Staten Island

Published on: January 3, 2013

Heart Care is at the Center of Case at Staten Island Hospital

by Stephen Bilkis

An old woman, 95 years of age, is a patient at a certain Staten island hospital. On 9 June 1998, she became comatose, cyanotic and unresponsive after she became disconnected from her ventilator machine. An employee of the hospital heard the old woman’s room alarm sound but the alarm at the nurses’ station failed to sound. Hence, it could not be determined as to how long the old woman remained disconnected from the ventilator. Respirator assistance was then provided to the old woman by the medical staff of the hospital. Thereafter, she was immediately transferred back to the cardiac care unit, which is where she had been prior to the ventilator incident, and there she received intensive therapeutic care and massive blood transfusions. From 10 June 1998 through 11 June 1998, the consulting neurologist indicated in his progress notes that the old woman had a guarded prognosis and was not receptive to outside stimuli. From 12 June 1998 through 17 June 1998, the progress notes indicated that the old woman was improving. The old woman’s neurologist then noted that she was at baseline, neurologically stable. In other words, the old woman’s neurological condition returned to the state that it had been prior to the ventilator disconnection. Thereafter, the hospital took several remedial measures to prevent any future incidents of this type. The hospital’s Code 15 committee reviewed the old woman’s case to decide whether or not it warranted Code 15 treatment, which consists of reporting to the Agency for Health Care Administration or AHCA within fifteen days of the incident, but later voted against such Code 15 treatment, believing that since the old woman recovered to her neurological baseline, no brain damage or brain injury had occurred. Instead of filing the incident as a Code 15, the hospital reported the occurrence as an adverse incident in its Annual Report of Incidents.

Consequently, the AHCA filed an administrative complaint against the hospital and contends that the hospital violated the law by reason of their failure to report a hypoxic event that caused brain damage to a patient as a Code 15 occurrence.

Sometime in December 2000, a formal hearing was held. After that, the administrative Law Judge or ALJ concluded that the old woman did in fact suffer from a brain damage, a transient or temporary brain damage, and the hospital should have reported the incident as a Code 15; and recommended that AHCA had justification to levy a $5,000.00 administrative fine against the hospital.

Published on: December 8, 2012

NY Laws are Investigated

by Stephen Bilkis

When an accident occurs that involves a personal injury, it is important that the injured person seeks help immediately. The laws of New York are truncated when it comes to personal injury. They have set limits on many of the areas that involve compensable injury. If a person does not file their claim within a certain period of time, they will be barred from recovering damages at all. By the same token, the person must prove that their injury is serious under the guidelines of the law. The law defines the guidelines that describe an injury as either serious or substantial. It also provides guidelines that establish what permanent loss of use relates to. For a person to recover damages based on these statutes, they must be able to establish that their injury falls into these categories.

A substantial injury is one that demands a change in the person’s lifestyle. A person who has suffered from a substantial or serious injury will have to stop doing many of the activities that they used to be able to do. If a person is able to continue performing their jobs, or handling their home lives in much the same manner that they were conducting themselves prior to the injury, then they have not sustained a serious injury in accordance with the laws of the state of New York. Generally, when a person makes a claim for personal injury as the result of an accident, they must bring forth expert testimony that will support their claim. A claim of serious injury that is not supported by medical evidence will fail. In fact, a claim of serious injury that is supported only by medical expert opinion and not supported by concrete medical tests will likely fail as well. When a person files a claim of this sort, it is critical that they are sure that they can present this type of medical evidence in court.

Sometimes, even having several doctors willing to testify in your behalf can be challenged. In one case from New York, a limousine driver was involved in an accident that resulted in his sustaining multiple injuries that he claimed were serious under the statute. In fact, some of his claims involved the fact that he was deprived the use of some body parts. He also claimed a serious spine injury and brain injury. He had no less than four medical experts testify on his behalf that he was unable to work or perform daily functions that he had once enjoyed based upon the injury that he had sustained.

