Articles Posted in Nassau

Published on:

Depression is a disease that affects many Americans. In recent years as the unemployment rate has skyrocketed, depression has increased as well. Workers who find themselves in vastly different life circumstances than they had planned for, are likely to begin to suffer from depression even if they never have experienced problems in the past. A person who is injured while on the job and finds themselves disabled is more likely than any other unemployed person to suffer from depression related illnesses. A disabled Nassau worker has gone virtually overnight from being a strong active employed person to being bedridden for several days or weeks and unemployed. The new wording to the Family Medical Leave Act states that if a person is catastrophically injured on the job, their company is only required to keep their job open for them for twelve weeks. At the end of the twelve week period, that injured employee may be fired and a new person hired to fill their job. The days of companies and even government entities standing behind an employee who has been injured on the job are over.

That was the situation that one New York highway department worker found himself in when he was struck by a car while at work. He sustained serious personal injury from this accident in December of 1995. His spinal injury left him disabled and unable to return to work. He began to suffer from depression and in January of 1998, his wife found him dead by his own hand. She filed a request for workers compensation death benefits. Her contention was that her husband committed suicide because of his depression which was directly related to the accident at work. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge agreed that the wife should be granted death benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that she should not be awarded death benefits because they found that there was no causal relationship associated to the accident and the husband’s suicide. The wife filed an appeal of their decision.

She based her appeal on the fact that death benefits are deemed appropriate if the work injury results in insanity, brain injury, brain deterioration or a pattern of mental deterioration which may culminate in suicide. She also contends that there was no lawyer on the board to evaluate the application of law in this case. According to the Laws of New York State, in order for this woman to be awarded compensation, she must show that there was a causal link between the accident and her husband’s suicide. In order to demonstrate a causal link, she must present competent medical proof that her husband suffered from a mental deterioration brought on by the accident that ended in him taking his own life. The board is required to give more credence to an opinion based on medical evidence, than they are their own opinions that are not based on medical knowledge.

In this case, the wife presented only one medical expert to prove her case. The doctor that she presented was a board certified psychiatrist; however, he had never actually treated her husband before his death. The Suffolk doctor based his opinion only on the written medical records and correspondence with the man’s wife. The court did not feel that this was a sufficient medical opinion in light of the fact that the doctor had never even met the injured man. The medical records that were produced from doctors who did actually treat and know the man before his death showed no mention that the man was suffering from depression or any other type of mental illness. Based on this information the court agrees with the Workers’ Compensation Board that there is not enough evidence present to grant her a death benefits claim.
Continue reading

Published on:

A Pensacola, Florida, man is accused of violently pushing his 4-month-old son which caused the child to suffer a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Bond was set for the man at $150,000.
The 20-year-old father, of the 200 block of Marigold Drive was arrested and charged with three separate counts of aggravated child abuse.

As of late last week, he was still in the Escambia County Jail.

According to an expert in Nassau, the child was apparently brought to a hospital by someone close to him. The exact details of that are not known at the present time. The Sacred Heart Hospital contacted the Sheriff’s Office when they suspected the child’s injuries resulted from abuse.

The father initially told deputies that his infant son regurgitated some food and became unresponsive, but he later admitted that he had been sitting on the floor holding his son. The child was crying so much that the father became frustrated and “pushed the infant backward causing the infant to hit his head on the floor.”

In America, a Suffolk Attorney says, children suffer daily from this hidden epidemic known as child abuse. The epidemic covers every socioeconomic level and reaches across cultural and ethnic boundaries. Victims can be found within all religions and at all levels of education.

Every 10 seconds a report of child abuse is made. That tallies to over 3 million child abuse reports that are made annually; this number is not inflated for reports with multiple children listed. In 2007, for instance, over 5.8 million children were involved in the 3.2 million reports. In approximately 10.8% of the above cases, physical abuse was alleged or proven.

The sad truth is that almost five children die daily due to child abuse. More than 75% of them are younger than 4 years of age.

