New York Injury Times-May 09' Newsletter Just Released

In this 12 page newsletter you'll learn about Gerry's new book, "Doctors Gone Wild." Learn how medicare and medicaid can ruin your accident lawsuit. Find out how Twitter and Facebook led to mistrials in recent lawsuits. Read about a juror in New York who was Twittering during the jury selection process. Learn why a permanent nerve injury resulted in a $1 Million Dollar settlement. Test your knowledge of medical malpractice and negligence cases in NY; Try our trivia game, and see what sits on top of the St. Maarten Courthouse.

Excellent Blog Review by fellow NY Personal Injury Lawyer John Hochfelder

I am thrilled to post an excellent legal blog review (known as a blawg) by fellow New York personal injury lawyer John Hochfelder. Here is an excerpt of his review where he graciously included my blog among three for New York medical malpractice attorneys he would have turned to had he needed our advice.

"It was in the 1970's that Mom got cancer. She was a free spirit, and after traditional medicine failed she sought alternative treatment (including a clinic in Germany with reggae star Bob Marley) but ultimately the scourge that is cancer took her life in 1982. Was she treated properly by all of her physicians? Did they delay the diagnosis of cancer when they could have saved her? I don't think so and I hope not. Had I thought otherwise, I could have turned for advice either to the aforementioned Eric Turkewitz or other bloggers and top medical malpractice lawyers such as Andrew Barovick at New York Medical Malpractice Law Blog or Gerry Oginski at NY Medical Malpractice Blog."

Read the rest of the blog post here.

ATTENTION all Medical Malpractice Trial Attorneys

For medical malpractice trial attorneys like myself who wonder what jurors are thinking and what they're doing before entering the jury room, here are exact twitter messages from one twitterer waiting to be picked as a juror in New York:

"Heading to jury duty - limited blogging."
8:00 AM Apr 23rd from web

"Can you be exempt from jury duty by twittering court proceedings? Stark editor Matt, explores this option today."
11:21 AM Apr 23rd from web

"In the midst of a grueling selection process for jury duty. Live twittering capabilities limited. Medical malpractice case. Juicy. Hopin ..."
12:12 PM Apr 23rd from web

"One lawyer put me directly asleep. The other lawyer - seasoned, charismatic - I'm voting for his client. Thanks for the support folks."
12:15 PM Apr 23rd from web

"Here come the big boys with the judge. Signing off."
12:20 PM Apr 23rd from web

"Back from lunch, escaped being picked for the medical malpractice. Feeling I won't be so lucky again. Hearing rumors of Lykke Li on idol? wtf"
3:34 PM Apr 23rd from web

"@nisianista yeah so illegal. Now I have medical malpractice lawyers following my twitter. Not kidding."
5:33 PM Apr 23rd from web in reply to nisianista

"Still jurying... nothing funny happening today."
about 10 hours ago from web

These tweets come from @StarkNY.

These tweets are both eye-opening and somewhat disturbing. Why? It's eye-opening because after 20 years of practicing law, I finally get to look into the thought process of someone waiting to be picked as a juror in a medical malpractice case.

Typically, lawyers have no way to look into the minds of jurors, other than to ask them specific questions about their feelings, biases, and prejudices.

These tweets are somewhat disturbing though because in the last few months there have been a number of jury trials, both criminal and civil whose verdicts may be in jeopardy because of jurors who were twittering about the trial or doing their own research online. Those jurors totally disregarded the court's instructions not to do their own research and not to discuss the case with anyone outside of court.

When someone is chosen as a juror, they are admonished by the court not to discuss the case with their friends or family. They are repeatedly told not to do their own independent research. Despite these warnings, there are still some renegade jurors who disregard the instructions of the court and put the civil justice system and the case they are deciding, at risk.

Jurors who choose to do their own online research, or twitter their thoughts during a trial risk exposing biases, prejudices, and leanings before hearing all the evidence and importantly, before hearing the judge's legal instructions that applies specifically to their case.

This twitter user, @StarkNY clearly has no issue or problem with publicizing his thoughts during the jury selection process. While admirable in the sense that he wants to convey information to his twitter followers, if I were the plaintiffs attorney on the case, and learned he were twittering, I could theoretically follow him on Twitter solely to learn about his thoughts about the testimony and evidence during the course of the trial.