Published on: November 29, 2012

Accident Happens at Levitz Furniture

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant American Real Estate Holdings, LP (American), an out-of-possession owner, leased the building where plaintiff’s accident occurred to defendant Levitz Furniture Corporation of Queens (Levitz). The building consisted of a furniture showroom, an office and warehouse space. Prior to plaintiff’s accident, Levitz had sold large furniture shelving rack unit, as well as other similar units, to defendant and third-party plaintiff International Storage Systems, Inc. (International). International was in the business of buying, dismantling, selling and then reinstalling large furniture rack systems. Pursuant to an oral agreement, which is reflected in various invoices and purchase orders, International then hired plaintiff’s employer, third-party and second-third party defendant Heatley Installations (Heatley), to disassemble the furniture rack system and transport it to another location.

A Lawyer said that, plaintiff testified that, just prior to his accident he was in the process of disassembling the free-standing furniture rack system while standing on a particle-board deck located on the third level of the rack. As plaintiff was removing beams from the level above, and dropping them onto the deck, the deck broke, causing him to fall and sustain brain injuries.

At the time of his accident, the Staten Island plaintiff was not utilizing an available order selector provided for use in retrieving furniture at higher levels. An order selector is a piece of equipment resembling a forklift, which has a platform upon which a worker can stand. In addition, although he was wearing the safety belt provided to him by his employer, plaintiff had not properly tethered to the order selector, despite having been directed to do so less than one hour before his accident.

Published on: November 21, 2012

W. Virginia Seeking to Help TBI Victims at Home

by Stephen Bilkis

The state of West Virginia is seeking a federal Medicaid waiver so it can offer a program that will help people with traumatic brain injuries (TBI) remain in their homes, rather than forcing them into nursing homes or other facilities.

Earlier last month, the West Virginia state Supreme Court upheld a County Circuit Court ruling that issued a requirement that the Department of Health and Human Resources had to seek the waiver from the federal entity and that they had to get funding for the program.

A DHHR spokesman told a Lawyer that the program will begin when the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approves the waiver. Though the agency can’t pinpoint when the waiver will be approved, they did say it plans to provide services to 75 people in the first year, 100 in the second year, and 125 at the third year of the program.

Published on: November 13, 2012

Bicycle Accident causes Brain Injury

by Stephen Bilkis

A man worked for a Greek restaurant as a dishwasher and as a deliveryman for food ordered for delivery. The Greek restaurant in Staten Island gave the deliveryman a bicycle to use for delivering its food products. On August 5, 2006, the deliveryman was en route to making the last of the fifteen deliveries he had to make during his shift. He was on Pershing Street and was turning left on Manton Street in Briarwood, New York when a car struck him.

The Queens deliveryman was knocked off his bike and he hit his head. He was not wearing a helmet. He his skull and suffered bruising in his brain. His brainwas swollen and so he filed a complaint in damages against the lady driver and owner of the car that struck him on the road. The deliveryman based his claim on the negligence of the lady driver on the road.

The lady driver and owner of the car also filed a complaint against the Greek restaurant, the employer of the bike deliveryman. The lady driver wants the Greek restaurant to indemnify her or at least contribute to the payment of damages claimed by the deliveryman.

Published on: October 19, 2012

Blast TBI (traumatic brain injury) happens to many combatants

by Stephen Bilkis

Blast TBI (traumatic brain injury) happens to many combatants, according to doctors. It can rightfully be considered a new class of TBI. While it might share a lot of features with standard TBI, it has some unique aspects that are all its own.

The milder forms of TBI can be very similar to PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), but it also has distinct aspects of its own. The military currently uses civilian standards of care for TBI when it comes to bTBI (explosive blast TBI), but they are constantly revising their standards to better provide for those injured on the field, according to sources. The theater of war requires different standards of medical practice.

