Attorney Paul S. Levin's Legal Cases

Personal injury

Hammonasset Peeping incident

Apr 30, 2015

OUTCOME: Permission to Sue State of Connecticut obtained

My client, Kim Smith, has been given permission to sue the State of Connecticut over a very disturbing incident that happened at a state beach bathing house. Connecticut is one of only a handful of sta ... tes in the nation where you must first ask permission to sue the state. It's an old law that actually goes back to 13th century England with the notion that the king can do no wrong. In Connecticut, getting the green light to sue the state is not something easily done. I will say through very hard work by myself and others on my staff, we are getting Kim Smith her day in court. Below the picture, you will see the Associated Press story about the case. This story was picked up all over the United States. HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — An East Hartford family that was spied on while showering at Hammonasset Beach State Park in 2011 by two former park employees has been granted permission to sue the state of Connecticut for negligence in superior court. State Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr. determined the state may have caused damage to Kim Smith by failing to fix holes that existed for years in the shower stall, where she and her younger daughters were showering. Vance said there was also evidence staff members were aware of holes near the toilets in park bathrooms. "The evidence supported a claim for negligence against the state of Connecticut for failure to supervise and remediate the condition that allowed for holes in the shower facilities," read Vance's April 20 decision, obtained Thursday by The Associated Press. The state generally is immune from lawsuits unless allowed by the commissioner. Paul Levin, Smith's attorney, said he plans to file a lawsuit next week. He said his client was "ecstatic," after pursuing the matter for 3 1/2 years. "I always thought that if we had a commissioner that served his function, sort of as the conscience of the state, then they'd look at this and say, 'This is wrong and let it proceed to court.' And that's what happened," Levin said. Levin said if such an incident occurred at a private facility, such as a hotel, management would "make a bee line" to apologize and resolve the matter amicably. He said it shouldn't be a different with a public park. "When you have people that are coming to your park, enjoying family time and they're your guests, you just can't not take care of their privacy interests and allow your buildings and facilities to fall into a state of disrepair and rendering them at risk," Levin said. The Department Energy and Environmental Protection, which oversees state parks, declined to comment on the commissioner's decision. DEEP has said previously its staff "works hard every day to protect the safety, well-being and privacy of visitors to our parks." It called Smith's experience an "unfortunate incident" and all bathrooms were later inspected and repaired.

Personal injury

Oseni v Georgia Inc

May 29, 2013

OUTCOME: substantial confidential settlement

Negligent security claim brought against a late night restaurant whose business model was to serve food to the downtown Hartford CT bar patron crowd after the clubs stopped serving alcohol and closed d ... own for the evening. There had been numerous instances of violence, including a prior shooting and it had been recommended by the municipal police authority that they provide a security presence to discourage that behavior. After multiple years of litigation on behalf of the Estate of an innocent victim, shot and killed while buying a slice of pizza, a substantial financial recovery was obtained. The victim's family has been heartbroken but also worried about how to send his children to college when they grow up.

Medical malpractice

Rea v Rubino et al

Feb 13, 2013

OUTCOME: Plaintiff's Verdict

Medical negligence case against Chief of general surgery and Hospital where same was performed. Damages limited as the physical harm did not involve loss of a bodily function or long term pain. Howeve ... r, because the relevant operative report was altered in an exculpatory manner by the surgeon after her patient had complained about the wrong area of her breast being operated upon, the case was substantially pursued on the basis of the Doctor's breach of her fiduciary duty to the patient implicating violations of trust and fair dealing, indeed the integrity of the doctor patient relationship itself. The jury found negligence against the hospital and surgeon and a breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of the involved surgeon. Further proceedings, including appeal are likely.

Medical malpractice

John Doe v Pain Center

Jun 28, 2012

OUTCOME: settlement

Case involved alleged spinal injury resulting from the administration of an epidural injection meant to relieve neck pain. Weakness, tremor and impaired function to the right extremity was the injury i ... nvolved. Defense resisted the clinical evidence of such injury given the absence of any confirming mri radiographic findings or emg nerve conduction testing which would have been expected. A battle of expert opinions resulted in an effort to explain how such an injury could have been produced in the absence of objective medical evidence. Standard of care expert testimony was also required on the proper way to administer an epidural injection. Case settled for $750,000(June 2012)

Personal injury

Carey v Eitel

May 09, 2012

OUTCOME: Plaintiff's verdict $526,000

Mr. Carey was rear ended by a pickup truck driven by Mr. Eitel who was employed by O & G industries, the same company behind the Clean energy explosion that killed and injured workers in middletown, CT ... . Traveler's insurance insured the risk. The injuries claimed were principally lower back and a mild traumatic brain injury from the accident resulting from the concussion sustained. Last offer was $70,000 though there was likely a willingness to raise that into the low six figures. Trial took place on various days over a two week period of time before the jury rendered its verdict.

Defective and dangerous products

Amy Shopey v. Heil Environmental, Inc., et. al.