In many cases, one of the parents is also abused and subjugated to the will and pressure of the other. It is surprisingly hard to stop the abuse cycle, even though it is not what anyone wants to be a victim of.
Continue reading

Published on:

A personal injury action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Oceanside Road and Erwin Place in Oceanside, New York. Among other injuries, the woman suffered a traumatic brain injury.

On June 30, 2010, the Court denied the opponents’ motions for summary judgment to dismiss the woman’s complaint. The Nassau Court determined that, as the woman had yet to testify at her sworn examination before trial, the accused men’s motion for summary judgment must be denied as premature. The Court also determined that because both accused men have failed to demonstrate that the Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinances do not apply to them, the motion and cross motion must be denied. Finally, the Court also held that, because the driver’s operation of his motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol arguably may be deemed by the trier of fact to be a superseding cause of the woman’s injuries, the accused men’s motions for summary judgment to dismiss the woman’s action based in negligence must be denied.

The core of the woman’s allegations against the accused men relates to certain bushes located between the residences, which bushes are alleged to block the view of traffic. The woman alleges that the overgrown nature of the bushes, which she claim are in contravention of height requirements provided in local ordinances, contributed in some measure to the occurrence of the serious traffic accident.

In an attempt to reverse the Court’s determination, the accused men both separately move for leave to renew the Court’s Decision and Order. Both accused state that their respective motions are made pursuant to the Civil Practice Law and Rules, which provides for a combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew.

The Civil Practice Law provides that a combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought. The court, in determining a combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew, shall decide each part of the motion as if it were separately made.

In considering such a motion made pursuant to the Civil Practice Law and Rules, a Court must measure each branch of the motion according to the requirements which govern motions for re-argument and renewal, respectively.

In the instant case, one of the accused make it plain in his motion and reply papers that his motion is one for renewal, not re-argument. Specifically, in the reply it is stated that, despite the woman’s assertion that the accused men’s motion is a combined motion to renew and reargue, the accused men’s motion was in fact made as motion to renew. Yet, the accused men include in his motion and reply papers various arguments previously submitted to the Court, without identifying which matters of fact or law the Court allegedly overlooked or misapprehended.

The other man from Suffolk is intimate that his motion is both a renewal and a re-argument motion, although the labeling of his own motion is inconsistent within the affirmation of counsel. Finally, in his reply, the accused claim that the motion is a combined one for renewal and re-argument.

In any event, the Court will consider each such motion separately, as required by statute. Firstly, with respect to the first man’s renewal motion, the Court notes that the accused have not presented any new facts for the Court’s consideration, nor have they demonstrated that there has been a change in the law that would change the Court’s prior determination. Thus, the accused man’s motion to renew is denied, but the Court will consider his motion as one seeking leave to reargue.

The other accused man’s renewal motion is likewise denied. Although the accused have submitted the woman’s deposition testimony, which he did not possess when he filed the original summary judgment motion, the woman’s testimony does not change the prior determination of the Court. The woman’s testimony consists of a total of six (6) pages wherein she testified that she remembers nothing about the accident. She did not testify about the general appearance of the roadways involved, nor did she offer testimony about the bushes in question. Despite the fact that her testimony is wholly and plainly of no moment regarding the men’s liability related to the bushes, the accused men both submitted such testimony in support of their motion.

Although both men’s motions are not specifically and properly identified, the Court will afford a broader view of their respective motions and treat those motions as motions for re-argument as well.

At his oral examination before trial, one of the men testified that he had consumed alcohol on the day of the accident. He testified that ultimately he pled guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol and that he was sentenced upon that conviction. He stated at his deposition that he was also prosecuted and pled guilty to vehicular assault in the 2nd degree, a class E felony. He admitted that he was operating a motor vehicle while having 0.09 of 1% per centum or more of alcohol in his blood. His license was subsequently revoked.

The man also testified that at the time of the accident which resulted to the woman’s injury, he was operating his motor vehicle heading northbound on Oceanside Road. The complainant woman was operating her vehicle westbound and was attempting to make a left hand turn onto Oceanside Road when the impact occurred. The woman’s travel was governed by a stop sign on Erwin Place. The facts established that, at the intersection, Oceanside Road is slightly curved so that a vehicle traveling north on Oceanside Road, such as the accused man’s vehicle, would be driving on a bend as he approached the subject T-intersection. In fact, the man testified at his deposition that a person traveling on Oceanside Road did not have clear view of the intersection as a result of the curvature of the road, the telephone pole, the speed limit sign and also the hedgerow on the accused man’s properties.

