Recently in Trials Category

Here is the official press release on the verdict I recently obtained which made front page news on The New York Post:

Smiley & Smiley, LLP, a prominent New York City personal injury law firm, obtained a $3,594,943 verdict on behalf of a 25-year-old man who suffered an amputation of his lower right leg as a result of being run over by a subway train.

(Vocus) February 17, 2009 -- Smiley & Smiley, LLP, a prominent New York City personal injury law firm, obtained a $3,594,943 verdict on behalf of a 25-year-old man who suffered an amputation of his lower right leg as a result of being run over by a subway train. The verdict was rendered by a Manhattan jury on February 9, 2009 (Supreme Court State of New York Index # 116779/06). The victim was represented by partner Andrew J. Smiley, Esq.

The tragic accident occurred at approximately 1:50am at the 14th Street - Union Square subway station on the southbound local "N" line. Prior to the accident, the victim had been out drinking with friends that evening and remembered getting to the entrance of the subway station, but did not recall any details of the accident or how he ended up on the subway tracks. Blood tests taken at the hospital revealed that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident, with a blood alcohol level of .18%. The Transit Authority claimed that the young man was solely at fault for putting himself in a position of danger on the tracks and claimed that the train operator did not have time to stop upon seeing movement on the tracks. Trial attorney Andrew J. Smiley proved that the train operator saw a "mass" on the tracks from over 180 feet away and that he was required to stop the train upon immediately seeing the unknown object. A Manhattan jury found the Transit Authority negligent and apportioned 35% of the fault to the victim. The jury awarded $3,594,943 to compensate the victim for his pain and suffering and medical expenses.

"A subway train operator is obligated to stop a subway train before it strikes a large object on the tracks, even if it is not known that the object is actually an intoxicated person. The jury held the Transit Authority liable for not stopping the train when the operator had sufficient time to do so," said Andrew J. Smiley, Esq.

Smiley & Smiley, LLP, a boutique law firm in midtown Manhattan, specializes in representing victims who have suffered catastrophic injury as a result of another's negligence. The firm also represents clients who have sustained serious injuries or wrongful death resulting from medical malpractice, construction accidents, automobile accidents and product liability.

Andrew J. Smiley and his partners at Smiley & Smiley, LLP regularly appear on television news networks to provide legal commentary. Previous appearances on Fox News Network, Good Morning America, TrueTV, Headline News, and MSNBC can be viewed on the media page of the firm's website at smileylaw.com

		Courtesy of Lucille Iacovelli's youtube video of her awful experience

Making news in Ireland this week is the upcoming NYC medical malpractice trial of an Irish family that is suing NYC plastic surgeon, Dr. Michael Sachs. Kay Cregan, a 42 year old wife and mother of two, went to Dr. Sachs for a face lift - she ended up dead.  Allegedly, prior to this incident, Dr. Sachs had been sued approximately 33 times for medical malpractice.

There is always a risk when undergoing surgery and that is why I always tell everyone who will listen to me that you should NEVER have surgery unless it is absolutely necessary. A facelift is an elective surgery -one of choice and not medical necessity.  It is a dangerous gamble to take the risks of general anesthesia and going under the knife so that you can look better.  That's why plastic surgeons make patients sign explicit consent forms acknowledging the risk of injury and even, like here, death.

My firm handled a case where a long island woman died while undergoing a nose-job. The defense tried the "consent" argument. They lost. We won.

You can't consent to malpractice.  If Dr. Sachs did a botched job on this woman which caused her to die, he will have to pay for it - big time. If they prove malpractice, the Cregan family will be compensated for the loss of parental guidance for the two children, the pain and suffering Kay endured and any financial loss the family will suffer from her death - likely to be a verdict in the millions. Stay tuned for the result....

The verdict is in. The jury has spoken. The cardiologist and radiologist did not commit malpractice in their treatment of John Ritter. They didn't cause his death. Was the jury's decision a correct one? Maybe. Maybe not. Medical malpractice cases are extremely difficult to win. Statistically, about 80% are lost. The reason is simple. The majority of jurors hold doctors in very high regard and are not quick to find fault unless the facts are egregious (i.e. amputating the wrong leg, failing to read a lab result that shows a finding of cancer, etc.) As I explained at the start of this trial on Headline News, it always comes down to a battle of the experts for each side. In this case, the doctors experts apparently won the battle - the jurors believed their view more than the views of the family's experts. Often times, jurors will be inclined to go with the expert for the side that they want to help. If the doctor being sued has good credentials and makes a good witness, the jury will usually want to help the doctor. On the other hand, if the doctor is an awful witness (arrogant, timid, poor credentials) and the family/plaintiff is extremely sympathetic, a jury will tend to go with the family/plaintiff's experts. I'd be willing to bet the farm, that the doctors being sued in this case made great witnesses. Inevitably, injustice occurs as often as justice is served - good, legitimate cases are lost all the time. The bottom line is this: people have a right to sue when there is a good faith basis for believing that malpractice occurred. The Ritter family had a strong case. That's why they obtained $14Million dollars from various other doctors and hospitals before the start of this trial. Trust me, that kind of money is not handed over unless there is a legitimate cause for concern. However, the jury has spoken and the Ritter family will have to live with its verdict. Unless, of course, they choose to appeal...