Tags found in Dubi Bellantone Successes for gregory bellantone

10/1/2010 - Arasin vs. Mehlman, M.D.

Verdict: $475,000

Case: Arasin vs. Mehlman, M.D.

Case No: 017377/2004

Court: Queens County

Judge: Phyllis Orlikoff Flug

Date: 10/1/2007

Plaintiff Attorney(s): Gregory D. Bellantone, Esq. Trial Counsel for the Law Firm of Targum, Britton & Tolud, LLP

Defense Attorney(s): The Law Firm of Velella, Basso & Calandra and The Law Firm of Shaub & Amity

Facts and Allegations: In this medical malpractice case, the female plaintiff contended that the defendant doctor failed to take into consideration her history of post delivery episiotomy and rectal reconstruction before performing a colonoscopy on her.  As a result, the defendant performed a colonoscopy on the plaintiff that ultimately failed and subsequently required and additional surgery and extended hospital stay.  The plaintiff claimed that during her hospital stay, she experienced irreparable pain and a drain in her rectum.  She maintained that after her discharge she was unable to resume her household duties and required the assistance of family members.  Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that she missed approximately three weeks of work and that when she did return to work, she was forced to limit her activities.  The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to make him aware of the fact that she had an episiotomy and rectal repair following the birth of her second child until after he performed a colonoscopy on her.  Furthermore, the defendant argued that he did not depart from accepted medical practices.

The evidence revealed that the famale plaintiff was 45 years old and employed as a paraprofessional with the Board of Education when the incident occurred.  The plaintiff contended that she first consulted with the defendant on January 28, 2002.  The plaintiff testified that she presented to the defendant doctor with complaints of rectal bleeding, blood in her stool and intermittent diarrhea, which allegedly persisted for approximately three months.  The plaintiff additionally complained that she had six to eight bowl movements per day, which were small in volume.  The plaintiff maintained that the defendant advised her to undergo a colonoscopy, which was to take place at Peninsula hospital.  The plaintiff's medical records indicated that following the colonoscopy, she was taken to the recovery room and that the defendant's post-operative discharge notes indicated that the plaintiff had been stable and was able to be discharged.  The plaintiff testified that following the colonoscopy, she felt extremely nauseous and had pain in her buttocks.  She further testified that she had vomited and had dry heaves.  The plaintiff testified that another surgeon examined her after the surgery and that examination revealed that she had sustained a rectal tear during surgery and that was forced to undergo a subsequent same-day additional surgery, which required a five day hospital stay.  The plaintiff maintained that she was very apprehensive that she required additional surgery and an extended hospital stay for repair of her rectal laceration.

The defendant doctor testified that he performed a digital rectal examination, which revealed that there had been no mass lesions palpitated.  The defendant opined that the plaintiff's rectal bleeding was most likely secondary to local irritation, rather than hemorrhoids.  The defendant testified, and entered into evidence, medical documentation from Peninsula hospital which revealed that he performed a physical exam and a pre-operative history prior to the colonoscopy.  The defendant maintained that the plaintiff's physical preoperative physical exam included an evaluation of the plaintiff's heart, abdomen and lungs.  Plaintiff's counsel argued that the defendant did not make an entry in the chart next to the genitalia / rectal portion of the post operative examination record.  Furthermore, plaintiff's counsel argued that the defendant signed the post-operative examination report, but failed to mention in the record any indication that a digital rectal exam had been conducted on the plaintiff on February 21, 2002, prior to the colonoscopy.

The defendant testified that he scheduled a colonoscopy for the plaintiff that took place on February 21, 2002, at Peninsula Hospital, to further evaluate the firmness felt on the digital rectal exam.  The defendant maintained that after he inserted the scope into the plaintiff's rectum, through the sigmoid colon, the descending colon, around the splenic fluxure, down the hepatic flexure and the ascending colon to the cecum.  The defendant then maintained that he withdrew the scope and attempted to perform retroflexion, but was unable to complete the maneuver.  The defendant claimed he reversed the attempted retroflexion and observed what he termed as an "outpocket" in the rectum.  The evidence revealed that a note, signed by the defendant on February 21, 2002, stated that the defendant's post-colonoscopy attempt at retroflex had been unsuccessful, but their had been a large outpocket just inside the rectum.  The defendant maintained that upon questioning the plaintiff after the procedure, the plaintiff stated that she had rectal reconstruction post-delivery, bud did not think it was important to mention this during the post-surgical history and physical examination.

