$1,160,000 Medical Malpractice Verdict

The firm brought a medical malpractice action in United States District Court in Brattleboro, Vermont on behalf of a 460-pound, 50-year-old man. The suit alleged that a surgeon, who had treated the plaintiff for 14 years and was nationally known, had improperly treated a foot burn that the plaintiff had received from a heating pad.

The incident in question began when the plaintiff stubbed his toe on a chair during the night. When his toe caused him pain, he used a heating pad in an attempt to alleviate the pain. When that was unsuccessful, the plaintiff, believing he had a broken toe, consulted an orthopedist.

The orthopedist discovered a deep burn of which the plaintiff was unaware on the bottom of his foot (due to his weight, the plaintiff was not able to see the bottom of his foot) and referred him to the defendant for further evaluation. The surgeon prescribed two oral antibiotics, a topical antibacterial (Silvadene) and regular evaluation of the burn for infection. The surgeon saw the plaintiff six times in the next thirty days. Three days after his last visit to the surgeon, the plaintiff collapsed and was admitted to the emergency room. A below-the-knee amputation followed two days later.

The plaintiff claimed that the surgeon should have referred him to a burn center for debridement and grafting of the burn.

The defendant physician's position was that given the plaintiff's weight and past medical history, particularly unhealed infectious ulcers, grafting would not have been successful and would have placed the plaintiff at greater risk. In his opinion, and that of his expert, the proper course of treatment was to treat the burn conservatively, by closely monitoring the condition of the plaintiff's foot for infection, while the wound closed naturally.

After six hours, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in the amount of $1,160,000.

$750,000 Settlement in Snowmobile Death

The firm represented the estate of a 38-year-old man who was driving a snowmobile with two friends at approximately 11:00 P.M. on a public road when he drove into the back of a truck, resulting in his death. The truck had been left on the side of the road with its emergency blinkers on after it slid into a snowbank. The driver had gone to get a tow truck.

A major problem with the case was that the decedent's post-mortem blood alcohol reading was .15 and his friends admitted they had stopped at two bars on their snowmobiles in the two hours prior to his death (which, according to the defendant's expert toxicologist, meant that the decedent had drunk at least eight beers in those two hours).

A second problem was that his friends had told the Environmental Police that the decedent had been driving 40 miles per hour when he drove into the back of the truck, and that they had been driving more slowly and were able to avoid the truck.

The firm spent $70,000 preparing and trying the case. Prior to trial, counsel for the plaintiff purchased an identical 1996 snowmobile and performed a reenactment showing the visibility of reflective triangles to an approaching snowmobile at 100-foot intervals. After mediation failed, counsel for the plaintiff had Diane Levesque of New England Trial Consulting conduct a mock jury using two sets of "jurors," in order to better understand how jurors would react to the decedent's blood alcohol reading. At trial, counsel hired Ian McWilliams of New England Trial Services to project computer images to the jury, which included photographs of the reenactment, State Police photographs of the scene, survey plans, deposition testimony, etc.

After three full days of trial in September 2007, the case settled for the plaintiff's pretrial demand of $750,000.00. Just prior to settlement, the plaintiff had presented a human factors expert, Robert Kennedy of Orlando, Florida, who testified concerning the decedent's ability to stop after seeing the truck's emergency flashers and the effects of a .15 blood alcohol reading on the decendent's perception-reaction time.

Construction Site Injury - $675,000 Settlement

The plaintiff was a laborer on a construction site for a manufacturer in central Massachusetts and was asked to help unload a pallet of sheetrock from a forklift onto a loading dock. The plaintiff claimed that he and another worker were instructed to stabilize the load by wedging two-by-fours under the pallet as the forklift raised it. The plaintiff said that as the forklift raised the pallet, it began to slip, causing his two-by-four to jerk up, resulting in a back injury.

The company took written statements the following day from seven co-employees. None of the statements confirmed that the plaintiff had been helping unload the pallet.

The plaintiff collected worker's compensation temporarily and the firm applied for permanent total disability on his behalf. An independent medical examination was favorable to the plaintiff. However, the judge ruled the report of the examination inadmissible at the worker's compensation trial because the examining physician had moved out of state and was unavailable to be deposed.

With the help of a private investigator, counsel located the physician in Connecticut one week before trial and scheduled a deposition. The worker's compensation case then settled for over $350,000, including a waiver of all amounts previously paid to the plaintiff and all claims against the forklift operator.

