$2 Million - Medical Malpractice - wrongful death of a 57 year-old, married, man who suffered a 1-year delay in diagnosis of prostate cancer resulting in metastasis.   

$1.9 Million - Medical Malpractice - 59 year-old man suffered paralysis from a hemorrhagic stroke after being negligently sent home by his primary care doctor in a hypertensive crisis. The rehabilitation facility to which he was subsequently transferred then failed to properly care for a bed sore resulting in sepsis and death.

$1.4 Million - Medical Malpractice - 41 year-old man who underwent elective gastric lap band surgery for obesity suffered erosion of the band resulting in peritonitis, wound infection, sepsis and respiratory failure. The man then developed tracheomalacia from a tracheostomy which ultimately required stenting of the trachea. A claim was also made for the failure to prevent and timely treat bedsores that progressed to Stage IV. 

$1.35 Million - Dental Malpractice - 42 year-old woman contracted a jaw infection after receiving an injection for the treatment of TMJ. The dentist failed to timely diagnose and treat the infection resulting in permanent jaw damage.

$1.3 Million - Construction Accident - 53 year-old electrician supervisor fell on construction debris resulting in injuries that necessitated an arthroscopic wrist surgery and cervical diskectomy. 

View more results

* Prior results do not guarantee a similar result.

As general counsel for the Uniformed Firefighters Association, we are often asked by many firefighters what their rights are with respect to making certain statements in the workplace. Unfortunately, the answer is not simple, as it depends on whether the statement was made pursuant to his or her official duties. In addition, it also depends on how "disruptive" the statement is determined to be.

The Supreme Court dismissed the deputy district attorney's lawsuit, finding that public employees (such as firefighters), are not protected under the First Amendment for statements they make as part of their official duties. Thus, a public employee may be subject to disciplinary action for something he or she says while in the scope of his or her employment.  

In a similar case, here, in New York, Benvenisti v. City of New York, No. 04 Civ. 3166 (JGK), 2006 WL 2777274 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2006), an employee for the City of New York sued his employer, claiming that he was fired because he had complained about and eventually threatened to report a potential conflict of interest with a hiring decision. The court dismissed the employee's case, finding that the complaints that he had made to his supervisor were made as part of his official duties and thus were not protected by the First Amendment. 

Additionally, even if a public employee's speech is not within the scope of his or her duties, it still may not be protected by the First Amendment. In another case, Locurto v. Giuliani, 447 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2006), the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, held that the City of New York was within its rights to terminate a police officer and two firefighters who participated in a "racist" parade float in 1998. Even though these public employees were clearly not acting within their scope of employment during the parade, the Court found that "[t]he First Amendment does not require a government employer to sit idly by while its employees insult those they are hired to serve and protect."  

When it comes to speech made by a public employee outside the scope of his or her employment, in deciding whether it is protected by the First Amendment, a court will balance the employee's interest in expressing himself against any injury the speech could cause to the interests of his employer. If the court finds that the potential disruptive effect of the speech outweighs its value, the employee may be disciplined by his employer regardless of when or where the speech occurred.

The lesson to learn from the law in this State is that public employees such as firefighters, should be mindful of the potential effects of their expressive conduct as their words or actions may not fall under the protection of the First Amendment's right to free speech.  

Most of our clients go to their doctors for annual check-ups where "routine" testing is performed. In many instances, they are told that the doctor's office will call if anything is abnormal; otherwise they can assume everything is normal. While this approach may be more convenient, and make less work for the doctor, it may lead to a significant delay in diagnosis and treatment of a serious, but treatable, medical condition.  

 Over the years, we have litigated several medical malpractice cases where this "no news is good news" approach yielded deadly results for the patient. In one case, a woman who had a "routine" screening mammogram was never told by her doctor that the mammogram showed "findings highly suspicious of a malignant process" leading to a significant delay in treatment of her breast cancer - which spread during the delay. In another case, a seemingly healthy husband and father was never told that several of his "routine" EKG tests revealed that he had experienced a mild heart attack in the past. As a result, his coronary artery disease was never discovered or treated and he died of a massive heart attack several years later.

When a doctor fails to advise a patient of an abnormal test result, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the malpractice, which is the date the doctor should have advised the patient of the abnormal result. Contrary to what many people think, the statute of limitations does not begin to run when the patient learned of the doctor's failure to advise the patient of the test result. Therefore, with respect to the statute of limitations, the law in this area actually benefits the doctor and works to the disadvantage of the uninformed patient. A patient may be entitled to a toll of the statute of limitations based upon a legal principle known as the continuous treatment doctrine. The continuous treatment doctrine, however, will probably not apply if there are no follow up visits to address the condition revealed in the test result. Furthermore, in order for the continuous treatment doctrine to apply, courts usually require a patient to establish a number of other facts. 

If you feel that you have been harmed by a doctor's failure to explain an abnormal test result, you should contact an attorney immediately. In order to protect your rights, it is best if you are able to get copies of your medical records as soon as possible. This will speed up the investigation phase of the process and could end up saving your cause of action.