It was also established on the underlying motions that the other man is the owner of the premises, which sits on the south-east corner of said T-intersection, and the front of which faces Erwin Place. The accused is the owner as tenants in common of the premises, which home is adjacent to the other accused man’s home, and the front of which faces Oceanside Road. It was legitimate entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law.

The testimony of the non-party witnesses establishes that the bushes in question may have contributed to the occurrence of the accident underlying the action, thus raising triable issues of fact with respect to the personal injury liability of both the accused. Neither of the accused men submitted the non-party witness deposition testimony to the Court. The woman submitted that deposition testimony in her opposition to the instant motions made by the accused.

The woman’s former boyfriend testified that the bushes that are blocking the view of the vehicles located on Erwin Place, thus interfering with a driver’s ability to see cars traveling northbound on Oceanside Road.

A passenger in the car traveling behind the woman described that same intersection as being obstructed by bushes that were about six feet high.

A man driving the car traveling behind the woman at the time of the accident testified that the bushes in question block the view of the oncoming traffic on Oceanside Road. He saw the truck only after it had passed the bushes. According to him, the bushes started relatively close to the intersection and ran all the way down and he couldn’t really see the street at all.
The Court turns to the accused men’s claims that the town ordinances do not apply to them, and do not place any duty on them with regard to motorists.

Specifically, the ordinances alleged by the woman to have been breached by the moving accused men relate to Fences and Fences and Planting screens. Upon their instant motions to renew, the accused have failed to proffer any new or additional facts surrounding the alleged statutory breaches. Nevertheless, even overlooking the otherwise fatal procedural infirmity, the accused have failed to demonstrate, yet again on the renewed motion, that the ordinances do not apply to them.

As the Court detailed in its prior Decision and Order, the woman’s personal injury claims against the accused relate to their alleged failure to keep the hedges on their property properly trimmed so as to permit maximum view of the T-intersection. In that regard, while it is true that generally property owners have no common-law duty to control the vegetation on their property for the benefit of public highway users, the accused have failed to show that the shrubbery at issue does not apply to them. Upon their instant motions, the accused maintain that even if the shrubbery at issue is deemed to be a planting screen within the meaning of the ordinances, the language of the ordinances to not specifically outline or intimate that the ordinance is in place to protect drivers on a highway. Relying principally upon the Second Departments’ rulings as well as the Court of Appeals’ ruling, the accused argue that in addition to the fact that there is no common law duty owed to the woman by the landowners, the public policy also supports the finding that they as private landowners cannot be held liable to the accused. The arguments are unavailing.

It is true that there is no common law duty imposed upon owners or occupiers of land to control vegetation on their property for the benefit of users of a public highway. The absence of a common law duty on the abutting owner, however, does not end the inquiry into the abutting owner’s potential liability. There exists an exception to the common law rule when, as in this case, an ordinance or a specific regulatory provision places an affirmative duty on the abutting owner to maintain and keep the area free of obstructions. It is undisputed that the Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance, impose upon the property owners a duty to prevent vegetation from visually obstructing the roadway. Thus, in the absence of any demonstration by the accused that they complied with said ordinances, proof of noncompliance with the regulatory provisions may give rise to tort liability for any damages proximately caused thereby.
Continue reading

Published on:

Personal Injury accidents can have life altering effects on the person who is injured. Sometimes, the problems that the person suffers exceed the physical injuries that have occurred. When a person goes from being active and unimpaired one day to infirmed the next, it is impossible for the person to not have some depression about the change in life circumstances. In some of these cases, the injured person becomes so depressed by the changes in his or her life circumstances that they lose the will to live. In these cases, New York law has stipulated that if the person filing a wrongful death suit must be able to show that there is a causal link between the person’s suicide and the injury that they received at work.