This would clearly give me an unfair advantage over my adversary as I would have an inside view into at least one juror's thinking as the trial progressed. Interestingly, I recently posted two educational videos addressing this exact issue: "Does an attorney who learns that a juror is twittering during trial have an ethical obligation to inform his adversary and the court of this fact?" Click on the titles to watch the video, Twitter & Facebook Jury Instructions in NY, and Twitter Communication with jurors in New York."

In my opinion, an attorney has an ethical obligation to disclose this information immediately to both the judge and to the defense attorney.

Who needs a news reporter in the courtroom, when jurors can simply twitter their thoughts as the trial progresses? Both sides and the judge could see in real time what the jury is thinking as each piece of evidence and witness is presented. This way the playing field is leveled, and all attorneys can tailor their case based upon what the jurors are saying in their twitter messages. If this were to occur, this would be truly revolutionary in the civil justice system here in the state of New York.

In Case of Death-NY Trial Lawyer Publishes New Book

In this new book you’ll learn learn how a wrongful death lawsuit in New York works. You'll learn how much time you have to file a lawsuit for wrongful death, how much time you have to file a claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and the City of New York. Learn how to choose a wrongful death lawyer in NY. Find out whether you need an autopsy to determine the cause of death. Learn 9 Facts Your New York Wrongful Death Attorney May Not Tell You, and much much more.

I guarantee that after reading this book, you will learn things you did not know before. I promise that this book will educate and inform you. That’s my guarantee. Enjoy the book and if you have questions, please pick up the phone and call me at 516-487-8207. I welcome your call. Or you can send me your questions by email to lawmed10@yahoo.com. I can answer your legal questions, and I promise to give you a straightforward and personal response.

Doctors Gone Wild-An Insider's View of Medical Malpractice in NY

Gerry's new book, DOCTORS GONE WILD, is an insider's view of medical malpractice cases here in New York.

Reading this book you’ll learn 10 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Sue Your Doctor. You'll learn about a Urology Disaster, a Dental Implant Nightmare, a botched breast reduction surgery. Find out whether a doctor who perforates your colon during colonoscopy is responsible for your injuries. Learn about a failure to diagnose ectopic pregnancy, failure to diagnose lung cancer, emergency room mistakes and much much more.

If you live in New York, and want to learn about medical malpractice cases in New York, you can download the book immediately, for FREE! Just click here and enter your information.

Neurosurgeon Offers Tips on How To Avoid Malpractice Suits

HOW TO AVOID MALPRACTICE SUITS
What you don't do to head off malpractice claims can be as critical as what you do.

Dr. Segal, a neurosurgeon, offers refreshing advice for doctors in this month's Medical Economics. He gives important practice advice that all physicians should pay attention to. If only more New York doctors followed this advice, there would be many less disgruntled patients calling me asking if they have a valid medical malpractice case.

"Think twice before you send a patient's account to collections for a $22 balance."

"Use your cell phone to return pages from your answering service."

"Now that you've called the patient back, document what was said."

Read the article to learn the rest of Dr. Segal's comments.

A Lawsuit For Every Calamity

You can't avoid reading about different lawsuits every day. Open Newsday, The New York Times, The Post, the Daily News and you'll see many stories about people suing Cities, hospitals, negligent drivers, incompetent police, employers for sexual harassment and the list goes on and on.

Break a finger opening a jelly jar; sue the manufacturer for a defective product.
A lawn mower blade slips and slices off your leg. Sue the manufacturer.
A doctor perforates your colon and you need emergency surgery; sue the doctor and hospital.
A radiologist misreads your chest x-ray and fails to diagnose your lung cancer for two years; start the lawsuit.
You have a fender bender in a parking lot and bring a lawsuit for soft tissue injuries; start a case and watch it get thrown out of court.

Is every injury worthy of money compensation?
The answer is no.

Our system of justice requires that a wrongdoer who causes injury pay money compensation to the injured victim. The wrongdoer is supposed to make their victim "whole" again. This is impossible when the injured victim suffered significant physical injury.

When a wrongdoer causes physical harm, he incurs a debt that must be repaid. The only way our justice system in New York allows that debt to be repaid is with money. Money to pay the victims' medical bills in the past; the future, money to pay for lost earnings and for future lost earnings, and money to pay for the victims' pain and the suffering he caused.

