved in and the diagnoses of emphysema and spinal degenerative disease. In the trial for compensation, there were three medical expert witnesses, including one from the defense, all of whom said that the surgery was caused in part by the 2007 accident. The reason given by the Vans why they require a rehearing was that some of the statements were not taken into consideration.

In determining if a rehearing should be granted, the court must look if the evidence presented does not support the decision and if the decision is based on the wrong interpretation of the law. A Lawyer says, in jury trials, the jury has the right to choose which statements they would want to accept. This is not limited to lay witnesses, but also with expert witnesses. In the case, they relied on the evidence that showed that the vehicle was a minor fender bender. Even if Mr. Vans testified that the repair cost $800, he also stated that the vehicle is still unrepaired and being used by his wife. There were photographs of the damage to the vehicle and the medical history of Mr. Vans.