Brain Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Jury decides liability for mall owners after serious brain injury. Hedges v. Planned Sec. Serv., 140 N.Y.S.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Stephen Bilkis — Fri, 17 Jan 2025 17:50:53 +0000

The case of Marion Hedges highlights the responsibility of property owners and managers to address known risks in public spaces. Effective safety management requires proactive measures to prevent foreseeable harm, especially when prior incidents signal potential dangers. This case demonstrates the serious consequences of neglecting these duties, where inadequate precautions contributed to a tragic and preventable outcome. It serves as a reminder of the critical need for vigilant risk assessment and implementation of safety protocols to protect individuals in shared environments.

Background Facts

Marion Hedges, while at a shopping mall owned by Tiago Holdings, LLC, sustained catastrophic injuries when struck by the shopping cart. Prior incidents of similar dangerous behavior had been reported, including objects thrown from upper levels of the mall. Despite these warnings, the mall owners and their contracted security provider, Planned Security Service, Inc. (PSS), failed to implement preventive measures such as higher railings or increased security patrols.

Respondent contested the brain injury’s classification as a grave injury. Montesdeoca v. 101-19 37th Ave. LLC 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30813 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

Stephen Bilkis — Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:11:52 +0000

In personal injury law, accidents on construction sites often lead to complex legal disputes involving multiple parties. In Montesdeoca v. 101-19 37th Ave. LLC 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30813 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018), the court was faced with not only determining liability, but whether the plaintiff’s injuries were “grave” as defined by workers’ compensation law. Under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, a “grave injury” is a severe, life-altering injury that significantly impacts a worker’s ability to function. It includes specific injuries such as death, permanent and total loss of use or amputation of an arm, leg, hand, or foot, total and permanent blindness or deafness, loss of nose, ear, index finger, permanent and severe facial disfigurement, or an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force resulting in permanent total disability. This strict definition limits the circumstances under which an employer can be held liable for indemnification or contribution in third-party actions.

Background Facts

The accident occurred on October 23, 2013, when Jose Montesdeoca was involved in a motor vehicle accident while delivering sheetrock materials to a construction project on a property owned by 101-19 37th Avenue LLC. Montesdeoca, employed by SFLC, a construction materials supplier, fell through a hole on the property. He sought damages for his injuries, including a brain injury, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 240(2), 240(3), and 241(6), along with common-law negligence.

Arbitrator found no link between accident and brain injury. Haufe v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 33873 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

Stephen Bilkis — Sun, 30 Jun 2024 23:42:09 +0000

In Haufe v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., the court addressed a motion to vacate an arbitration award related to a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 23, 2013. One way to resolve a dispute related to a car accident is through arbitration. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution process where an impartial third party, known as an arbitrator, hears evidence and arguments from both parties and then makes a binding decision. This method is often faster and less formal than going to court, and it can provide a more private setting for the dispute resolution. For car accident cases, especially those involving insurance claims, arbitration can be a useful tool to achieve a resolution without the lengthy process of litigation.

However, if a party feels that the arbitrator’s decision is unreasonable, they can appeal it in court. In such cases, the appealing party must demonstrate that the arbitrator acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or exceeded their authority. Grounds for appeal can include the arbitrator’s misconduct, bias, refusal to consider pertinent evidence, or making a decision that goes beyond the scope of the issues presented.

In Haufe v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., the petitioner argued that the arbitrator’s decision, which found no causal connection between his alleged brain injury and the accident, was arbitrary and capricious.

Level of care of patient with history of brain injury and stroke questioned. Tica v. Metz, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 31497 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

Stephen Bilkis — Sun, 30 Jun 2024 23:22:23 +0000

In Tica v. Metz, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 31497 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024), a case involving allegations of medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, and negligent hiring, plaintiffs claim that the mistakes of doctors at New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital led to a wrongful death.

Background Facts

Marie Trebilcock, a 68-year-old woman, had a complex medical history including a prior stroke, stenosis of her right internal carotid artery, coronary artery disease, and a traumatic brain injury from a car accident in 1999. On October 30, 2016, she attended a family wedding in Brooklyn. While dancing, she began to feel dizzy and weak. An ambulance was called, and she arrived at New York Presbyterian’s emergency department at 10:02 pm. Her initial vitals were mostly normal except for elevated blood pressure. She complained of severe headache and dizziness.

Defendants sought to set aside or reduce $1.3 million damages award. Deleon-Barrera v. Bartlett Dairy, Inc., 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 34672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

Stephen Bilkis — Sun, 30 Jun 2024 18:37:54 +0000

In Deleon-Barrera v. Bartlett Dairy, Inc., the plaintiff sustained injuries from a motor vehicle accident. After a jury trial addressing damages, the defendants to seek a retrial or a reduction of the damages.

In personal injury cases, “serious injury” is a legal term that refers to a specific level of harm that meets the statutory thresholds for filing a lawsuit. In New York, under the Insurance Law § 5102(d), serious injury includes categories such as death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, a fracture, loss of a fetus, permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function, or system, permanent consequential limitation, significant limitation of use of a body function or system, or a medically determined injury that prevents the injured person from performing daily activities for 90 days within the 180 days following the injury.

This definition is important because it determines whether an injured party can pursue a claim for non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, beyond the basic economic loss covered by insurance. Establishing that an injury meets this threshold allows the plaintiff to seek full compensation for their losses, including long-term medical costs, pain, and lifestyle impact.