A case against the operator of the forklift proceeded in United States District Court. A mediation was scheduled. Before the mediation, counsel located and met with a former co-worker of the plaintiff who had been present the day of the injury and signed an affidavit confirming the plaintiff's testimony as to how his injury occurred. The case settled for an additional $300,000.

$1.3 Million Settlement

The plaintiff was injured at an indoor play center in eastern Massachusetts. He leaned against a door on the top level of a play structure, which turned out to be unsecured. The door swung open and he fell to the ground, landing on his head and left shoulder.

The plaintiff was admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital, where he lost consciousness and had a seizure. The plaintiff remained in the hospital for four days for a contusion on his brain, a hematoma and a fractured clavicle.

The plaintiff treated on a follow-up basis with a pediatric neurologist, who felt that after one year he had made a remarkable recovery and was back almost to normal.

However, he showed cognitive deficits, including impaired memory and difficulty processing information and began treatment with a neuropsychologist.

Given the lack of objective radiological findings, counsel had the young man and his parents flown to Salt Lake City, Utah to be examined by a world-renowned neuropsychologist and radiologist, who conducted 3-D magnetic resonance brain imaging not available on the East Coast. The expert was prepared to testify, based on the imaging, that the young man had suffered permanent damage to his frontal lobe, leaving him at increased risk of depression, epilepsy, early onset of dementia, and executive function deficits.

Counsel engaged experts for trial in the fields of pediatric neurology, cognitive therapy, vocational rehabilitation, education costs, and vocational economics.

An award-winning videographer prepared a docudrama settlement DVD for mediation, which included interviews with the family and the experts in the case.

At the time of settlement, the plaintiff attended a private middle school, and had a B average. The case was settled at mediation for $1.3 million. The plaintiff is now doing well academically at an excellent private high school in the Boston area.
 
First Amendment Internet Litigation

The Bank of Mexico brought a defamation lawsuit in New York Supreme Court against Mario Menendez, the publisher of one of the largest daily newspapers in Mexico, Al Giordano, the publisher of an Internet news site and the Internet site itself. The bank was represented by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, one of the largest law firms in the United States. Lesser, Newman & Nasser undertook the defense of the defendants.

The alleged defamation was based on reporting by the defendants that Roberto Hernandez, the bank's president, had conspired with narcotics traffickers by allowing his land to be used for offloading cocaine. (Hernandez was very influential and was hosting President Bill Clinton when the story broke.)

The New York Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that Internet publishers are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as newsprint publishers, and that given those protections, the plaintiffs could not prove the malice required in a defamation lawsuit. It was the first reported lawsuit in New England and one of the first in the United States in which Internet reporting sites were afforded the same First Amendment protections as newspapers and magazines.

Medical Malpractice in Childbirth

The client suffered immediate brain damage at birth. Approximately ten (10) years later, his mother retained this firm to obtain compensation for the mother and child from the doctors who delivered the child. A lawsuit was filed. After extensive discovery, the case was settled on a structured settlement basis with payouts over the life of the child exceeding one and one-half million ($1,500,000.00) dollars.

Critical to the resolution of the suit was a day in the life film which demonstrated the enormous impact that the defendants' negligence had on the child.

The mother has been able to use the money achieved through the settlement to supplement public programs with private resources that have enabled him to graduate from public high school and live in the community.

Injury Due to Oil Spill and Negligent Cleanup

A service technician for a home heating oil company (The Company), spilled less than one quart of No. 2 fuel oil in the basement of our client's residence and she immediately became symptomatic.

During the course of the two-week trial, the Company presented evidence showing that parts of our client's basement had been musty and mildewed prior to the spill. The Company also presented expert evidence to show that: a) the small amount of oil spilled on December 8, 1993 was insufficient to cause our client to become sick, and b) that to the degree that our client did suffer asthma, it was caused by her failure to remove the mold and mildew from her basement, and not their chemicals.

Our client suffered no lost wages and incurred less than four thousand ($4,000.00) dollars in medical bills as a result of her asthma. After more than two days of jury deliberations, the oil company settled for more than $100,000.00. This was in addition to substantial additional compensation paid by the cleaning company and the landlord prior to trial. (The exact amount of the settlements are confidential due to a settlement agreement).