One case that involved this type of wrongful death action involved a man who was injured twice at work. He was injured 14 years before his death and then again five years before his death. In 1945, the decedent was an usher at a movie theatre when a fight broke out in the men’s room. He attempted to break up the fight and was pushed into a marble wall, and suffered a brain injury. He was diagnosed with a cerebral concussion as a result of the accident and eleven days later a workers’ compensation doctor announced that he was fully recovered. His wife claims that although he went back to work. Her husband suffered from headaches blackouts, and fainting spells following this accident.

The second accident occurred in 1959 in Nassau, when he suffered a debilitating back injury while at work. The back injury changed his lifestyle and caused him to plummet into a state of deep depression. His wife stated that it was this deep depression that led him to take his own life. The workers compensation board disagreed. They contend that this man was suffering from many issues that affected his mental stability long before he took his own life. They contend that he was suffering from mental illness before he had his first work place injury in 1945.

The workers compensation board attorneys state that it was his life story that pointed to their contention that his work place injury had nothing to do with his suicide. They testified that his birth was the result of the rape of his mother who was crippled. She could not stand the sight of him after his birth and gave him up for adoption. He was raised in foster care and had medical problems from birth. He suffered from painful rickets as a small child because of his poor nutrition. He had surgery in 1940 for a polyp in his right ear. Four years later he was hospitalized because of a severe bout of renal colic. He remained in the hospital for a month. The year before his first industrial accident, he voluntarily admitted himself into the Queens General Mental Hygiene Clinic for anxiety and back pain. He told the medical personnel at that time that he had fallen off of a stoop three years before. He told them that as a result of the fall, he would get panicky and have black outs. He told them that he would have occasions of blindness that would occur about twice a day and that he suffered from headaches every day. He also told them that he had strange dreams and nightmares. The board maintained that while the causes of suicide are many, this man was headed in that direction long before his first industrial accident.

The court in Suffolk did not agree. They reviewed all of the associated evidence and determined that while this man clearly had other issues to deal with, the change in life circumstances that occurred following his back injury were dramatic. The depression that resulted was well documented and the Supreme Court ruled that the death was associated to the personal injury.
Continue reading

Published on:

40-year-old U.S. Representative Gabrielle “Gabby” Gifford’s announced plans to travel to Cape Canaveral to watch her NASA astronaut-husband Mark Kelly launch into space on the next Space Shuttle flight.

The Congresswoman is improving, but she is still recovering from a bullet wound to her left-cerebral hemisphere. She was shot in the head at point-blank range by 22-year-old community college student. The young man also killed six other people in the incident.
Her Suffolk doctor said, “Medically, there is no reason she could not travel safely to Florida to participate in this incredible event with her husband.”

Questions regarding Gifford’s recovery from Traumatic Brain Injurycontinue to plague her PR team who insist she’s made dramatic progress since the assassination attempt in January. She recently transferred to an intensive rehab facility, where it is hoped she will regain cognitive functions like her grossly impaired speech.

“Nearly five months since her brain injury, Gifford’s displays severe aphasia, pervasive impairment of her expressive language ability.  While it’s tempting to draw conclusions about Gifford’s recovery from TBI, traveling to attend her husband’s launch isn’t correlated with her rehab.  Any patient with stable vital signs, regardless of brain damage, can be transported safely from one location to another,” a doctor admits.

Gaby’s husband, Mark, recently admitted that his wife’s medical team hasn’t yet told her about the six deaths and numerous injuries that occurred at the same time as her accident.  While there’s nothing wrong with giving the Congresswoman adequate time for rehab, there are real questions, nearly five months later, on whether she’ll return for duty as a U.S. Representative. 
If Ms. Gifford’s neuro-rehabilitation team were to admit the truth, they may likely say that it’s doubtful she’ll recover much more of her impaired speech, which invites real questions about her fitness for duty.  A Nassau doctor reveals that while there is a chance to recover more functions five months after her brain injury, restoring all her cognitive and speech functions grows more unlikely by the day. 

