Articles Posted in Cervical Spinal Injury

Published on:

Judgment of the Supreme Court convicting the accused, following a jury trial, of manslaughter and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from six to eighteen years, is reversed on the law and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The accused was indicted for murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal use of a firearm in the second degree as the result of a fatal shooting. The deceased was a physician who had purchased real property located in Bronx County. The accused was the seller of the parcel of land in question, and, following the transaction, the deceased and the accused became good friends. However, the relationship between the two men deteriorated rapidly after the accused first agreed to sell the deceased man’s one-half of a building but subsequently refused to go through with the deal. The deceased man thereupon instituted a lawsuit to compel specific performance, and, when the parties were unable to settle their differences, the matter proceeded to trial and judgment, the outcome of which was that the accused was directed to sell the property to the deceased. The accused filed a notice of appeal and moved for a stay, which was granted on condition that he files a bond and perfect his appeal by a specified date. All additional settlement discussions were unsuccessful, and, finally, on the day before the bond was due, the dispute erupted into violence. The accused and the deceased became embroiled in a heated altercation during which the accused was apparently punched by the deceased and then threatened by him with further physical injury. In response, the accused removed a loaded gun from the desk in his office and followed the accused downstairs to ascertain whether he had left the premises in which the accused man’s printing business was located. The two men exchanged some more words, and the accused fired three shots at the deceased, one of which struck the latter, fracturing his spine resulting to spinal injury and perforating the spinal cord. All efforts to revive the deceased failed.

At the ensuing trial, the arresting officers described the accused as being dazed and incoherent after the shooting, and, indeed, the accused man’s defense was that he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect. The psychiatric expert who testified on the accused man’s behalf, stated that at the time of the incident, the accused was suffering from a severe adjustment disorder with anxiety and that this condition significantly impaired his ability to comprehend the consequences of his act or to distinguish the real from the unreal. In the opinion of the accused man’s psychiatric expert, because of a childhood eye injury and the attendant loss of his left eye, the accused lived in constant fear of losing the other eye and becoming totally blind. Therefore, when the deceased had beaten him so severely on the day of the shooting that his glass eye had fallen out and also promised to return and blind him, the accused became so petrified that he ceased to function in a rational manner. In rebuttal, the court called the psychiatrist who agreed that the accused had suffered from an adjustment disorder but, nonetheless, concluded that the accused had possessed the capacity to appreciate the nature and consequences of his act, as well as its wrongfulness. Both psychiatrists concurred that the accused was not psychotic.

Continue reading

Published on:

Determining whether an injury is considered serious under the Insurance Law § 5102, is an issue that is common in the courts of New York State. In order for an injury to be considered serious by law in New York, it must be so serious that for the first 90 days out of the 180 days immediately following the accident, the person must be prohibited from maintaining his normal daily activities. A board certified physician who has conducted tests that demonstrate a diminished capacity in one or more limbs, the spine, or the brain must also document the injury. A person who has sustained a spinal injury, must be able to show through documented tests performed by a board certified doctor that they have a limited range of motion that is permanent in order to recover punitive damages. In the case of a traffic accident injury, where the person is a passenger in one of the cars, that person must attach the driver of the car that they were in and their insurance company as well as the driver of the second car and their insurance companies. Ultimately, the insurance companies will each do their best to place the burden of compensation on the other company.

In one case that involved a traffic accident from March 17, 2008, a man was injured in the accident while he was a passenger in one of the cars. The accident occurred at the intersection of Front Street and Main Street which are in the Township of Hempstead. Hempstead is located in Nassau County. In this case, the car that the complainant who was injured was in, was owned by a person other than the driver of the car. Because of that, he had to attach the driver of the car, the owner of the car, and the insurance company. There is little question about the facts of the accident itself. The insured person was wearing his seatbelt at the time of the accident even though the airbags in the car did not deploy. At the time of the accident, none of the people involved in the accident requested an ambulance so none came to the scene of the accident.

