August 23rd, 2007

NY Suit Against Naomi Campbell Goes Forward

Model Naomi Campbell lost her bid to have a New York personal injury suit against her tossed out. The allegations of physical and psychological abuse were brought by her maid.

The motion to dismiss was brought before an answer was submitted so, for the purposes of the motion, the claims set forth in the complaint were accepted as true. Only the contract claim was tossed out, for lack of specificity, but the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment and punitive damaged were not.

The New York Post reported the story here today.

I’ve procured a copy of the decision: Gibson-V-Campbell.pdf

Update: AP story here.

 

August 23rd, 2007

Injured New York Illegal Immigrant Can Sue

You can’t have it both ways. So says a New York judge in ruling that an undocumented alien can sue after an accident left him paralyzed, according to a New York Daily News story. If you want them on the work site because they are cheap labor, then a duty is owed to the worker to follow appropriate safety practices.

The plaintiff had previously been accorded summary judgment in this decision:
GomezSJ.pdf.

Related story: Court Nominee Withdraws Over Illegal Alien Claim (ABAJournal)

 

August 21st, 2007

Medicare’s Medical Malpractice Fix

Medicare’s decision to withhold payment to hospitals when they commit certain acts of medical malpractice raises interesting legal issues. That decision, which I briefly mentioned in Round-Up # 24, has Medicare refusing to pay hospitals to fix preventable errors they cause. With this comes the hope of better care as malpractice continues to increase in some hospitals. This includes not only such res ipsa loquitor subjects as retained surgical equipment and wrong site surgery, but also severe bed sores and certain items that could be subject to debate.

According to the Medicare press release, the policy will apply for “never events” — errors in medical care that are clearly identifiable, preventable, and serious in their consequences for patients, and that indicate a real problem in the safety and credibility of a health care facility. Since the Institute of Medicine found in 1999 that up to 98,000 people die from medical errors each year, this is clearly an extraordinary problem.

For instance, from the list of “Never Events” is this:

Intraoperative or immediately post-operative death in a normal health patient (defined as a Class 1 patient for purposes of the American Society of Anesthesiologists patient safety initiative.

Now if that case came into my office it would be vigorously defended by the hospital. (Never mind if the defense has merit.) But it also raises an issue: What will be the forum to defend against Medicare’s decision?

Here is another from the press release:

Patient death or serious disability associated with a medication error (e.g., error involving the wrong drug, wrong dose, wrong patient, wrong time, wrong rate, wrong preparation, or wrong route of administration

While some medication errors are clear, they are nonetheless staunchly defended. There is no shortage of doctor-experts to come to the aid of their fellow physicians when accused of malpractice. And many dosage questions may not be so clear cut if the “wrong” dosage that was given was the same one that was prescribed. The defense to the “wrong” drug being given is that the doctor did it on purpose, thus making it a judgment call. (Medicare will need to clarify what it means by “wrong.”)

All this raises a bunch of questions:

How will Medicare implement the policy? If they sweep too broadly into absolutism, they will need a quasi-judicial forum to resolve the issues.

What will be the effect of a Medicare decision not to provide payment have on a court in a malpractice case?

What will happen to the patient when the hospital isn’t being paid? Will the patient suddenly become such a low priority for treatment that they get worse? Or die?

This story came out as I was returning from vacation, and others have already spoken on the subject. For more opinions:

 

August 20th, 2007

New York Cleans Up Claims Act

One of my pet peeves is the demand for damages that often gets placed in personal injury suits. Sometimes those claims for a bazillion dollars end up in the paper. Which is to say, they make the attorney (and the bar as a whole) look stupid and greedy. The folks at Overlawyered and other tort “reform” sites love that kind of stuff.

Except that the ad damnum clause — as it is still known to latin-loving lawyers who want to look smart in front of others — is usually all-but-meaningless. The claims are often put in because the lawyer has no choice, since putting a number in may be statutorily required (though putting a stupid number in is not). The basic problem in determining what the demand will be is that, quite often, it is unknown how extensive the injuries will be when the complaint is drafted. So an attorney, scared of putting in a number too low and being bound by it if the injuries turn out worse than currently known, puts in a whopper of a number to be safe. Making a $100,000 demand on a case that turns out to be worth $300,000 could lead to big problems depending on where you are.

Back in the 80s, New York did away with this foolishness in medical malpractice cases, because the doctors’ lobby thought the big numbers in the complaints were outrageous. Big numbers made big headlines. When the case settled for less, or was resolved on some “normal” terms, it certainly wasn’t newsworthy. The medical community was right to want this demand removed from the filings.

Then New York expanded the rule to all personal injury cases in 2003. Thankfully, we were no longer required to create some number to put in the papers.

But there was one catch. If you sued the State of New York in the Court of Claims, you were required to make that damages demand. And a case was dismissed this year for failing to do so. New York clearly needed to get its act together on this.

As of last week, that problem no longer exists as it has been legislated out of existence.

Other states that still require such a speculative demand at the outset of a suit should likewise send this rule to the trash heap. It is unfair to a plaintiff that is forced to create it and likewise unfair to a defendant that must endure it.

 

August 8th, 2007

New York Steam Pipe Explosion Victims, Badly Burned, File Suit

Two people in a red tow truck at the center of the massive New York steam pipe explosion on July 18th have filed suit, according to newspaper reports. Both were badly burned as they jumped to safety from the truck through the steam. At least two other suits have been filed, one of which I discussed here.

The explosion near Grand Central station, right near my office, resulted in frozen streets and businesses in addition to one death and numerous injuries. The intersection at Lexington and 41st street is still closed, and barriers, trucks and temporary piping still fill the streets.

The news of the lawsuits, not exactly unexpected, came the same day that Con Ed officials appeared before the City Council and failed to explain how and why the explosion occurred.