While the day is sure to be special for the Giffords, it in no way should be seen as a marker of vast improvement or advancement through therapy. We all hope the best for Ms. Gifford’s, but should remind ourselves of the severity of a brain injury like hers.
Continue reading

Published on:

In 1960, a Nassau man was found dead by his own hand. He left behind a suicide note that stated that he could not stand the pain of his injuries any longer. This man had suffered from a back injury on his job that left him in constant pain and unable to function as he had before he was injured. His wife filed a wrongful death suit against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Her contention is that her husband suffered from two debilitating industrial accidents. One of the work related accidents that he suffered occurred in 1945. He was working for a theatre as an usher when he attempted to break up a fight in the men’s room. His head was slammed against the marble wall of the men’s room and he suffered from a brain injuryas a result. Following this injury, the man was plagued by headaches, blackouts, and incidents of blindness. His wife stated that he would have moments of blindness that would last a few seconds at least once or twice each day. These incidents were followed by excruciating headaches. She stated that following the second injury, it was too much for him to handle. She proposes that there was a direct causal link between her husband’s industrial accidents and his suicide.

New York law states that where the symptoms of an injury that occurs on the job continue until the suicide of that person, a direct causal relationship may be inferred. That means that death benefits are awarded if the injury results naturally in disease and the disease is the cause of death. The courts have ruled that if the injury causes insanity and the insanity cause the suicide, it is the proximate cause of the death. However, if the insanity is not a result of the injury, but rather from some other cause such as melancholy or discouragement, then the injury is not considered to be the proximate cause of death.

The Worker’s Compensation Board contends that the brain injury was not the proximate cause of the decedent committing suicide. They contend that the decedent had a long history of mental illness dating back to early childhood. They produced evidence that he had committed himself to a mental institution before his first injury. His complaint at that time was severe anxiety and headaches accompanied with bouts of blindness. They stated that following this incident and only one year before his death, he checked himself into the hospital for renal colic and was in treatment for one month. They brought forth evidence of the decedent’s many medical issues and even ventured into his relationship with his mother. His mother was crippled at an early age. She was raped and the result of the rape was the decedent. He grew up in foster care. The Worker’s Compensation Board contends that the decedent had numerous health and psychiatric problems his entire life and that it was these problems and not his back injury that caused him to take his own life.

The wife disagreed and presented the case to the courts. The courts examined the injuries, reports, and contentions associated with this case. The trial court at first determined that there was no causal link between his injury and his death. The wife appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the suicide note claiming that the injury caused his suicide, and the devastating effects that the back injury had on his life, there was reason to believe that the suicide was the result of the injury at least in part. There is little doubt that this man dealt with depression in his life circumstances, but the court determined that there was a causal link between his suicide and his injury.
Continue reading

Published on:

The 38-year-olf father of a 9-week-old Grand Island girl was charged with two felony counts of child abuse last Thursday morning after the infant suffered a “severe brain injury.”

The county attorney asked for a “substantial bond” of 10% of $100,000 citing the infant’s injuries. She has retinal hemorrhaging, fluid on her brain and blood on her brain.
The baby’s long-term prognosis is unclear.

“According to reports,” a source says, “the events happened on at least three different days.

The defendant even admits to hitting the child in the head, which is the primary cause of the brain injury.

The County Judge set the bond above the attorney’s asking limit, at 10 percent of $250,000.

The judge looked at two women who were seated in the courtroom watching the father’s arraignment and pointed out the severity of the charges. “This is a pretty serious deal, understand?”

The defendant was seen wiping his eyes several times during the court appearance which was held via video conference from the county jail.

He was arrested the day before his charges were read after a Nebraska State Patrol investigation was instigated because his infant suffered a “severe brain injury” and was being treated at Children’s Hospital in Omaha.

The baby girl, who was born on Feb. 11, was being treated in the intensive care unit. She was transferred to the Omaha specialty hospital from a smaller, local hospital Tuesday night.
The incidents reportedly happened in Grand Island.

If convicted, this father faces up to 20 years in prison and a $25,000 fine for each count. His preliminary hearing was set for June. As part of his bond, he was ordered not to have any contact with the baby.

