Articles Posted in Lumbar Spinal Injury

Published on:

In this case, plaintiffs filed an action to recover damages against the defendants for the injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff in a car accident on February 16, 2009, on Motor Parkway at or near its intersection with Express Drive North, County of Suffolk, State of New York, when Plaintiff was operating his vehicle and it was struck by the vehicle owned by defendants.

Plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries consisting of, inter alia, lumbar disc herniation at L4-5 impinging on the anterior aspect of the spinal canal and the nerve roots bilaterally; lumbar sprain and strain with muscle spasms, severe pain, tenderness, swelling, and permanent and significant restriction and limitation of motion; posterior disc herniation at C5-6 and C6-7 abutting the anterior aspect of the spinal cord; possible cervical radiculopathy; cervical sprain, strain, with muscle spasms, severe pain, swelling, tenderness, and permanent and/or significant restriction and limitation of motion; right knee sprain, strain, contusion; peripatellar bursitis; severe pain, swelling, tenderness, and permanent and/or significant restriction and limitation of motion.

The defendants sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis that the injuries claimed failed to meet the threshold imposed by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Continue reading

Published on:

A man working as a millwright for a saw mill in Florida had been working at the same saw mill for the past twenty-four years. His job required him to do heavy manual labor consisting of bending from the waist to lift heavy objects and carrying the heavy objects. As time went on, the millwright gradually experienced pain in his right leg and hip. There was no specific incident that caused any spinal injury to the millwright during the course of his employment. The pain soon interfered with his duties at the saw mill and this prompted him to consult an orthopedic surgeon who immediately placed him on no-work status and referred him to a neurologist for testing.

The Long Island neurologist ran medical tests and scans on the man’s spine. The tests showed that the man had stenosis or a narrowing or choking of the spinal nerve roots in his neck and lower back. The compression of the spinal nerve roots cause the shooting pain in his hip and right leg. Spinal stenosis is a degenerative disease that occurs from repetitive bending and lifting of heavy objects.

The neurologist and the orthopedic surgeon both found that the man suffered from a degenerative disk disease and L3-4 herniated disk. They advised the millwright to take medication, sufficient rest and physical therapy to stop the pain and to arrest the further damage to his spine. The employer refused to pay the millwright’s claim for compensation and filed a complaint with the Compensation Commission.

Continue reading

Published on:

This medical malpractice action commenced on behalf of the plaintiff is premised upon the alleged negligence of defendants in the placement of spinal cordstimulator leads, and the alleged departures from good and accepted standards of care relative thereto, causing plaintiff to suffer a spinal injury, loss of motor function bilaterally, the inability to walk requiring the use of a wheelchair, loss of sensation and reflexes, hypersensitivity, incontinence of bowel and bladder, exacerbation of prior conditions, diminution of a chance of recovery, inability to work, conscious pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. It is undisputed that on January 26, 2007, the plaintiff came under the care and treatment of an anesthesiologist, the defendant, for pain management relative to a history of leg pain and pain in her right upper extremity. Implantation of a spinal cord stimulator was recommended for which she was admitted to the Hospital at Syosset on February 27, 2007.

A Lawyer said that, the Long Islanddefendants seek summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the bases that they fully complied with the standard of care during the care and treatment of plaintiff and that they did not cause or contribute to the plaintiff’s spinal injuries. The Hospital further contends that it is not responsible for the actions of the private attending physicians rendering care to plaintiff.

The issue in this case is whether defendants are guilty of medical malpractice, and thus, liable for the spinal injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Bronx complaint of this action sets forth causes of action sounding in medical malpractice, lack of informed consent asserted on behalf of the complainant woman and a derivative claim asserted on behalf of her spouse. It is claimed that the accused parties negligently departed from good and accepted standards of medical/surgical/anesthesia care and treatment when the complainant woman was admitted to the hospital for a scheduled right total hip replacement due to osteoarthritis and lack of blood flow on the right hip, and failed to inform her of the risks and complications associated with the surgery, anesthesia, and treatment with an anti-coagulant drug. It is claimed that due to the negligence of the orthopedic surgeon, the anesthesiologist and the hospital, the woman was caused to suffer extensive bleeding in the area of the lumbar plexus and to sustain serious injury and nerve damage resulting in right lower extremity weakness, foot drop, and numbness due to the failure of the accused parties to properly and timely treat her condition. It is further claimed that the accused doctors and hospital failed to properly provide information concerning the risks, benefits and complications to her to enable her to give an informed consent. The orthopedic surgeon performed the hip replacement, the anesthesiologist administered the spinal anesthesia for the surgery, and postoperative placed a lumbar plexus block and peripheral nerve block.