The injured complainant did not go to a hospital for treatment until later, after the date of the accident. He ultimately sought treatment by an orthopedist and a neurologist for injuries that he claims he incurred during the accident. His doctors claim that he sustained several neck and back injuries, as well as an injury to his right shoulder that has resulted in permanent partial disability of those limbs. The defendant insurance companies filed a request to have the man examined by a doctor of their choosing. That doctor claimed that the man had no injuries that could be termed serious under the New York State Insurance Law. He maintained that his examination revealed that the man did not have any significant reduction in his range of motion. The defendant insurance companies filed a motion to have the court grant summary judgment dismissing the case as filed because they contend that the case does not meet the qualifications for a serious injury.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is an action to recover damages for the personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Kly Jean Baptiste and Shardae Alicia Tean-Baptiste, an infant under the age of eighteen years, as a result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on Remsen Avenue, near its intersection with Farragut Road, in Kings County, New York on January 18, 2008.

Defendants Pierre-Georges and PV Holdings Corp. filed a motion for summary judgement on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a personal injury (pursuant to CPRL §3212 and New York State Insurance Law §5102(a) and (d)), and on the ground that the PV Holdings cannot be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the operator of the rented vehicle (pursuant to CPLR §3211 (a)(7) and 49 U.S.C. §30106).

A source said, with respect to plaintiff Kly, in support of their application for summary judgment, defendants submit the deposition testimony given by plaintiff Kly, detailing the accident and his injuries and treatment there from. Defendants also submit the affirmed reports of orthopedist, Dr. Kachidurian, and neurologist. Dr. Chacko. Lastly, defendants submit MRI reports of plaintiff Kly’s cervical and lumbar spines, dated October 17, 2001, relating to a prior 2001 accident, as well as a cervical MRI report, dated March 13, 2008, relating to the within accident.

Continue reading

Published on:

Dewayne Bunch, a Whitley County High School teacher and State Representative, is reportedly improving after sustaining a head injury when trying to break two boys apart during a school cafeteria altercation. According to the public relations and marketing director for Shepherd Center in Atlanta, Georgia, the 49-year-old’s recovery is going nicely.

The teacher, sustaining serious injuries, was immediately transported to Baptist Regional Medical Center. The then had to be transferred to the University of Kentucky Medical Center. Two weeks later, he was again relocated to the intensive care unit at Shepherd Center, a hospital specializing in the treatment of brain and spinal cord injuries where he improved so much that he was able to be moved to the hospital’s rehabilitation unit.

His wife expressed sincere thanks. She was quoted as saying, “I appreciate the outpouring of support and kindness we’ve received from the community. Please continue to keep [my husband] in your prayers as he continues his journey to recovery.”

Continue reading

Published on:

Being involved in a trauma where an individual’s head or back is hurt is a scary experience. A doctor is going to want to rule out any spinal injuries. A doctor will need to do some physical exams and run various tests to determine if you have fractured thoracic vertebrae.

During the physical exam, a doctor will look for several different changes in the individual’s body. The exam will probably start with a thoroughly check of the back to determine if there are any deformities to a vertebral bodies or to the skin of the back. Simply looking at the back will tell the doctor much of the information he or she needs to know. Depending on the trauma, the back could have cuts, bruises, or deformities. In order to determine if there is any affected vertebra, a doctor will use his or her hands to see if the bones have shifted.

Not only will the back have bruises or deformities, but also the check of the individual could have an indication from the shoulder harness or lap seatbelt if involved in a car accident. Damage to the thoracic spine can cause paralysis and the doctor will try to determine the extent of the paralysis. Many times the individual may experience trouble moving different limbs; the most common problem is moving his or her legs. Other physical exams will include checking for pain, numbness, and sensations in the body that are not natural. Spinal cord injuries are also common with fractured vertebra so the doctor will test neurological functions. Expect tests of the body’s reflexes, range of motion, and sensitivity to touch.

Continue reading

Published on:

There is no way to repair the spine after catastrophic damage – at least not yet. Scientists have told sources that there may be a cure from an unlikely source: fish.

According to research, fish have the amazing ability to regenerate their spinal cords, not only able to heal spinal injury, but to have full restoration of function. In time, they can be as good as new.