Legal restitution is guaranteed by law and can be granted through the expert legal aid obtained through Attorneys. Should you or your child in Nassau and Sufolk be harmed by others and need a strong voice to tell your story, contact a rep as soon as possible.
Continue reading

Published on:

A man was injured when he fell off a ladder while performing painting work at a loading dock at the Hotel. The man struck his head on the concrete sidewalk, sustaining a traumatic brain injury. The building is divided into two units: a Hotel unit and an Entertainment/Retail unit. The loading docks are owned by the Entertainment/Retail unit. The man was an employee of the managing agent of the Hotel unit which is a former owner of the Hotel unit.

There was an easement that allowed the Hotel unit to use portions of the building owned by the Entertainment/Retail unit, including the loading docks. The City of New York and the managing agent entered into a Declaration of Easement and Operating Agreement (DEOA) for the subject premises. Article of the DEOA defines the term owners as a collective reference to the Hotel Property Owner and the Entertainment/Retail Property Owner or either of them. The DEOA states that the Owner hereby grants to and declares for the benefit of the Hotel Property Owner, a non-exclusive casement for the use of the loading docks located in Entertainment/Retail Building as shown on the Attached Plans. However, the section also provides that the Entertainment/Retail Owner shall be responsible for the Maintenance of the loading docks, provided, however, that the Nassau Hotel Owner shall bear a share of such Maintenance costs based on the Owner Building Area Ratio. DEOA states that the Owners shall have the right to retain a building manager and that the building manager is to maintain the sidewalks, building security, the Service Elevator, shared Easement areas located in the cellar of the Entertainment/Retail unit, the loading docks as the Owners shall desire. It further states that the parties agree that the managing agent shall serve as the initial building manager.

By purchase agreement, the managing agent sold the Hotel unit to a real estate investment trust company. Subsequently, the managing agent assigned all of its rights in and under the DEOA, including all such rights associated with the Hotel Property Owner designee, to the real estate investment trust company, as assignee.

On the morning of the accident, the hotel helper was standing near the west loading dock while smoking a cigarette. The complainant man was in the east loading dock at the time, over 100 feet away. He was using an extension ladder and according to the hotel helper, the man had placed the ladder on metal grating. He observed the man falling from the ladder, and then striking the concrete sidewalk. The hotel helper and the doorman ran to the man, and found him lying face down as well as the extension ladder, a rope, a bucket, and spilled paint on the sidewalk. The man had a large gash in the back of his head. The hotel helper took off his shirt, and covered the man. The man was not working with anyone according to the hotel helper. He called for help and for an ambulance, stating that the man was down. He also stated that, after a little while, the man started to revive and he moaned in pain and yelled in Spanish. According to the hotel helper, the building had a Genie hydraulic lift and a mechanical boom for employees working at heights. The hotel helper stated that his supervisor gave him instructions on a daily basis.

The man testified at his deposition that he could not recall the accident. He stated that he sustained head injury, resulting in pain, memory loss, and dizziness, loss of concentration and impulsiveness, and pain in his shoulders, hips, and knees. The man stated that he walks with a cane, and that he cannot walk alone. The man’s doctors told him that he should not drive because he experiences dizziness and he testified that he has a home attendant three days per week, five hours per day from 2:00 noon to 5:00 P.M. The man from Suffolk stated that he only received instructions from Slip’s chief engineer and he testified that he did see that there was a work lift in the hotel garages. However, the man always used small ladders to perform his work and he always worked alone, and never received any safety instructions.

The man’s wife testified that after the accident, her husband was in intensive care for two months, and later was transferred to a Rehabilitation Institute in New Jersey. In total, his hospitalization and rehabilitation lasted about one year. After about four months, her husband regained partial memory and his husband has problems with concentration, memory, depression, and temperament. He also cannot leave the house unaccompanied because of balance problems.