The moving doctors and hospital seek an order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint asserted against them on the basis they did not deviate from good and accepted standards of care during the care and treatment and admission of the woman which proximately caused the claimed injuries she suffered.

The accused orthopedic surgeon and anesthesiologist individually submitted their attorney’s affirmation; the affidavit, copies of the summons and complaint, answer, amended answer; the complainants’ verified bill of particulars; and copies of the transcripts of the examinations before trial It is noted that the deposition transcripts of the two doctors are not in admissible form and are not accompanied by an affidavit pursuant to the Civil Practice Laws and Rules, and therefore, are not considered.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) appeals the trial court’s final judgment against DCF finding DCF negligent and awarding the complainants as guardians and adoptive parents of a child, the sum of $26,849,849.06. DCF raises several issues on appeal that the Appellate Court affirms without comment. The Court of Appeals addresses only DCF’s argument that the complainants failed to prove a legitimate case of negligence. It affirmed the final judgment because the complainants presented competent substantial evidence that DCF was negligent and that the negligence was the proximate cause of the spinal injuries sustained by two-year-old child.

The vast majority of the material facts in this case are undisputed. DCF first became involved in this case when representatives at the Miami Children’s Hospital (MCH) called the DCF hotline because the child’s biological mother failed to come to the hospital on December 8, 2000, the date of the child’s discharge. A Suffolk woman, who is the DCF protective investigator assigned to the case, began her formal investigation on December 9, 2000. She testified that she was concerned that the mother did not show up to the hospital on the date of the child’s discharge because she was more interested in getting her boyfriend out of jail, that the mother hardly ever visited or called the hospital while the child was hospitalized for a month, that the hospital had difficulty getting the mother to come to the hospital and sign consents, that when the mother did come to the hospital the child would cry and the mother spanked the child in her hospital bed while the child cried, and that the hospital informed the investigator that the child did not appear very bonded to the mother. In her testimony, the investigator expressed concern because the child’s x-ray results showed a fractured clavicle, for which the mother had no explanation. The investigator also testified that the mother’s boyfriend was living with the mother and the child, and in her training and experience as a DCF protective investigator, boyfriends who live in the home with the child and are not related by blood or marriage to the child are a safety risk to the child because they are not the child’s natural father and have been responsible for abuse situations.

Due to concerns that the mother was not going to be able to provide the necessary follow-up care for her child, the investigator, the mother, and the head of the child advocacy team (CAT) at the hospital met at the hospital on December 11, 2000. The head of CAT testified that clavicle fractures are usually low risk and not of great concern; however, he was concerned because it was an unexplained injury. Although the CAT head testified that he had no recollection or notes of CAT reporting a concern of physical abuse to DCF, he wrote in his CAT consult that the child is a high risk child who should not be released to home until we can more fully insure that the environment is safe and nurturing. The Westchester investigator admitted in her testimony that the CAT head advised her that a home study should be completed first before the child was returned to her home. The investigator also testified that after meeting with the CAT head, she suspected physical abuse.

Continue reading

Published on:

Claimant is a young woman who studied dancing most of her life. She was employed as a dancer at a famous theme park owned by the appellant Company, for several years. She first injured her back during a dance routine on January 11, 1981. After a spinal injury operation, she went home to recuperate and eventually returned to work. She neither requested nor received any attendant care benefits while recuperating at home on this occasion.

An source said that, claimant sustained a second back spine injury when she was dropped by a fellow dancer. As a result of this spine injury, claimant underwent a low back spinal fusion operation, by an

Queens orthopedic surgeon approved by the appellant Company to provide medical treatment to claimant. Thereafter, claimant was discharged from the hospital to return home and recuperate. She was instructed to wear a full body cast, which greatly restricted her body movement, for one and one-half months following her discharge from the hospital. The cast, although described as “removable,” was to be worn at all times except while bathing and taking care of personal hygiene. Claimant was not advised that her worker’s compensation benefits would cover necessary attendant care during this period. Claimant normally lived alone in her own home, but she had made arrangements to temporarily reside with a friend who agreed to provide her care and assistance with such things as going to the bathroom, bathing, dressing, eating, cooking, changing her bed, and other necessary daily functions that claimant was unable to perform for herself while in the cast.

Continue reading

Published on:

There are several different laws in New York City which govern the litigation practices involved in personal injury lawsuits. In order for a person to proceed with an action to sue in reference to a serious bodily injury that was the result of a traffic accident, they must prove that the injury is serious in accordance with the law. The statute CPLR § 3212 and Article 51 of the New York State insurance law specify the guidelines that are used to determine if an injury is considered serious.

There are several different categories that are used to determine serious injury under these statutes. Some of these involve brain injury, loss of an appendage, loss of use of an appendage, loss of a fetus, some brain injuries, and some spinal injury. In order for an injury to be considered serious, it must be pervasive enough to interfere with the person’s ability to function normally on a daily basis. This type of injury is usually one that is permanent in nature. Although, some brain injuries and spinal injuries may not be lifelong disability type injuries.