Facebook Juror May Cause Mistrial in the Bronx

Newsday reported today that a juror on a criminal case attempted to "Friend" a witness in the case of two firefighters who died trying to escape a Bronx firetrap. Don't these jurors realize what they're doing?

According to the article written by Kathleen Kerr, one juror tried to communicate with a witness by suggesting that they keep in touch on Facebook after the trial was over. The defendants in the criminal case were convicted and now the defense is seeking to have the jury verdict thrown out.

At the beginning of every criminal and civil trial in New York, jurors are warned not to do their own independent research, and are told not to talk to other people about what is going on in the case. The reason is obvious: you don't want a juror to be influenced by any outside source when they deliberate on a verdict.

In recent months, a number of trials have been affected by jurors who have used Twitter, Facebook, Myspace and Google in an attempt to obtain additional information beyond what is learned within the courtroom during trial.

In one case that I commented on, a $12.6 million verdict was just recently upheld even though the defense attorneys made every effort to get the verdict thrown out because a juror was using twitter to comment during the trial. In another case involving a federal criminal drug trial, a judge declared a mistrial when it was learned that a juror's use of the Internet, which had been prohibited, came to light.

There is no question that Twitter, Facebook and Myspace users are eager to tell other people about what they are doing in their lives. Certainly, sitting on a criminal trial can be interesting, and may compel a juror to write updates about the trial as it is going on.

Google has made it easy for anyone using their web-enabled cell phone or iPhone to Google the lawyers, the parties, and even the judge. Jurors must be told that if they attempt to communicate via social networking sites about the trial that they are sitting on, it may result in a mistrial and wasted time, effort, money, and energy for all involved.

At least if you're going to tell people about your experience with the criminal or civil justice system here in New York, do it after the trial has finished.

Medicare Can Ruin Your Accident Lawsuit- Find Out How

Did you know that if Medicare pays for medical care that you received because of someone else's wrongdoing, and you then bring a lawsuit seeking compensation for your injuries, Medicare has a legal obligation to make you repay them?

Let me repeat that and explain. Let's say you're in an accident caused when a driver crossed over the double yellow line and hit you. You're in the hospital for weeks and Medicare pays your bills. If you now sue the driver of the car that caused your accident, Medicare will come to you and your lawyer and say "Pay Up."

The government wants their money back if you get money from the person who caused your injuries. Depending on how much money you get and how much money Medicare paid, we can, in some cases negotiate with Medicare to reduce the amount that they must be repaid.

To learn more, click here to watch Gerry's informative video.

Attorneys Sharing Fees-Court of Appeals Decides

Here's the scenario:
Lawyer 1 is hired by an injured victim. Lawyer 1 then hires lawyer 2, a trial lawyer to handle the case as "trial counsel." During the litigation process lawyer 2 recognizes that he needs help to try the case and lawyer 2 then hires lawyer 3.

Here's the interesting part. When the client went to lawyer 1, he was told that he'd have to hire lawyer 2 to prosecute the case. The client agreed. The client was also told that there would be only one lawyers' fee. Each attorney would receive a percentage of the single attorney's fee. Client agreed.

Lawyer 1 agreed to accept 1/3 of the total attorney's fee recovered as his share of the attorney's fee. Lawyer 2 agreed.

Here's the problem. Lawyers 2 & 3 tried the case for three weeks. During trial, a large settlement was reached, $6.7 million. Attorney 3 took his share of the lawyer's fee. Lawyer 2 only gave lawyer 1 his 1/3 share out of LAWYER 2's share, and not the entire attorney's fee. This was a no-no.

In this case, which went all the way up to the highest court in New York, both lawyer 1 and lawyer 2 were suing each other. (I'm sure there are some people who rejoice to hear that lawyers are suing each other.)

The Court of Appeals of New York determined that lawyer 1 was entitled to receive his 1/3 share of the TOTAL attorney's fee, and not 1/3 of lawyer 2's share of the fee. This was a significant difference in the amount of money lawyer 1 would receive.

I leave you with this thought:
How many cases do you think lawyer 2 will continue to get from lawyer 1 after all this litigation? You can leave your answer in the comment section.

To read the full Court of Appeals decision, click here.