V.K. v. AT&T et. al.
Mediated Settlement: $115,000.00
Intersection accident where there was a question as to whether or not client was making a left with a green turn signal, which was disputed by defendant. Impact of accident resulted in a fractured wrist with open reduction internal fixation with plate and screws. Full recovery after physical therapy.
L.M. v. Competition Imports et al.
Labor law case involving 28 year old man installing HVAC ductwork at a commercial establishment who fell off an A-frame ladder that walked and became unstable. Defendant filed motion for summary judgment stating that he contributed to his injury precluding recovery.
Plaintiff filed cross-motion for summary judgment, which included testimony from the only eye-witness to the accident, who said that many complaints were made about the shoddy ladders provided to employees and that the ladder Plaintiff was using at the time of the accident walked out from under him, causing him to fall and land on his back.
Plaintiff prevailed on the cross-motion.
Successful Resolution of Claim and Infant Compromise for a Local High-School Student
Successful resolution of claim and infant compromise for a local high-school student, who was a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by her mother. The minor sustained a very small but somewhat noticeable scar in the fold of her neck. No other injuries reported. I was able to settle the case for $ 15,000.00, which a Suffolk County judge signed off on.
Long Island Railroad Employees v. Railroad Retirement Board
In 2012 and 2013 I represented several individuals who were employees of the Long Island Railroad in various capacities, but the majority were track workers, who performed repetitive manual labor on the railroad tracks many of us ride on a daily basis. Railway track workers lay and repair heavy track and install associated equipment. They also repair track in all kinds of horrible conditions, including blizzards.
All of my clients had been declared disabled after being loyal employees doing backbreaking work, by a variety of treating doctors. Some of these disability decisions were more than ten years old and my clients were dependent on these benefits in order to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
In 2013, the Railroad Retirement Board in Chicago, Il, decided, unilaterally, to terminate the disability benefits provided to my clients because one of their treating doctors, Peter Adjemian, M.D., a board certified Garden City Orthopedist, had been convicted of signing off on allegedly fraudulent disability applications filed by LIRR employees for over a decade.
I decided to represent the disabled employees after meeting with them and reviewing the stacks of medical records they readily provided to me. These records included independent, objective examination and treatment reports from hospitals and other medical doctors, including pain management specialists, neurologists and orthopedic surgeons. They also included MRI and nerve testing reports, which confirmed diagnoses of herniated discs, stenosis and in many cases, severe nerve damage. After my review of these records, and with my experience as an injury lawyer, I knew that these individuals were suffering with severe injuries Despite the positive findings in the voluminous medical records of my clients, the Railroad Retirement Board sent each of my clients a letter advising that as of a specific date, their benefits would be terminated.
The issues in these cases were two-fold:
First, my clients were being denied due-process under the law. Due process is defined as:
“A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one’s life, liberty, or property.”
The Railroad Retirement Board is a government entity, and therefore its actions must comport with the due process clause of the constitution. By acting arbitrarily and cutting off benefits without providing a forum for their beneficiaries to dispute its decision, it was acting in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
The second issue in this case was the actual proof of disability in these cases. Because my clients had been to doctors and had been treated by providers OTHER than Dr. Adjemian, there was a good chance that the Railroad Retirement Board would, upon actually considering the dispute, decide to reinstate my clients’ benefits.
Although I was ready to litigate these cases against the Railroad Retirement Board if it came to it, I started with writing letters to the Board on my clients’ behalf detailing the Board’s violation of procedural due process. Each letter was tailored to describe my clients’ medical diagnoses and treatment. Along with the letter I annexed all of the medical documentation supporting the Board’s prior (and correct) decision to provide disability benefits to my client. Rather than deciding to stand on it’s unreasonable decision to take away the benefits, the Board changed course and in each of my clients’ cases, they reinstated what was rightfully theirs.
Successful Insurance Appeal; April, 2018
Client was involved in a motorcycle accident in Southold, New York and was transferred by helicopter to Stony Brook University Medical Center for Emergency Treatment. Client did not have no-fault coverage as he was riding his motorcycle and his health insurance denied the emergency transport while paying for the hospital stay. Client was presented with a $ 17,000.00 bill from the emergency transport service. Health Insurance Carrier’s grounds for denial was that No-Fault should have covered. I had to explain the interrelationship between motorcycles, the fact that No-Fault is not compulsory coverage for motorcycles in New York, and when Health Insurance should kick in. I also stated that the Emergency Room was covered with no question, therefore, the emergency helicopter transport should have been as well. Insurance carrier relented and ended up covering and I saved the client $ 17,000.00 minus a minimal co-pay.
Successful Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; May, 2018; Suffolk County Index Number 609503/2016E
Client was involved in a hit to the rear motor vehicle accident. Rather than spending money and wasting time on taking defendants’ depositions, I filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Suffolk County Supreme Court found the defendants 100% liable and therefore no trial is necessary on that issue. Trial will only go forward on value of damages sustained.
A.L. v. Obiz (Suffolk County): Client was involved in an intersection accident, resulting in multiple fractures which included necessity of sacral joint fusion. After depositions, case settled for $ 245,000.00.
M.Y. v. commercial property in Montauk (Suffolk County): Mediated settlement $ 200,000.00. My client lost balance on a steep ramp leading up to client’s business, causing fracture of hip and resulted in surgery/rehabilitation. The age of building made the case problematic in terms of liability.
Car Accident Case
M.V. v. Ceckowski: Client was a passenger in a motor vehicle in which the driver lost control and hit a house. Multiple seriously injured victims including my client and resident of the home. Policy was $ 300,000.00 with no underinsured motorist coverage. My client’s case settled for $ 150,000.00.
B.S v. Foster (Suffolk County): After successful motion for summary judgment on liability, case settled for $ 160,000.00. Client’s vehicle was hit to the rear resulting in shoulder surgery and multiple lumbar nerve ablation procedures.
R.R.B v. Griffin/Hren (Suffolk County): After successful motion for summary judgment on liability, case settled for $ 500,000.00. Client’s vehicle was hit to the rear resulting in cervical spine surgery. Degenerative finding on MRI mitigated value somewhat.
In re L.M. vs. commercial landowner (Suffolk County): Mediated settlement $ 1,937,500.00. Client fell off a ladder while hanging ductwork, resulting in lumbar spine surgery and failed back syndrome. Extenuating circumstances mitigated the settlement value of this case, but overall, successful result. Confidentiality agreement prevents office from offering further information on this settlement.