Long Island

Published on: November 20, 2012

An eighteen-year old resident of an apartment building was walking along the grounds

by Stephen Bilkis

An eighteen-year old resident of an apartment building was walking along the grounds of the apartment building in Florida when he met an accident. He lay on the concrete pavement, unable to move because of a spinal injury. A few minutes later, an employee of the apartment owner was making his rounds of the apartment. He saw the eighteen- year old sprawled on the pavement and thought that he was unconscious due to a drug overdose or because he was drunk. He shook the eighteen-year old and found him to be conscious. The Long Island employee told him that he will move him to a more lighted area so that he can help him. The eighteen-year old protested, asking the employee not to touch him or to move him as his spine may be broken. The eighteen-year old protested continuously but the employee did not heed his protests, he dragged the eighteen-year old near the entrance of the building. He then called emergency services who rushed the eighteen-year old to the hospital. When the police and emergency services arrived, the employee told the police that he moved the eighteen year old because he thought that he was just passed out because he was drunk or overdosed from drugs. He had no idea he was injured. The incident resulted in the eighteen-year old being disabled due to quadriplegia or paralyzed from the neck down.

The eighteen-year old then sued the apartment owner and his insurer. He did not include in the suit the employee of the apartment owner. He wanted to call him as an adverse witness because the employee made inconsistent statements before the police (at the time of the incident) and then when he was deposed (before the trial) which testimonies and statements totally contradicted his testimony at trial. The trial court refused the eighteen year old’s request to call the employee as an adverse witness. The trial court held that there was a question as to whether the employee was really employed by the apartment owner; the trial court also held that the employee could not be called as an adverse witness because he was not a party to the case or listed as a party defendant in the damage suit.

The apartment owner and the insurer based their defense on the Good Samaritan Act. They claim that the employee was immune from a suit in damages because he was only trying to help. Under Florida Law, bystanders who help those who were injured cannot be sued for damages if the person they aided suffered injury in the course of being rescued or aided. They also claimed that even if they were found to be liable the amount of lost earning capacity of the eighteen year old cannot be determined because the eighteen-year old was a career criminal who had no real job or job prospects as he dealt in drugs and petit larceny,

Published on: October 18, 2012

On August 1, 2005, a manual laborer was working on a construction site

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 1, 2005, a Manhattan manual laborer was working on a construction site that was being operated on a military base. The objective of the construction was to renovate some military housing buildings that were run down. In order to renovate the buildings, the construction crew had to first remove all of the kitchen and bathroom appliances that were inside each of the units in the multi-unit buildings. The construction crew had a dumpster located outside of the buildings on the street that was available for them to put the debris from the renovation into. The Long Island construction team had been working in one of the buildings for several days and the manual laborer was tasked with the job of transporting the debris from inside the building out to the dumpster on the curb.

On that morning, the crew had filled one of the dumpsters and needed an additional empty one moved from farther down the street up to where the work was being done. The site supervisor instructed the laborer to get the dumpster and move it up. The dumpster was about to be moved when another construction contractor pulled a truck up in front of it. The site supervisor instructed the manual laborer to tell the driver of the truck to move the truck so that they could get to the dumpster. The laborer followed the instructions that he was given and then stepped backward away from the truck so that he could signal to the truck driver where to park. As he walked backward, he stepped on the top of a manhole cover. The cover was not properly in place and tilted up causing the man to fall into the manhole. He sustained several severe injuries as a result of this workplace accident. He contends that he suffered from severe spinal injuryas well as leg impairment.

He had to have several surgical procedures on his spine over the following year including bone grafts and fusions of his spine. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against both companies and the property owner because he contends that they were negligent in allowing the manhole cover to not be securely in place. In this case, there was no argument that the man sustained serious injury as defined by the Insurance Laws of New York. The problem for the court in this case was determining who was responsible for the spinal injury that the man had suffered that left him disabled and unable to work.

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: September 27, 2012

Claimant, employed as a policeman by the Nassau County Police Department

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: September 23, 2012

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident in 2008 within a private parking lot on route 107, near its intersection with Lewis Street, in the town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County, New York. In his bill of particulars, plaintiff alleges that he sustained the following spinal injury and other injuries which are alleged to be permanent: Cervical muscle spasm, cervical radiculopathy, neck pain with upper extremity weakness, lumbar radiculopathy, right and left shoulder pains with numbness and tingling decreased range of motion of the cervical spine, low back pain with lower extremity weakness, subluxation of the cervical spine and lumbar spine, headaches, muscle spasm of the lumbar spine, decreased range of motion of the cervical and lumbar spine, mid back pain, dizziness, inability to sit or stand for prolonged periods of time, difficulty performing everyday activities such as bending, lifting, and sitting, necessity for prescribed pain medications, necessity for physical therapy, sleep disturbances, cervical spine tenderness with restricted range of motion, lumbrosacral spine tenderness with restricted range of motion, necessity for extended physical therapy, unable to perform household chores, loss of enjoy of life.