It is apparent that there need to be more studies done on the precise effects of bTBI, both scientifically and clinically. The research will have to be focused upon how explosive blasts can lead to TBI. It is also important to learn how prevalent this disease is, and the exact causes. Once the research reaches a certain level, it will become much easier to diagnose and treat bTBI. A clinical definition of bTBI should quickly create the means to treat bTBI, doctors in Queens and Staten Island believe.

Published on: October 9, 2012

Privacy fears lead council to object to brain injury care unit plans

by Stephen Bilkis

A community is in an uproar over plans to turn a derelict “eyesore” – property that used to be a filling station – into a specialized brain injury care unit. Residents of Staten island feel the new building will dominate their neighborhood as it would be the only two-story building in the community of bungalows.

A woman living next to the discarded lot spoke out at the meeting. “The site has been an eyesore too long and I don’t object to the idea of the brain injury clinic, but the size of the building would have to be in proportion with the bungalows on either side.”

Because of testimonies like this from the 25 community members who attended the meeting, the planning applications committee unanimously objected to the plans.

Published on: September 20, 2012

U.S. Representative Giffords’ Office Closing Gap in TBI Care

by Stephen Bilkis

Staff members in the employ of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) have become key advocates in the campaign to ensure health-care guarantees for Americans who suffer traumatic brain injuries (TBI). They are advocating that other citizens should be entitled to the same high quality care that the congresswoman is receiving in her recovery from a January shooting.

Last month, Giffords’ chief of staff released a letter urging Health and Human Services to prioritize defining the minimum package of “essential benefits” in the new health-care law that will be required of insurance plans for individuals and small businesses. This new law is expected to be operational by 2014.

Giffords’ Staff members are also planning to join encourage the Defense Secretary to expand the range of “cognitive rehabilitative therapies” that Tricare, the military’s insurance program for active-duty and retired service members, covers in cases of brain injury.

Published on: July 25, 2012

Physically, the only real difference between the head being still or in motion when struck, is frame of reference

by Stephen Bilkis

Physically, the only real difference between the head being still or in motion when struck, is frame of reference. The real difference, doctors have learned, is that does not lie in if the head is in motion or not, but in such factors as the velocity of impact and the characteristics of the object that strike the head.

So, a high-speed crash will have a greater impact velocity than a low-speed crash – in most cases. In reality, researchers have learned, such details as the type of crash can be very significant. A high speed rollover can be relatively harmless, compared to collision with another vehicle or a fixed object, even if the speed is much lower. Even in crashes that seem very similar, it isn’t uncommon for one person to receive a major head injury, where another did not receive an impact to the head at all.

A major factor in head injury is the striking object itself. Given that the object does not pierce the skull as a bullet would, the important characteristics of the struck or striking object is how stiff it is and its general surface area. Doctors in Staten Island and Suffolk County.

Published on: June 29, 2012

A number of subspecialists are required to help the patient

by Stephen Bilkis

Injuries caused by an improvised explosive device (IED) can be complicated, doctors have learned. Such a blast can cause a number of injuries that have their own problems, like traumatically amputated limbs, multiple penetrating wounds, and heavy bleeding. It takes a great deal of skill and knowledge to treat injuries from an explosive blast, because there are so many different brain injuriescaused by it.

A number of subspecialists in Queens and Staten Island are required to help the patient, under the direction of a trauma surgeon. Soft-tissue loss is common, in addition to severe burns to the face and scalp. When it comes to the military, a helmet can be excellent protection against penetrating objects, so if the blast does cause penetrating object injuries, it is often through the face, orbit of the eye, or base of the skull, all areas not covered by the helmet. Even when the helmet does prevent an object from penetrating the skull there can still be associated cTBI (closed head traumatic blast injury) that may cause anything from mild concussions to severe contusions and skull fractures, where the helmet is dented from the blow, studies have discovered.

The force of a flying object and where it penetrates are of utmost importance, doctors have told Lawyers. Something traveling at a low speed might penetrate the skull, but actually cause little damage, while something traveling a greater speed could very well cause a secondary cavity in a vital area.