Buffalo Personal Injury Lawyer News

Court Clarifies Affidavit Of Merit Rule In Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: March 23, 2021 | By Dietrich Law Firm P.C.

Med-Mal-300x300
In Haviland v. Lourdes Med. Ctr. of Burlington County, Inc., the plaintiff suffered a shoulder injury while undergoing a radiology exam because the technician deviated from accepted standards of medical care. However, the trial court dismissed the case because the plaintiff failed to file an affidavit of merit (AOM). The legal issue revolved around whether New Jersey law mandates AOMs for vicarious liability claims filed against healthcare establishments involving negligent unlicensed employees. After reviewing the medical malpractice case, the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that the plaintiff was not required to file an AOM with his complaint. The decision to reverse the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit could have profound implications on future vicarious liability claims concerning the requirement of AOMs for med mal cases.

The Ruling’s Possible Implications For New York Med Mal Cases

New Jersey and 27 other states require an affidavit of merit for medical malpractice cases. Under New York Law, all med mal actions must be accompanied by a certificate from the plaintiff’s attorney, declaring that he or she consulted with at least one licensed physician and, after thoroughly assessing the facts of the case, has determined that there are adequate grounds for pursuing such action. The affidavit of merit mandate was primarily designed to filter out frivolous claims before they are brought to court.

Popular Hand Soap Contaminated with Burkholderia Cepacia

Published on: March 16, 2021 | By Dietrich Law Firm P.C.

Hand-Soap-300x300
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is investigating a multistate outbreak of potentially dangerous bacteria. Hand soaps linked to Burkholderia Cepacia infections, sold at Walmart and other retailers, were voluntarily recalled over health concerns. B. Cepacia is the name given for at least 20 different species of bacteria that are often antibiotic-resistant.

Antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest public health threats of modern times. Unfortunately, roughly 2.8 million victims contract antibiotic-resistant infections, and over 35,000 of those suffer fatalities each year. According to the CDC, B. Cepacia is found in soil and water, but contaminated medicines usually cause human infections. Although B. Cepacia poses minimal risk to healthy individuals, those with certain sicknesses, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, and weakened immune systems, may be more vulnerable to infections, which can cause severe lung disease and even death.

What Scent Theory Products are Contaminated?

Jury Trials Are Expected To Resume On March 22

Published on: March 8, 2021 | By Dietrich Law Firm P.C.

Jury-300x200
Chief Judge Janet DiFiore announced that the New York State Unified Court System intends to resume some in-person operations, including a limited number of jury trials in courts throughout the state. Although the chief judge has determined it is finally safe to bring people back to courtrooms, trials will take on a much different look than before COVID-19.

What to Expect for Jury Trials Under the “New Normal”

The District Attorney of Erie County, John J. Flynn Jr., promised that every possible effort would be made to ensure everyone’s safety. Anybody entering the court will be temperature checked, health screened and required to wear a mask. Social distancing has altered the traditional approach of summoning hundreds of potential jurors for jury selection. Depending on the capacity of the courtroom, under the “new normal,” less than 40 people, including the judge, court staff, 12 jurors, 2 alternates, lawyers, and defendants, will be admitted. All members of the jury and observers will be required to sit 6 feet apart from one another. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of courtrooms are equipped with enough space to handle social distancing. State Supreme Court Justice Paula L. Feroleto said, “We have one operating courtroom in each of the eight counties of Western New York that can accommodate that social distancing.” By the end of the month, Erie County plans on having two grand juries, which will meet on alternating days.

Navy Vet Died After A Police Officer Knelt On His Neck

Published on: March 4, 2021 | By Dietrich Law Firm P.C.

US-NAVY-VET-2-300x169
Another police-related fatality has recently gained national attention largely in part because it seems to reverberate the murder of George Floyd. As you may recall, Mr. Floyd was killed after a police officer kneeled on his neck, sparking national protests against police brutality and racism. The family of Angelo Quinto, the Asian American who died after a brief encounter with police, filed a lawsuit against the Antioch Police Department (APD). A spokesman for the APD told reporters that there is an ongoing investigation into the man’s death.

The Wrongful Death of Angelo Quinto

In 2019, Mr. Quito was honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy. The 30-year-old man frequently suffered from paranoia and anxiety attacks. According to Cassandra Quinto-Collins, Mr. Quinto’s mother, she called the police to their Northern California home because her son was in the middle of a serious mental health crisis and needed help. Shortly after arriving, one of the responding police officers knelt on Angelo’s neck while the other handcuffed him. Ms. Quinto-Collins, was there watching the police and trusted they knew what they were doing. Meanwhile, Mr. Quinto pleaded with the officers, “Please don’t kill me. Please don’t kill me”. After nearly 5 minutes of the officer kneeling on the victim, he lost consciousness and was rushed to the hospital by ambulance. Unfortunately, Mr. Quinto never regained consciousness and died 3 days later at the hospital.

