Spinal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: November 22, 2012

On March 16, 2003, two cars were involved in a head-on collision

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 16, 2003, two cars were involved in a head-on collision in an expressway in Brooklyn, New York. Both the drivers of the two cars claimed damages for serious spinal injuries they allegedly sustained. Both claim that they lost the function of their lumbar or cervical spine. Both claimed bulging discs at the cervical spine, herniated discs at the lumbar spine, sprain and nerve damage. The drivers sued each other as well as their insurers for damages.

Both submitted magnetic resonance imaging scans which their medical experts used as basis to find that there were degenerative changes in the cervical and lumbar spine which show herniation (swelling).

However, the medical reports issued by the examining neurologist at the time of the accident only found the two drivers to be suffering from cervical and thoracic spinal sprain and right shoulder sprain. In the weeks that followed the accident, the same attending neurologist made follow-up reports of the development of the injuries sustained by both the drivers and reported that the spinal sprains have resolved themselves. Even the sprain in the right shoulder and right arm were also resolved. This is evidence, according to the insurers, that neither driver sustained serious injury such that they can be compensated under the Insurance Law. There is no evidence that links their injuries as caused by accident.

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: November 17, 2012

A man was working as a construction worker on June 24, 1983.

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was working as a construction worker on June 24, 1983. He was on the tenth floor of a building. He lost his balance while at that height. He fell and hit a concrete floor below. He injured his head and he lost all sensation in both his arms. His Nassau-Suffolk employer paid him temporary total disability until March 15, 1984. After this, his employer paid him temporary partial disability benefits. The construction worker filed a claim for catastrophic loss benefits. When he recovered from the head injury, the construction worker still had no feeling in both his arms. He could not move his arms or do his customary work as a construction worker.

Two months after the accident the construction worker consulted a neurosurgeon. The neurosurgeon found that the reason for the numbness in his arms is that he had a spinal cord injury. The bones of his spine were compressing on his nerves causing the loss of sensation to his two arms. The neurosurgeon performed two surgeries in September and October 1983 to correct the compression. He removed the bone which was causing the compression on his spinal cord. He did not touch or repair the nerves, just the bone. After the surgeries, the man gained strength in his arms but three fingers on each hand still did not have any feeling. He was able to do simple and light chores at home but he was unable to continue with his work as a construction worker.

Four months after the surgery, the man was still experiencing pain, tingling, numbness and weakness in his fingers and hands. The neurosurgeon determined that these were not due to damage or compression to the nerves but were now only orthopedic in nature. He certified that the construction worker can go back to work but with limits. He cannot do any lifting, or do heavy construction work or work at elevations.

Published on: November 13, 2012

Plaintiff alleged that, on June 16, 2007, he was injured when a New York City Transit Authority Bus

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the court denied the motion of the defendants for summary judgment to dismiss the case against them.

Plaintiff alleged that, on June 16, 2007, he was injured when a New York City Transit Authority Bus driven by its employee made contact with a motor vehicle driven by defendant driver and owned by owner. Plaintiff was a passenger in defendant driver’s vehicle. By decision and order dated September 16, 2008, the court granted defendant owner’s motion to dismiss the complaint and any cross claims in this action as against it. (Martorella Affirm, dated 3/18/11, Ex E.)

The bill of particulars alleges that, as a result of this alleged car accident, plaintiff sustained herniated discs at C4-C7, and L5-S1, and injuries to his right hip, right arm, right shoulder, neck and back, some of which are believed or may be permanent in nature. (Martorella Affirm, dated 3/18/11, Ex C [Bill of Particulars ¶ 6].) In August 2008, plaintiff, who was represented by a law firm, apparently decided to represent himself. (Martorella Affirm, dated 3/18/11, Ex D.) Plaintiff testified at his deposition that, at the time of the accident, he was employed by Gotham Registry, a nursing agency, working per diem as a licensed nursing assistant.

Published on: November 9, 2012

According to the court, a defendant seeking summary judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a motion where the court denied defendant’s prayer for summary judgment to dismiss the claim of plaintiff.

Plaintiff Bianca and her mother commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a car accident that occurred on Prospect Street in Kings County on October 25, 1996. The accident allegedly happened when a vehicle driven by defendant struck the rear of a vehicle operated by plaintiff, which was stopped due to traffic conditions on Prospect Street. The bill of particulars alleges that plaintiff sustained various injuries as a result of the collision, including a bulging disc at level L5-S1 of the lumbosacral spine; lumbar radiculopathy; right knee sprain/strain; cervical and lumbosacralsprains/strains; and “cervical paraspinal myofascitis with discogenic radiculopathy.” It further alleges that plaintiff, who sought treatment at the emergency department of Brooklyn Hospital Center immediately after the accident, was confined to home for approximately six months due to her injuries.

Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the claim of plaintiff on the ground that she is precluded by Insurance Law §5104 from recovering for non-economic loss, as she did not sustained a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102 (d).

Published on: November 7, 2012

A independent building and construction contractor was working for a construction corporation

by Stephen Bilkis

A independent building and construction contractor was working for a construction corporation in a project in Panama City on September 3, 1985. He was at the office working on some paper work. While he was seated at his desk, he reached out to his left to a cubby hole near his desk for some more blueprints. As he reached for the blueprints he turned in his seat. He twisted his trunk and he could not move: hand outstretched, trunk twisted to the left in his seat. He remained there until his wife found him forty-five minutes later. An ambulance was called to rush the independent contractor to the hospital.