The plaintiff testified that during her office visit with the defendant on January 28, 2007, she told the defendant that she had experienced an extensive laceration and episiotomy after the delivery of her second child in 1990.  Plaintiff's counsel entered into evidence the defendant's notes from the office visit specified by the plaintiff.  Plaintiff's counsel argued that the defendant doctor failed to record the fact that the plaintiff had a history of an episiotomy in 1990.  The defendant testified, on direct examination, that he did not have an independent recollection of the events of the case beyond what was written in his office notes and hospital charts.  Also admitted into evidence were the plaintiff's medical records from Mercy Hospital, dated February 23 to February 26 of 1990, and attested to by the plaintiff's attending ob/gyn.  The medical records ultimately supported the fact that plaintiff delivered her second child vaginally, during which she sustained a fourth degree laceration with an episiotomy and repair of the laceration of the rectum and anus.

Following the completion of the colonoscopy, the plaintiff was declared as stable and ready for discharge, as per the defendant's discharge summary.  However, that same day, a colo-rectal surgeon, who examined the plaintiff, testified that per his post-operative consolation, the plaintiff had a history of a grade IV laceration of the vagina with episiotmy, which required rectal repair.  The surgeon ordered a CT-scan for the plaintiff, which revealed that the plaintiff had a perforated rectum, which was subsequently repaired under general anesthesia.  The surgeon's discharge notes, entered into evidence, stated that "status post-colonoscopy with rectal defect noted at attempt at retroflex, most likely related to history of prior rectal repair with prior laceration."  As a result of the required additional surgery that was performed on the plaintiff, she was forced to remain in the hospital for five days.

11/20/2009 - Rhoda Rosenberg v. Hub Truck Rental Corp. and Thomas A. Chance

Settlement: $2,700,000

Case: Rhoda Rosenberg v. Hub Truck Rental Corp. and Thomas A. Chance

Case No: 15433/08

Court: Nassau Supreme

Judge: Thomas P. Phelan

Date: 11/20/2009

Plaintiff Attorney(s): Richard A. Dubi (lead), Dubi Bellantone, P.C., Dix Hills, NY
Gregory D. Bellantone, Dubi Bellantone, P.C., Dix Hills, NY

Defense Attorney(s): Stacey E. Gorny, Lewis Johs Avallone Aviles, LLP, Melville, NY

Facts and Allegations: On February 11, 2008, plaintiff Rhoda Rosenberg, 74, a part-time clerk, was driving on Allen Boulevard in East Farmingdale.  When she was just east of the intersection at Grand Avenue, her vehicle was struck on the passenger door by a truck as it attempted to pull away from the curb on Allen Boulevard.  Rosenberg claimed that she sustained an injury of her head.

Rosenberg sued the truck's owner and the driver's employer, Hub Truck Rental Corp., and the driver of the truck, Thomas Chance. She alleged that Chance was negligent in the operation of his vehicle.  She further alleged that Hub Truck Rental was vicariously liable for Chance's actions.

Rosenberg claimed that Chance failed to keep a proper lookout and was negligent for pulling away from the side of the road when it was unsafe to do so.

Chance contended that Rosenberg was negligent for attempting to pass his truck as he was pulling away from the curb.  He claimed that Rosenberg also failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to avoid the accident, making her at least partially liable for the collision.

Injuries / Damages: brain, internal bleeding; hemiparesis; hemorrhage; hydrocephalus; shunt

Rosenberg claimed that she began to exhibit stroke-like symptoms as the police arrived at the scene.  An ambulance took her to North Shore University Hospital, in Manhasset, where a CT scan revealed an intracerebral hemorrhage and bleeding into the left basal ganglia.  She underwent a ventriculoperitoneal shunt for hydrocephalus - the brain's excessive retention of cerebrospinal fluid.

Rosenberg contended that her hemorrhage caused permanent paralysis of the right side of her body.  She claimed that she can no longer perform most of her daily activities and that she has to be confined to an assisted living facility.  She also claimed that she is not able to return to work.

Rosenberg sought recovery of her past and future medical expenses, her past and future lost earnings, and damages for her past and future pain and suffering.

Defense counsel contended that the impact from the accident was minor and could not have caused the intracerebral hemorrhage.  She argued that Rosenberg's injuries were not proximately caused by the accident and that the hemorrhage was the result of a preexisting condition.  Thus, defense counsel contended that Rosenberg did not sustain a serious injury, as defined by the no-fault law, Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Result: The parties negotiated a pretrial settlement.  The defendants' insurer agreed to pay $2.7 million

Insurer(s): Harco Insurance Services for both defendants

Plaintiff Expert(s): Ali E. Guy, M.D., physical medicine, Jericho, NY (did not testify)

Defense Expert(s): None reported

1/27/2009 - Florence E. Roth as Admin of the Estate of William Nichols v. Matthew Plant & Frank Plant, Jr.