The Chief Engineer was employed by the hotel and was the man’s supervisor. He oversaw a crew of approximately 11 workers, including the complainant. On the Wednesday or Thursday before the accident, he instructed the man to perform the painting work, which entailed painting the exterior of the building, including the doors, frames, and a portion of the loading dock area. He stated that, the man I told him he had to paint the outside perimeter, basically to paint the doors, the frames, the steels that are rusted. The Chief Engineer did not give the man any other instructions. The man was to work alone and he only received instructions on how to do his work from the Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer learned of the man’s accident when the hotel helper called him around 10:45 that morning.

The assistant manager testified that there were two Genie lifts available at the site. However, he did not have the authority to supervise the daily activities or work of the man. As part of the easement, the maintenance and repair of the loading docks were shared by the Hotel and Entertainment/Retail units. When the exterior of the building needed to be painted, he contacted the Chief Engineer. The actual maintenance/repair work was performed by the hotel and the costs were shared.

On August 8, 2007, the man commenced an action against the Hotel Corporation and the real estate investment trust company. The complaint asserts causes of action for negligence and violation of Labor Law. Additionally, the man’s wife seeks recovery for loss of services, society, and consortium. On December 6, 2007, the man and his wife commenced an action to seek damages under theories of negligence and under Labor Law.

The evidence shows that the man’s accident arose out of the means and methods of the work, not a dangerous or defective condition on the premises. Significantly, the evidence shows that the man was only supervised by his supervisor.

Although the land owners are liable under the Labor Law, and have shown that they did not supervise the man’s work, they have failed to show that either the real estate investment trust company or the lessee were guilty of some negligence that caused or contributed to the man’s accident. Thus, the land owners and the managing agent are not entitled to common-law indemnification and contribution.

The man and his wife’s motion which seeks summary judgment on the Labor Law claim is granted to the extent that the complainants are granted summary judgment on the issue of liability as against the fee owners of the land where the man acquired his injury. The cross motion which seeks summary judgment to dismiss the man and his wife’s Labor Law claim as against them is denied. The managing agent is dismissed from the action since it did not have an interest in the subject premises at the time of the accident. The man and his wife have not opposed the dismissal of Labor Law negligence. Therefore, the causes of action are dismissed.
Continue reading

Published on:

Sometimes the extent of moderate or severe damage caused by bTBI (explosive blast traumatic brain injury) is difficult to determine at first, doctors have told Lawyers. Severe facial trauma can prevent reliable neurological examination, especially when it comes to examining the pupils for reaction. Specialized tools are often necessary to even make triage decisions that could save lives.

The chaos of war only compounds the difficulty in making decisions when it comes to severe injury. When a doctor or other medical professional is used to medical centers in the United States, where there are adequate resources and help in the form of other professionals near at hand, it can be very difficult to work on a battlefield where everything is in short supply, but the number of patients is much greater.

Difficult decisions have to be made in such environments, doctors in Nassau and Suffolk have learned. It isn’t uncommon for a great number of severely injured patients to arrive at the same time. Efficient triage is essential for the best use of limited resources. There may be few health care providers, no operating rooms or CT scanners, and not many blood products to go around. It may even be impossible to evacuate patients to a better facility. The whole idea behind triage is take resources that may not be adequate and stretch them out to their best possible use to help the largest number of patients. They must be stabilized and their lives preserved until they can be evacuated into a better circumstance.

Published on:

The ongoing Global War on Terror has resulted in an increase of traumatic brain injury, or TBI, studies have noted. A number of them suffer from an explosive blast (bTBI). Physicians have decided this type of injury is distinct from other forms of brain trauma, such as penetrating TBI (pTBI) and closed head TBI (cTBI).

Explosive blast causes more than 60% of combat casualties in the two current major American campaigns, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to Lawyers. The main source of danger are the much talked-about IEDs – improvised explosive devices. The head is often injured in battle, accounting for 20% of all combat-related injuries in modern wars. When it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the data is still coming in. So far, the data from hospitals in Nassau and Suffolk seems to closely match that of previous wars.

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are distinct from 20th century wars in the higher survival rate of those who are injured in combat, even those who suffer from TBI, according to doctors. An important factor to be considered is the use of body armor. Doctors used to believe that the severity of bTBI was due to pTBI from fragments of the explosive device or cTBI from the head striking an object after the victim was thrown.

Contact Information