Appellate Division analyzed the legal sufficiency of evidence in the brain injury case. Redish v. Adler, 195 A.D.3d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Stephen Bilkis — Sat, 29 Jun 2024 16:51:12 +0000

Brain injuries are not only caused by blows to the head, sharp objects, or falls; they can also result from medical treatment of conditions not directly related to the brain. Medical errors during treatment for various health issues, such as respiratory or cardiac conditions, can lead to complications like oxygen deprivation or improper medication administration. These complications may cause significant brain damage, impacting cognitive and physical functions. Recognizing the diverse causes of brain injuries underscores the importance of diligent medical care and monitoring, as well as the need for legal recourse when medical negligence leads to such devastating outcomes.

In Redish v. Adler, 195 A.D.3d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021), the Supreme Court, Bronx County, considered a medical malpractice claim involving allegations that the plaintiff suffered serious brain injuries following treatment for an asthma attack.

Background Facts

Boxer suffered severe injuries after a professional match at Madison Square Garden. Thomas v. Farrago, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 32280 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

Stephen Bilkis — Sat, 29 Jun 2024 07:36:07 +0000

Boxing is an inherently dangerous sport where serious injuries, especially to the brain, are not uncommon. The intense physical contact and repeated blows to the head can result in significant trauma, including concussions, brain bleeds, and other severe conditions. Prompt medical attention is necessary to properly treat these injuries and minimize long-term damage. Immediate and effective medical intervention can mean the difference between a full recovery and permanent disability.

The case of Magomed Abdusalamov highlights the importance of timely medical response. Thomas v. Farrago, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 32280 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018). Abdusalamov, a professional heavyweight boxer, sustained a severe brain injury during a match at Madison Square Garden. Despite showing no immediate signs of neurological distress ringside, he began exhibiting serious symptoms shortly after leaving the venue. His condition deteriorated rapidly, leading to a diagnosis of a left-sided subdural hematoma, which required emergency neurosurgery.

Ringside physicians play a vital role in diagnosing and managing injuries sustained during matches. Their ability to recognize and respond to signs of brain trauma is essential. Failure to act swiftly can have severe, life-altering consequences, as demonstrated by Abdusalamov’s tragic experience.

Court determined that claimant’s brain injury was permanently disabling. Arias v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., No. 2021-05379 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 7, 2021)

Stephen Bilkis — Sat, 29 Jun 2024 06:48:35 +0000

Arias v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., No. 2021-05379 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 7, 2021) is a workers’ compensation case involving a maintenance worker who sustained multiple injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, while on the job. In a workers’ compensation case, an injured worker files a claim with their employer’s workers’ compensation insurance. The case is reviewed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which evaluates medical evidence and testimonies to determine eligibility for benefits. If either the claimant or the employer disagrees with the Board’s decision, they can appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ). Further disagreements can be appealed to the full Workers’ Compensation Board. If either party is still unsatisfied with the outcome, they can then appeal the Board’s decision to the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division. In Arias v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., , the employer appealed the decision of the WCLJ.

Background Facts

The claimant, a maintenance worker, filed for workers’ compensation benefits following an incident in December 2016. He alleged injuries to his right arm, head, face, jaw, ear, and tooth after being struck by a vehicle at work. The claim initially covered injuries to his jaw, neck, back, and right shoulder, later expanding to include post-traumatic stress disorder. Over the course of his claim, the claimant received medical care from Dr. Seth Schran and underwent independent medical examinations by Dr. Paul Kleinman.

Plaintiff alleges severe injuries, including traumatic brain injury, from an accident at school. M.O. v. The City of New York, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 33620 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

Stephen Bilkis — Sat, 29 Jun 2024 06:02:56 +0000

In the case of M.O. v. The City of New York, a student sustained a brain injury at school, leading to a personal injury lawsuit against the City. The legal issue centered around the amendment of the initial claim to include an additional injury that was not specified at the onset. The court was tasked with deciding whether the plaintiff could modify the claim to incorporate new evidence about the brain injury, which was only fully understood after further medical evaluation post-incident. This decision would impact the scope of discovery and the direction of the case.

Background Facts

The plaintiff, a young student, suffered injuries when a wooden storage cubby toppled onto her. Among the injuries initially disclosed were blunt head trauma and persistent headaches occurring several times a month since the incident. Over time, the plaintiff’s legal team amended their claims to include a traumatic brain injury (TBI), which was not initially listed. This amendment prompted the City to request additional examinations to accurately assess the new allegations.

Court determined that traumatic brain injury contributed to fatal accident. Baselice v. Long Island R.R., 79 Misc. 3d 1070 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

Stephen Bilkis — Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:50:09 +0000

Baselice v. Long Island R.R., 79 Misc. 3d 1070 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023) is a tragic case involving a Long Island Railroad train derailment that led to a wrongful death claim. The plaintiff, George Baselice, initially filed a lawsuit in 2017 following the accident that occurred on October 8, 2016. The derailment resulted in serious injuries to his wife, Carmela Baselice, which allegedly contributed to her subsequent fatal car accident in 2020.

Background Facts

The incident began on October 8, 2016, when a Long Island Railroad train derailed between the New Hyde Park and Merillon Avenue stations in Nassau County, New York. George Baselice and his wife, Carmela Baselice, were passengers on the train when it was sideswiped by a Long Island Railroad work train. The collision caused Carmela to suffer significant personal injuries, including a traumatic brain injury. Her symptoms included post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, dizziness, vertigo, blackouts, seeing stars, and headaches.