Verdict: $1,250,000

Case: Florence E. Roth as Admin of the Estate of William Nichols v. Matthew Plant & Frank Plan Jr.

Case No: 11714/05

Court: Suffolk Supreme

Judge: Arthur G. Pitts

Date: 1/27/2009

Plaintiff Attorney(s): Richard A. Dubi (lead)

Gregory D. Bellantone

Defense Attorney(s): Robert W. Doyle Jr., Lewis Johs Avallone Aviles, LLP, Melville, NY

Facts and Allegations: At about 10:15pm on April 7, 2005, plaintiff's decedent William Nichols, 27, a self-employed dog-walker was driving on the eastbound side of East Pulaski Road, near its uncontrolled intersection at Winoka Drive, in Huntington Station.  As he proceeded through the intersection, his car collided with a car that was being driven by Matthew Plant.  Nichols sustained injuries of his aorta, an arm, his back, his lungs and his neck.

Nichols sued Plant and the owner of Plant's vehicle, Frank Plant Jr.  Nichols alleged that Matthew Plant was negligent in the operation of his vehicle.  Nichols further alleged that Frank Plant Jr. was vicariously liable for Matthew Plant's actions.

Nichols subsequently died, though his death was not related to the injuries that he sustained during the accident.  The suit was continued by his grandmother, Florence Roth, who was acting as administrator of the estate.

The estate's counsel claimed that the collision occurred while Matthew Plant was executing a left turn onto the southbound side of Winoka Drive, from the westbound side of East Pulaski Road.  They contended that Plant's turn crossed the direct path of Nichols' car.  A witness claimed that she was driving behind Nichols' vehicle, and she opined that Plant had not activated his vehicle's headlights.

Plant contended that the collision occurred while he was stopped in a lane that was designated for motorists who were executing left turns. He claimed that Nichols crossed East Pulaski Road's double yellow line and initiated a head-on collision.

The court heard testimony by the police officer who investigated the accident.  The officer claimed that Nichols' vehicle ultimately stopped east of the intersection facing in a westbound direction, and that Plant's vehicle ultimately stopped west of the intersection, facing in an eastbound direction.  The estate's accident-reconstruction expert opined that the collision occurred while both cars were in motion, and he concluded that it could not have been a head-on collision.

Injuries / Damages: aneurysm; bulging disc, cervical; bulging disc, lumbar; decubitus ulcer; embolism; fracture, arm; fracture, femur; fracture, leg; fracture, radius; fracture, ulna; internal fixation; open reduction; pneumothorax

During the trial, the parties stipulated that the estate's damages totaled $1.25 million, which represented the limit of the defendants' insurance coverage.  They also stipulated that amount would be reduced by the percentage of any comparative negligence that was assigned to Nichols.  They further stipulated that the estate's minimum recovery would total $500,000.  Thus, damages were not before the court.

Nichols sustained an open fracture of his right leg's femur, fractures of his left forearm's radius and ulna, pseudoaneurysm of the thoracic portion of his descending aorta, and injuries that produced two pneumothoraxes - a buildup of air or gas that occupies the pleural cavity.  He was airlifted to Stony Brook University Hospital, and doctors also determined that he was suffering a cerebral embolism and bulges of his C4-5, C5-6, C6-7, and L5-S1 intervertebral discs.  He subsequently developed a decubitus ulcer of his sacrum.

Nichols' right leg's fracture was addressed via open reduction and internal fixation, and he also underwent surgical repair of his aorta.

Nichols died in December 2007, but his death was not related to the injuries that were sustained during the accident.  Nichols' estate sought recovery of $382,000 for his past medical expenses.  The estate also sought recovery of damages for Nichols' pain and suffering.

Result: The jury found that the defendants were entirely liable for the accident.  Thus, the estate recovered the stipulated damages of $1.25 million.

Demand: $1,250,000

Offer: $750,000

Insurer(s): Allstate Insurance Co. for both defendants

Trial Details: Trial Length: 5 days
Jury Deliberations: 4 hours
Jury Vote: 5-1
Jury Composition: 3 male, 3 female

Plaintiff Expert(s): Stephen A. Coulon, accident investigation & reconstruction/failure analysis/products liability, North Haven, CT.

Ali E. Guy, M.D, physical medicine, Jericho, NY