New York Court Discusses Negligence in Slip and Fall Cases

Published on: March 3, 2021 | By Dietrich Law Firm P.C.

Slip and fall accidents frequently occur in New York, and in many instances, they cause significant harm. Some people hurt in such incidents can recover damages, but whether they are owed compensation depends on numerous factors, including what caused them to fall and how long the dangerous condition was present. In a recent New York ruling, a court discussed each party’s burden of proof with regard to negligent claims arising out of slip and fall accidents. If you suffered injuries on someone else’s property, you could be owed damages, and it is smart to meet with a dedicated Buffalo personal injury attorney to discuss your harm.

The Plaintiff’s Fall

It is alleged that the plaintiff lived in a building owned by the defendant. As she was leaving the building one day, she slipped on the landing and fell down a flight of stairs that led to the front door. She was injured in the fall and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging they negligently permitted a dangerous condition to exist on the property, which caused her to suffer injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not specify what caused her to fall and, therefore, her claim must fail. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

Proving Liability in Slip and Fall Cases

Under New York Law, if a plaintiff in a slip and fall case cannot identify the cause of his or her fall, it is fatal to any negligence claim arising out of the incident, as it would require the judge or jury determining liability to make a finding of proximate cause based on pure speculation. In the subject case, the defendant argued that the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall, and therefore, her negligence claim should be dismissed. Continue reading

Court Rejects the Emergency Doctrine Defense in a Car Accident Case in New York

Published on: March 2, 2021 | By Dietrich Law Firm P.C.

While most car accidents in New York are caused by negligent driving, some are brought about by sudden, unavoidable obstacles. Thus, New York recognizes the emergency doctrine, which can operate to remove liability for drivers who encounter sudden unexpected conditions and subsequently cause collisions during their attempts to avoid a dangerous situation. The application of the emergency doctrine does not automatically mean a driver cannot be held accountable for injuries suffered in an accident, however, as demonstrated in a recent New York opinion. If you were hurt in a crash caused by another driver, you have the right to pursue damages, and you should speak to a seasoned Buffalo car accident attorney about your possible claims.

The Plaintiff’s Accident and Subsequent Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff was riding a motorcycle when the defendant, who was driving the vehicle in front of him, stopped suddenly after a dog ran into the road. The plaintiff rear-ended the defendant and suffered injuries in the collision. He then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that her negligence caused the accident and his subsequent harm. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that pursuant to the emergency doctrine, she was not negligent. The court denied the defendant’s motion, and she appealed. On appeal, the trial court ruling was affirmed.

The Emergency Doctrine

Under New York law, drivers that stop suddenly must do so with due regard to other drivers and the exercise of reasonable care. Drivers must also signal appropriately to anyone traveling behind them before stopping abruptly. The appellate court noted that while the defendant submitted evidence that supported the assertion that she was not negligent, the plaintiff raised a factual dispute by submitting an expert affidavit stating that the best practice for a driver who encounters an animal in the road is to avoid stopping. Continue reading

New York Court Discusses Proximate Cause in Car Accident Cases

Published on: March 1, 2021 | By Dietrich Law Firm P.C.

Fatal car accidents sadly are a common occurrence in New York, and in many cases, they are caused by dangerous conditions encountered in the roadway. While people who lose loved ones in collisions are frequently able to recover damages from the parties responsible, fatalities do not always arise out of negligence, and a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s acts proximately caused the harm alleged to recover damages. Recently, a New York court issued an opinion explaining the proof needed to establish proximate cause in a case in which the plaintiff’s decedent died after crashing into a barricade on a bridge. If you lost a loved one in an accident caused by someone else’s negligence, you could be owed damages, and it is advisable to contact a knowledgeable Buffalo car accident attorney about your rights.

The Decedent’s Harm

Allegedly, the decedent was a passenger in a vehicle that crashed into a bridge that was no longer in commission. He suffered fatal injuries in the accident, after which the plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging, in part, that the defendant negligently maintained and operated the bridge. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted that the steel box barrier the defendant used at the entrance of the bridge created a dangerous condition. A non-jury trial was held, and the court determined that the steel box barrier was not a substantial factor in bringing about the decedent’s death and found in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, but on appeal, the trial court ruling was affirmed.

Establishing Proximate Cause in Negligence Claims

The appellate court found that, contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions, a fair assessment of the evidence supported the trial court’s ruling. Further, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the ruling violated prior case law establishing that victims of accidents are not required to name specific remedies and prove that if they were implemented, it would have prevented the harm suffered. Instead, the court explained that a trial court is not precluded from weighing whether a person was likely to suffer the same harm regardless of whether the defendant acted negligently. Continue reading

Court Explains Grounds for Overturning a Verdict in Personal Injury Cases in New York

Published on: February 28, 2021 | By Dietrich Law Firm P.C.