His wife took him to the emergency room where he was diagnosed to be suffering from paralysis from the neck down. CT scans were performed on him in Panama City and he was diagnosed with sudden quadriparesis (weakness in the muscles of the four limbs) of unknown origin. The doctor in Panama City opined that his injury was vascular in origin and it must have been a pre-existing vascular anomaly.

The Panamanian construction company, his employer, paid for his medical bills and paid for temporary partial disability benefits. When the man returned for further diagnoses and treatment in the United States, he consulted his general physician, the one he had been seeing for most of his adult life. His general physician referred him to a neurosurgeon who conducted more tests on him. His American doctor found that what happened to the independent contractor was spinal contusion. As the man turned and reached for the blueprints while he was seated, his spine was twisted out of shape and there was a momentary loss of blood supply to his spine. The momentary loss of blood supply to the spine resulted in lack of oxygen and thus, paralysis. The vascular disability resulted from the blood supply loss and the oxygen deprivation of the spine.

Published on: November 5, 2012

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

by Stephen Bilkis

A NYC 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 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 Westchester 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: 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 30, 2012

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to Civil Procedure Laws and Rules

by Stephen Bilkis

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to Civil Procedure Laws and Rules, to review a determination of the State Health Department Commissioner and the Bureau of Financial Management and Information Support Director, which reduced a component of the petitioner’s Medicaid reimbursement rate following an audit, and an action for a judgment declaring that the guideline of the State Health Department for designating a diagnosis of quadriplegia (spinal injury that paralyze the four limbs) on a patient review instrument is invalid, the nursing home appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, as failed to annul that portion of the determination which found that the petitioner had misclassified two of its residents in the special care group, failed to direct that the State Health Department permit the nursing home to submit the revised patient review instruments for certain of its residents, and declared that the challenged guideline does not constitute a rule or regulation subject to the provisions of the State Administrative Procedure Act, and the Commissioner and the Director cross-appeal from so much of the same judgment as annulled that portion of the determination which reclassified the two residents in the reduced physical functioning group and remitted the matter to the State Health Department to reclassify the two residents in the clinically complex group and to calculate the petitioner’s Medicaid reimbursement rate for the period covered by its patient review instruments accordingly.

The petitioner is a not-for-profit corporation owned by the United Cerebral Palsy Association which operates a 185-bed nursing home in Nassau County.

As part of the Medicaid reimbursement rate calculation, Patient Review Instruments are completed semiannually for each patient in the nursing home. Patient Review Instruments require detailed information assessing patients’ conditions, treatment, and dependencies and required care, needs, and services. These Patient Review Instruments place patients into 16 patient classification categories or resource utilization groups, corresponding roughly to the severity of the patients’ medical conditions and the intensity of the required care. The categories are further divided into five hierarchical groups which, in descending order of resource utilization, are heavy rehabilitation, special care, clinically complex, severe behavioral, and reduced physical functioning. Each category is assigned a numerical value, which reflects the relative resource utilization of patients in that group. The patient’s Case Mix Index of a nursing home is the weighted average of its patients in each category. Thus, the greater the resource utilization is the greater the associated Case Mix Index, and therefore the greater the reimbursement.

Published on: October 28, 2012

The ability to prove that an injury that has been sustained in an automobile accident

by Stephen Bilkis

The ability to prove that an injury that has been sustained in an automobile accident is serious under the essential elements of the laws of New York can be a daunting experience. The law is clear on what is considered a serious personal injury. In order for a person to recover damages associated with an accidental injury, the person must be able to present medical evidence that demonstrates that the person has a loss of use of a limb, a serious spinal injury, or a serious brain injury. The mere contention that an injury is serious and painful does not constitute a serious injury under the law. There must be some corroborating medical evidence of the injury. It is not even sufficient to bring in a doctor who is willing to testify that the person has experienced a serious injury that is life changing. That doctor must be able to show that he performed or administrated accepted medical tests that demonstrate that the injury is severe enough to be life altering.

That means that the injury that is sustained must be so severe that the person injured is not able to do the things in life that they did for enjoyment or work before the accident. The problem is that many doctors do not agree on diagnoses. Anyone who has gone to numerous doctors and had each one give them a different diagnoses understands this problem. It is frustrating when it is not something that will be presented in court. It is unnerving when it is. That is a major problem for anyone who has suffered a life changing accident only to have to find a doctor who is willing to interpret the test results to a court in verification of what the patient already knows to be true. One case of this nature was commenced on December 16, 2008.

That was the date that an injured man filed his personal injury lawsuit in New York. He was injured in a motor vehicle accident on January 9, 2008. His car was stopped at a traffic light when another car struck it with enough force to knock it off of the roadway and into a fire hydrant. The man maintained that he sustained serious spinal injury, and injury to his right knee that has resulted in an altered gait and a limp. He also maintained that he received a head injury that has left him with headaches, dizziness and post-concussion syndrome. He presented numerous medical records, x-rays and MRI reports to support his allegations.