On June 10, 2007, a woman was driving her 2005 Nissan on East Shore Drive, Massapequa, New York in Nassau County. She was hit in the back end of her vehicle by a 1994 BMW. She received injuries in the accident that she felt met the criteria to be considered serious under the statutes of New York. She filed a personal injury lawsuit based on these injuries. The injuries that she claims to have suffered involved annular tear at L4-5 vertebrae, disc herniations at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1. She claims to have been diagnosed with a disc bulge at L2-3 which caused a constriction on the spinal cord. She also sustained an internal derangement of the lumbar spine with a severe strain or sprain of the lumbar spine. She gave a sworn statement to the court that after the accident, she had to stay in bed for a full two weeks. She also claims that after she was able to get out of her bed, she had to stay at home for another four weeks recovering. She stated that at the time of the accident, she was unemployed. However, she claimed that she can no longer take part in many of the activities that she enjoyed such as playing volleyball, gardening, cooking, or driving somewhere that is more than thirty minutes away. She stated that she cannot lift heavy objects or wash dishes. She stated that she joined a local gym and that she uses the recumbent bicycle several times a week to try to stay in shape. In her statement, she did not detail the specific compensable serious injury categories that she contends that her injuries fall under.

Continue reading

Published on:

Claimant, employed as a policeman by the Nassau County Police Department, was accidently shot in the abdomen on November 8, 1953 as he was removing a shotgun from a police car. Compensation in the form of reimbursement to the employer was paid for intermittent periods of lost time, and the case was closed upon finding of no further disability. On November 1, 1962 claimant was in an automobile accident while on police duty and sustained injuries to his neck and back. Compensation in the 1962 case was paid for several weeks, and the case was eventually closed pending the outcome of a third-party action which was later settled without the consent of the employer. Thereafter, claimant was relieved of all police duties and went on sick leave and performed no work thereafter.

A Lawyer said that, Dr. Masoff, claimant’s physician, reported to the employer that he had examined claimant, that claimant had pain in his right side for about four months with no relief; and that claimant had pain in his right side radiating to his lower back and down his life lower extremity, and requested authorization by the employer to hospitalize claimant for x-rays and further treatment. Upon a C–4 medical reports by Dr. Masoff filed which indicated recurrent back pain necessitating x-rays and hospitalization, the Workmen’s Compensation Board on reopened the 1953 case upon the report of changed condition and directed that the Special Fund be placed on notice.

A Long Island source said that, claimant was admitted to the Smithtown General Hospital and placed in pelvic traction and bed rest. After consultation with Dr. Levitan and Dr. Stein, an operative procedure was done by Dr. Levitan and Dr. Stein to probe the 1953 shotgun wound. Claimant was fitted with a Knight Spinal Brace and was discharged from the hospital on August 17, 1965.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Tennessee Consumer Protection is under assault, some say. Its advocates claim that this act protects the consumer from businesses and products that produce goods or services that can harm, even to the point of maiming and killing victims, through negligence or unscrupulous manufacturing and selling tactics.

A new bill has been introduced in Tennessee that would make it more difficult to litigate against companies on the grounds of injury and wrongful death caused by negligence or wrongful actions. The proponents of the bill claim it would make the state more business-friendly. The former senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson, among others has shown opposition to the bill. They have seen instances of what can happen when a company acts without seeming regard for human life. Many of those who advocate against this bill also believe the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act will also be compromised to the point of uselessness should this bill pass. They tell Lawyers that victims would have no legal recourse to pursue the means to gain compensation for their injuries and losses.

Tort reformers are very interested in seeing this bill pass. According to them, “lawsuit abuse” and “jackpot justice” are very common in Tennessee. They fear businesses will not come and invest in Tennessee due to the stifling environment created by easy lawsuits which could very well ruin a small business. A group in Tennessee and others in The Bronx and Brooklyn offered a study that stated the bill would create more than 100,00 jobs and $16.2 billion in “additional economic output” in the state over the next ten year.

Continue reading

Published on:

The 1978 case of a white-haired man arrived at the Circuit Court one morning. The man entered the courtroom to testify in his $1 million lawsuit he filed against Edward H. White II Memorial Hospital.

He filed the lawsuit because he fell out of bed while admitted in the facility. The 50-year-old man claimed that the hospital staff was negligent when they left the railing down on his hospital bed. When he fell, he suffered a spinal injury.

The hospital refuted those claims and said that the patient had raised such a ruckus about having it up that they lowered it – against hospital policy – in order to hopefully prevent another coronary episode in the gentleman.

Continue reading

Contact Information