Two scientists have been closely studying this ability and have related some of their findings to doctors. They are working hard to learn how fish regenerate their spinal cords, so they can replicate the same in humans. “To cure spinal cord injury would be amazing and incredible for people who are suffering,” said one biologist.

Continue reading

Published on:

Joanne Pavia was a party to two vehicle accidents in the span of four months. The first one was at on North Conduit Avenue, about three hundred feet east of Cohancy Street. Paul Artale was going west on Conduit Avenue. He said that the traffic was slow moving. He noticed Eugene Joseph’s car when he was about ten feet behind it. In his testimony, he said that Mr. Joseph’s vehicle was stopped when he first saw it. A Lawyer got information that the front of Mr. Artale’s car hit the rear of Mr. Joseph’s vehicle. At face, there is already negligence on Mr. Artale’s part. Mr. Joseph in his defense against the negligence presented evidence that he had safely brought his vehicle to a stop before the crash occurred. He said that he was pushed to the vehicle in front of him when another vehicle hit the rear of his car. The car in front was Ms. Pavia’s. This happened on April 30, 2004.

The second incident happened on August 29, 2004. She was travelling to the east on Merrick Road in Massapequa. She said that Josephine Giardina while driving Anthony Giardina’s vehicle suddenly drove out of Cedar Shore Drive from her right and was in front of her.

Mr. Joseph filed a motion for summary judgment against his liability on the car accident involving Ms. Pavia and Mr. Artale. A source says that when a party moves for a summary judgment, the burden of proving there is already sufficient evidence to show that there are no material issues still remaining. In his motion, he relied heavily on the statement of Mr. Artale in his deposition. Mr. Artale said that Mr. Joseph’s vehicle was stopped when he first saw it. Ms. Pavia’s only opposition to the summary judgment is that she was not able to clearly explain that she had felt two impacts but there was only one hit to her car. They were saying that she was not asked this in the deposition. This contradicts what she had written in her sworn affidavit. The court then ruled in favor of Mr. Joseph and dismissed the complaint against him.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

Most car collisions that cause injuries happen unintentionally. Insurance policies provide people with buffer from incidental economic costs that may arise from these car collisions and injuries. Insurance providers require that car collisions be accidental. Any deliberate incident that caused cervical spinal injuries to other people is not considered covered under insurance policies.

Sometimes, though, other people may use these incidents as excuses to benefit from insurance claims. Having said that, when people stage incidents and make them look like they happened intentionally, then these deliberate incidents fall outside the “no-fault” policy of insurance companies and these people who staged the incident will not be entitled to insurance claims. Not surprisingly, as noted by our , accidents or car collisions that are not covered by insurance are mostly staged to obtain insurance claims fraudulently.

This case is about a staged incident that happened on May 2001; the Plaintiffs were involved in a car collision in a 1985 Nissan, owned and insured by Victor Herasme. He claimed that he always lent his car to acquaintances and friends. Moreover, he also stated that he has been involved in an accident using the car in January 2001 and just prior to the accident on May 2001. According to Herasme, Carlos Gaviria borrowed the car and when he returned the vehicle, there was a small scratch. When he asked Gaviria about the scratch, he quickly dismissed it and said that a car had scraped it but no additional details were given. Herasme also stated that they were casual acquaintances and knows Gaviria as “Carlos” and Gaviria knows him as “Victor”. When the Defendant questioned Gaviria under oath, he denied ever knowing Victor Herasme and stated that he borrowed the car from “Jose”.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Army ran with only a rough estimate of how much their foot soldiers carried in combat, doctors and hospitals concerned with this problem have learned. It wasn’t until 2003 that a colonel and military-equipment expert formed a seven-man team to study the effects of the weight soldiers carried while in the combat zones of eastern Afghanistan.

“What we were proposing was highly irregular, and my chain of command had to pass this all the way to the generals to get approved,” he told a group of interested citizens.

The colonel, now retired, had his team join a group of soldiers, so they would carry the same loads and face the same dangers from day to day. They went to Afghanistan, where they went on missions with the soldiers. This would usually start with a helicopter ride, followed by foot patrols that would extend for days at a time. The members of the research team would use a digital scale to weigh all the equipment, down to their ID cards and eating utensils.

Continue reading

Contact Information