Typically, a plaintiff in a personal injury case will request a jury trial. As such, issues such as liability and damages will be determined by the plaintiff’s purported peers based on the evidence submitted by each party. Jurors do not always appropriately evaluate testimony, however, and can issue a verdict that does not align with a proper reading of the evidence, resulting in an unjust outcome. Fortunately, the law allows parties to seek a reversal of a verdict on the grounds that it is contrary to the weight of the evidence, as discussed in a recent New York opinion arising out of a car accident case. If you were hurt by the careless acts of a person driving a vehicle, it is in your best interest to speak to a knowledgeable Buffalo car accident attorney regarding your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a vehicle owned by the first defendant, which was involved in a collision with a car driven by the second defendant. The plaintiff sustained injuries in the crash and filed a lawsuit seeking damages from both defendants under a theory of negligence. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury ultimately found the first defendant completely liable for the accident, assigning none of the liability to the second defendant. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. After reviewing the case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Seeking Reversal of a Verdict

Under New York Law, a court assessing whether a jury’s verdict conflicts with the weight of the evidence presented at trial must evaluate whether the evidence is so heavily in favor of one party that the jury could not have reached its verdict based on any reasonable interpretation of the evidence. The appellate court explained that credibility determinations are the purview of the jury, as they were able to observe the evidence and witnesses. Thus, the jury’s verdict is entitled to deference, and the prevailing party is permitted to presume that the jury’s view of the evidence was fair and reasonable. Continue reading

New York Court Discusses Liability for Crashes Caused by Trailing Vehicles

Published on: February 27, 2021 | By Dietrich Law Firm P.C.

Drivers have an obligation to operate their vehicles safely. This means, in part, that a motorist must maintain sufficient distance from other cars and travel at a safe speed. Drivers who fail to abide by the law and drive recklessly are more likely to cause crashes, and if they do, they can be held liable for injuries sustained by other parties. Even in cases where it seems like the fault is clear, though, it is not uncommon for defendants to attempt to avoid liability, but they face a high burden of proof, as demonstrated in a recent New York opinion. If you were hurt in an accident caused by another driver, you might have a viable claim for damages, and it is in your best interest to meet with a trusted Buffalo personal injury attorney to discuss your case.

The Accident

Reportedly, the plaintiff-husband was driving a car in which the plaintiff-wife was riding as a passenger. They were struck from behind by a pickup truck owned by the defendant company and operated by the defendant driver. The plaintiffs, who were injured in the accident, commenced a personal injury lawsuit against the defendants. The defendants moved to amend their answer to assert the emergency doctrine defense, and the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the matter of liability. The court granted the defendants’ motion but denied the plaintiffs’, and the plaintiffs appealed.

Liability for Crashes Caused by Trailing Vehicles

Under New York Law, a person operating a vehicle that is approaching another car from the rear has an obligation to maintain a distance and speed that are reasonably safe in consideration of the current circumstances in order to avoid colliding with the other car. If a driver fails to uphold these duties and causes a rear-end crash with a vehicle that is stopped or stopping, the driver will be deemed negligent on the face of the facts unless he or she can come forward with an explanation to rebut the presumption of negligence. Continue reading

Court Explains Serious Injuries Caused by Car Accidents as Defined by New York Law

Published on: February 26, 2021 | By Dietrich Law Firm P.C.

Car crashes frequently cause cervical strain and sprain and other neck and back injuries. Whether such injuries are compensable depends, in part, on whether they are deemed serious as defined by New York Law. Recently, a New York court issued an opinion discussing what constitutes serious harm in a case in which the plaintiff was ultimately denied the right to recover damages. If you suffered injuries in a collision that was brought about by someone else’s negligence, you could be owed compensation, and it is prudent to speak to a skillful Buffalo car accident attorney regarding your potential damages.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff was involved in a collision with the defendant, which was her fourth car crash in five years. She filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that his negligent operation of a vehicle caused her to sustain a serious injury as defined by New York’s insurance laws. Following discovery, the plaintiff served the defendant with a bill of particulars alleging that she sustained serious injuries to her spine that significantly limited her bodily function. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had not, in fact, sustained a serious injury. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Serious Injuries Under New York Law

Under the No-Fault Law, the right to pursue non-economic damages in a personal injury lawsuit arising out of a car accident is limited to those cases in which the individual suffered a serious injury. In turn, New York’s insurance laws define serious injuries as the consequential and permanent limitation of use of a member or organ and a substantial limitation of the function or use of a body system. In determining whether a limitation of a function or use is consequential or significant, the court will assess the medical significance of the injury and its qualitative nature or degree, based on the typical function, use, and purpose of the injured body part. Continue reading