A Nassau Lawyer said that, plaintiff was involved in a prior motor vehicle accident in 2002 whereby he injured his neck, lower back, and shoulders. Defendant claims that the spinal injuries plaintiff complains of in this accident are not causally related to the 2008 motor vehicle accident, but rather are permanent spine injuries resulting from the 2002 accident.

Defendant has presented objective medical testing from 2002 in order to establish the preexisting spine injuries at the time of the 2008 accident. The MRI report dated February 25, 2002 of Dr. Richard J. Rizzuti indicated posterior disc bulge at L3-L4 and at L5-S1 impinging on the spinal canal. The report indicated posterior disc bulges at C-5-6 and at C6-7 impinging on the anterior aspect of the spinal canal. Therefore, plaintiff had bulging discs with impingement six years prior to the subject accident. Dr. Spindler states that “any scores falling in the abnormal range recognize a possible entrapment of the nerves and indicate that a problem exists.” More recently, plaintiff’s treating chiropractor, issued a report dated March 16, 2010 in which she opined that plaintiff suffered a permanent consequential disability with regard to his cervical and lumbar spine and is unable to perform his normal activities of daily living as a result of the 2002 accident. The Long Island Defendant claims that the evidence demonstrates that any permanent and consequential spine injuries and plaintiff’s inability to perform activities of daily living were a result of the prior accident in August 2002 and not the subject accident.

Published on: September 18, 2012

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

by Stephen Bilkis

A 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 injuryin 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: August 27, 2012

On June 10, 2007, a woman, driving a Nissan was rear-ended by a BMW

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 10, 2007, a woman, driving a Nissan was rear-ended by a BMW as it was stopped at the intersection of Merrick Road and East Shore Drive. As a result of this accident the woman sustained a spinal injury: she had swollen discs and a severe sprain of the lumbar spine. She asserts that two weeks after the accident occurred, she was ordered to rest in bed by her Manhattan doctor. She was also confined to her home and could not go to work until after another four weeks.

She claims that after the accident, she could no longer play volleyball or do gardening. She cannot stand or sit for more than thirty minutes. Fifteen months after the accident, the woman joined a local gym where her favourite workout was on the recumbent bicycle.

The defendant owner and driver of the BMW that allegedly rear-ended her Nissan filed a motion for summary judgment. He claims that the complaint should be dismissed because the woman failed to state that the spinal injury she sustained is a serious injury. She also failed to state which classification of serious injury she falls under. There are five categories of serious injury under the Insurance Law: death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, fracture or loss of a fetus, total loss of use of a body organ, function or system.

Published on: August 25, 2012

A man and his girlfriend rented a car from a car company and brought their kids to school

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and his girlfriend rented a car from a car company and brought their kids to school. The school’s driveway allowed cars to go only one way. When they neared the entrance and the children had gotten off, their rental car was sandwiched between two school buses that were also letting children off. When the bus in front of their rental car went forward, the couple moved their car but hit the school security guard who was standing near the front of the rental car driven by the couple.

The security guard was hit in his right knee for which reason he fell on the hood of the couple’s rental car. The defendants claim that they never struck the security guard. He stood in front of their rental car and struck the hood of the car with his palm to stop them from moving.

The security guard filed a suit in damages against the couple and against the rental car company and their insurers. He claims to have sustained serious spinal injury especially of the lower back, the hip and his right knee joint.

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: July 25, 2012

On March 24, 2006, a 77 year old man was about to cross the street

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 24, 2006, a 77 year old man was about to cross the street at the corner of Fifth Avenue and West 139th Street. He was hit by a car. This car hit the 77 year old because it was also hit by another car from the back.

The 77 year old man was hospitalized in Manhattan. Later he filed a case for damages and he sued the two car drivers. The 77 year old man presented the medical findings which were made from tests conducted immediately after the accident while the two drivers presented the findings of a neurologist, an orthopedic surgeon, radiologist and a plastic surgeon.

The orthopedic surgeon conducted a range of motion tests on the entire spinal column of the 77 year old man to determine if he sustained any spinal injury. He observed that the movement of his spine is limited but he did not attribute this as resulting from the accident but from his advanced age. All the other medical specialists who examined him all gave the opinion that the 77 year old man suffered no permanent disability or spinal injury. The orthopedic surgeon conducted these tests in 2008, two years after the accident occurred in 2006.