New York Accident Lawyer Blog

The proposed $250,000 cap on medical malpratice cases was eliminated before the latest New York budget was adopted. But the neurologically impaired infant fund was not. The new statute, Public Health Law § 2999-5[1], qualifies "birth-related neurological injuries" as "an injury to the brain or spinal cord of a live infant caused by the deprivation of oxygen or mechanical injury occuring in the course of labor, delivery or resuscitation or by other medical services provided or not provided during delivery admission that rendered the infant with a permanent and substantial motor impairment or with a developmental disability".

Under the law, infants may not obtain premium treatment but are relegated to services that are covered at the prevailing Medicaid rate. Judges and juries are divested of their discretion to award neurologically impaired infants a lump sum of damages that they determine to be suitable. Rather, parents of neurologically impaired infants can expect to fill out a flurry of paperwork and prove their case over and over again to recover medical costs that the system will provide compensation for on an annual basis. The size of the fund will vary each year according to state actuaries. Ironically, the fund will be administered by a combination of the state insurance and banking departments. Only once the fund is reduced to twenty percent or less of its annual size can lawsuits be brought to recover the medical expenses that the infants need.

Participation in the fund is mandatory to those filing medical malpractice suits for injuries covered by the statute after October 1, 2011 as well as those who previously filed cases which have not reached verdict or settlement. Will Cuomo ever pressure the health care industry to provide better care or will he continue to deprive victims of malpractice of their ability to receive the care and compensation they deserve?

Resources:

New York Law Journal, Lawyers Await Specific Regulations on Infant Medical Malpractice Fund, Joel Stashenko, April 20, 2011.

By Kathleen Beatty

Dating website Match.com has had its share of controversies circulated since it went live in 1995.

To its credit, the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the 2005 class action lawsuit which alleged that Match.com "secretly employs people as 'date bait' to send bogus enticing E-mails and to go on as many as 100 dates a month - or three a day - to keep customers ponying up."

However, a 2009 class action lawsuit is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with allegations such as "Match misleads paying subscribers by charging them for the ability to write e-mails to members who can't reply to their e-mails or even read them."

Most recently, a Los Angeles woman claiming she was raped by a man she met on Match.com is suing the site. The man was registered in public sex offender registries, as he was previously convicted for assaults on other women he met on the Internet. Her attorney has publicly discussed his intent to seek a temporary injunction barring the site from signing up more members until Match.com screens members to determine if they are sexual predators. "If somebody uses their credit card to pay, then they basically run their name through a federal sex offender data bank and through a local county registration bank," said plaintiff's attorney Mark Webb. Match.com has responded that it would create problems trying to get background information from all of their users, as they do not obtain social security numbers.

Resources:
Wall Street Journal, In Lawsuit's Wake, Match.com to Screen Predator Databases, By Ashby Jones, April 18, 2011.

CBS News, Woman sues Match.com after alleged sex assault by man she met online, Posted by Edecio Martinez, April 15, 2011.

Los Angeles Times, Woman suing Match.com over alleged sexual assault speaks out about incident, Alexandra Zavis and Shelby Grad, April 15, 2011.

By Kathleen Beatty

Too often, lawyers representing clients forget that they should continue to maintain a relationship and contact with their clients long after they have closed the case. At Leav & Steinberg, LLP we always like to hear about client's progress after their case has resolved. Very often we receive letters from clients who have used the money we have recovered them, to further their education, for renovating their home so that they can accomodate changes in their life due to the injuries they sustained, or even to help family members in a time of need.

Unlike most firms in New York City, we at Leav & Steinberg, feel it is part of our ongoing obligation to make ourselves available to our clients long after the case has resolved. A client of Leav & Steinberg will always have free legal advice by one of the attorney's for any matters they call us on. If we can help them or refer them to a colleague specializing in the field they might need, we will gladly do so.

Recently, I was contacted by an old client who wanted to update me on what has been happening in his life. When I first met Mr. Michael Moses, I was a young associate at a prominent New York personal injury law firm. Mr. Moses, by first glance would scare most as he was big, muscular and due to an injury wore a patch over one eye. Yet when he spoke he was a soft spoken, easy going, caring man who would go on to become a client of my firm and ultimately a friend.

So when he advised me that he and his wife, Malisa Rivera have formed a non-for-profit community based organization called Culinary Kids/Culinary Arts Initiative I was intrigued. They are providing a place within their Queens/Far Rockaway Community in which to help teach young children, how to sustain agriculture through cooking and farming activities.

Recently, their organization was featured in the New York Daily News. It is an organization I am proud to say I have contributed to and one that is providing an important outlet for kids in Queens.

Click here to read the New York Daily News Article.