Cervical Spinal Injury

Published on: January 25, 2013

Claimant sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of her employment

by Stephen Bilkis

Brooklyn Claimant sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of her employment on two occasions. First was in December 1988, when claimant injured her neck, back, shoulders, knee and left elbow, and the second was in September 1989, after claimant had been released to return to full-duty work, when claimant injured her fingers. Since her first injuries, claimant has been treated by a doctor, doctor-one, who is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Doctor-one diagnosed claimant as suffering from cervical and lumbar spondylosis or arthritis.

According to doctor-one, claimant had suffered from a pre-existing arthritic condition which was exacerbated by her work related injury; that, because of claimant’s arthritis, she was not going to get better, that is, she would continue to experience good periods and bad periods, as she had for some time; that there was little that he could offer claimant in the way of new treatment. Doctor-one prescribed physical therapy which had included traction, heat, ultrasound and electrical stimulation for some time, for temporary relief of claimant’s symptoms; and recommended that claimant continue to receive physical therapy as needed. However, according to the claimant, the physical therapy prescribed by doctor-one provided only temporary relief from her symptoms. Thus, she wanted to be treated by doctor-two, a chiropractor, by reason of the fact that her husband had been treated successfully by the said doctor, and she felt that doctor-two could achieve similar results with her. Claimant then filed a claim seeking authorization for a chiropractic treatment to be conducted by doctor-two.

Consequently, doctor-two was called to testify. According to doctor-two who is a chiropractic physician, claimant is suffering from cervical neuralgia, cervical myofascitis, a strain or sprain of the thoracic spine, a lumbar strain or sprain, sacroiliac disorder and temporal mandibular joint pain-dysfunction syndrome. Based upon his diagnosis, doctor-two concluded that claimant was a candidate for chiropractic therapy which basically consists of adjustments or manipulations to correct the osseous disrelationships of her entire spine and sacroiliac joints; that he would use traction in the low back, exercises and some electrical stimulation. Doctor-two opined that chiropractic treatment would be beneficial to the claimant because the key thing is to get the vertebrae that are out of place, or the subluxated, back into their proper respective position and functioning again, and he saw nothing about claimant’s condition to suggest that it would be inappropriate to treat her in such a way.

Published on: December 9, 2012

On 1994, a man was admitted to a hospital for the treatment of his spinal injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

On 1994, a man was admitted to a NYC hospital for the treatment of his spinal injuries. Prior to the man’s cervical spine surgery his physician ordered a cervical myelogram and CT scan. The procedure was performed by another physician and a nurse. The man does not recall the whole procedure, but remembers waking up in great pain. The man was advised by his admitting physician, that he obtained dislocation on his shoulder during a grand mal seizure. The man was told that he was suffering from spinal stenosis and diseases of the spine. He was also told that the seizure could have resulted from natural causes and the spinal diseases were normal complications from the myelography procedure.

Subsequently, the man obtained legal counsel and brought a medical negligence action against the doctor who performed the procedure for injuries he received during the cervical myelogram. Afterwards, the physician filed an answer to the complaint and included as an affirmative defense that the man’s damages were caused in whole or in part by third parties. The physician also discussed the risks associated with a myelogram, including the possibility of a seizure. He added that the risk of seizure is decreased when the patient’s head is elevated. He further opined that the nurses may not have followed his postoperative orders concerning the maintenance of the man’s head because when he saw the man during the seizure, the man was lying fairly flat. The man then filed the notice of intent to initiate litigation against the hospital and the nurse. He also modified his complaint to include them as opponents in the lawsuit.

In a request for the dismissal of the case, the hospital and the nurse claimed that the man’s claim for negligence was barred by the law of limitations. They claimed that the man was aware of them as potential opponents immediately following his injuries.

Published on: December 4, 2012

On 1994, a man was admitted to a hospital for the treatment of his spinal injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

On 1994, a Queens man was admitted to a hospital for the treatment of his spinal injuries. Prior to the man’s cervical spine surgery his physician ordered a cervical myelogram and CT scan. The procedure was performed by another physician and a nurse. The man does not recall the whole procedure, but remembers waking up in great pain. The man was advised by his admitting physician, that he obtained dislocation on his shoulder during a grand mal seizure. The man was told that he was suffering from spinal stenosis and diseases of the spine. He was also told that the seizure could have resulted from natural causes and the spinal diseases were normal complications from the myelography procedure.

Subsequently, the man obtained legal counsel and brought a medical negligence action against the doctor who performed the procedure for injuries he received during the cervical myelogram. Afterwards, the physician filed an answer to the complaint and included as an affirmative defense that the man’s damages were caused in whole or in part by third parties. The physician also discussed the risks associated with a myelogram, including the possibility of a seizure. He added that the risk of seizure is decreased when the patient’s head is elevated. He further opined that the nurses may not have followed his postoperative orders concerning the maintenance of the man’s head because when he saw the man during the seizure, the man was lying fairly flat. The man then filed the notice of intent to initiate litigation against the hospital and the nurse. He also modified his complaint to include them as opponents in the lawsuit.

In a request for the dismissal of the case, the hospital and the nurse claimed that the man’s claim for negligence was barred by the law of limitations. They claimed that the man was aware of them as potential opponents immediately following his injuries.

Published on: December 2, 2012

On 2003, a complainant man obtained a back injury while he was employed

by Stephen Bilkis

On 2003, a complainant man obtained a back injurywhile he was employed. Shortly thereafter, his employer accepted his injury’s compensability and commenced the payments of both medical and indemnity benefits. An Nassau authorized orthopedist initially diagnosed the complainant man with disc herniation with chronic low back pain. After that, a surgical procedure was performed and the orthopedist’s explained that the surgery revealed spinal stenosis with no evidence of disc herniation. The orthopedist also informed the attorney of the man’s employer that one hundred percent of the complainant’s need for medical treatment was caused by pre-existing degenerative changes due to his personal condition. The complainant then filed an appeal for benefits requesting authorization of a neurologist and compensability of the claim, which the carrier timely controverted because of the opinion of the complainant’s treating orthopedist.

After the trial, the judges of compensation claim accepted the opinion of the treating orthopedist that the complainant’s injury was wholly attributable to his preexisting condition and therefore found that his current condition is not compensable as it did not arise out of the course and scope of his employment and no further treatment is awarded.

The Suffolk judges of compensation claim further concluded that there was nothing in the record that would have reasonably placed the employer on notice of the complainant’s personal condition being the major contributing cause of the injury until the conference between its attorney and the orthopedist was done. As a result, the employer denied the medical treatment within 120 days from the notification it had then received and the compensability of the injury was considered timely denied. With that, the judges of compensation claim refused both the claims for compensability of the complainant’s back condition and authorization of a neurologist.

Published on: November 1, 2012

It is evident that to the extent that the accused man’s memory was clearer

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: October 13, 2012

Determining whether an injury is considered serious

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: August 17, 2012

This is an action to recover damages for the personal injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: June 19, 2012

State Representative Teacher Breaks up Fight and Ends up with TBI

by Stephen Bilkis

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.”

Published on: April 26, 2012

Physical Exams and Tests Key to Determining Damage Caused by Spinal Injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: April 16, 2012

Fish May Lead to Spine Cures

by Stephen Bilkis

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.