Nov 01, 2011

OUTCOME: 3.6 million dollar jury Verdict

Department of Transportation worker who lost part of her leg in the back of a dump truck while getting it ready for winter snow operations received a 3.6 million dollar verdict in Waterbury Superior Co ... urt on November 1, 2011. Her boot was entrained in the moving conveyor chain during a maintenance operation. The defense was primarily that she disregarded a "Danger" decal affixed to the side of the truck advising her not to stand in the body of the dump because of the moving chain which could cause injury. While that was true, the decal had been serially disregarded as the back of the dump bed was often used to store tools and for various other purposes and ther was a ladder affixed to the side of the dump body placed there by the Manufacturer and Dealer to enable access. The dealer who sold and assembled the dump body knew that and in fact their own mechanics would inspect the chain's operation on occasion from inside the dump body as well while the chain was in motion. The State of Connecticut's contract with the DOT required mandatory training on the proper operation and maintenance of the dump body which implicitly included how to clean and maintain the unit in a safe and recommended manner.It also required compliance with OSHA regulations and Industry safety standards. The Dealer maintained that it did so comply and that physical guarding of the chain during operation was implausible as any such guard would necessarily tend to interfere with its intended purpose. Accordingly, administrative controls which included proper training and clear operating instructions were essential and the Dealer maintained that it provided proper training and that the DOT which had operated a fleet of hundreds of similar trucks before the instant purchase should have known how to train their own employees in the first place. After the incident, Conn OSHA did cite the DOT which employed the injured worker for allowing exposure to unguarded nip points and in consequence thereof the DOT implemented a series of heightened administrative controls. The case was brought under Connecticut's Product Liability Act and was plead under legal theories including Strict liability for Defective design, Breach of the Statutory Duty to provide warnings and instructions, Breach of warranty and negligence. The manufacturer of the Dump bed had settled with the Plaintiff weeks before Trial and was a settled and released party whose fault was considered by the jury for purposes of allocating fault between the Plaintiff, the manufacturer and the remaining Defendant which was the dealer who sold the dump beds to the State under a procurement contract. The Jury allocated slightly less fault to the Manufacturer than to the Dealer who had the contract and primary relationship with the DOT and assigned 38% fault to the injured DOT worker as well resulting in a net verdict of slightly more than 1.3 million dollars to the worker in addition to a confidential sum obtained from the manufacturer shortly before Trial.

Personal injury

Oseni v The City of Hartford

Jan 12, 2011

OUTCOME: Pending

Mom seeks Justice for her Son. In the matter of Oseni v The City of Hartford, now pending in Hartford Superior Court , The Estate of a young Man killed shortly after getting out of work on June 6, 2009 ... , shot to death while waiting for his food at Pappas Pizza retains Attorney Paul Levin who sues the City of Hartford and the Town Police Chief among others. The scene of repeated instances of violence after hours controversies, when the Downtown Hartford Night clubs empty out " Pappas Pizza" became venue to hoodlums and misfits with no resident security personnel. Despite the City's adoption of a Municipal Ordinance Requiring consideration for a Police Detail For After Hours Establishments based upon factors enumerated in the ordinance nothing was done. Also, Crowd Control and dispersion techniques Following an Earlier Shooting at a nightclub down the street called "The Mansion" appears lacking as well. The City of Hartford ailed to order a curfew and crowd dispersion when twenty five minutes before a gang related shooting occurred and a large noisy crowd had filled Pappas Pizza before things got out of control. Nearby Hartford police officers were standing outside and actually commenting to each other that the place was overcrowded. When trouble started inside nobody could get out or in expeditiously when trouble started beginning with verbal altercations and chairs being thrown.

Wrongful death

Estate of Freddy Vazquez v MJM Carpentry et al

Jan 01, 2011

OUTCOME: Pending

The construction accident death of a Farmington CT construction worker, struck by a steel Beam that fell upon him which had not been properly secured into its concrete pocket was initially investigat ... ed by Federal OSHA last year. OSHA rendered findings that would support a finding of negligence on the part of the Builder MJM Carpentry. A deeper level of investigation, however, conducted by the Estate of the Decedent's Legal Counsel, Law Offices Of Paul Levin, has now resulted in the imminent filing of a Lawsuit against the general contractor along with the Developer and related individuals associated with the decision and profit making enterprise. The Complaint involves not only involves allegations of negligence but also reckless conduct and unfair Trade Practices on the part of those persons and entities involved in the matter.

Defective and dangerous products

John Doe vs GCS Services, inc.

May 06, 2008

OUTCOME: Plaintiffs veridct 1.375 million plus punitives

Our client inadvertantly injured his hand(serious fractures requiring multiple surgeries) when working with a dough mixer manufactured by varimixer corporation, a division of frymaster LLC. The machine ... was not fitted with a bowl screen guard which would have prevented inadvertant contact with body parts. The Defendant contended that the machine was reasonably safe without the device and that no state or federal law required it, including osha for this type of mixer. Further, that the plaintiff misused the machine and was solely responsible for his own injury. Last offer was $35,000 at start of evidence. Verdict date was may 28, 2008.(Full case name withheld at client's request).

Medical malpractice

Tornaquindici v Keggi

Jan 01, 2006

OUTCOME: Favorable Trial Court Decision, Upheld by Connecticut Appellate Court

Joanne TORNAQUINDICI et al. v. John M. KEGGI et al. No. 25605. Court of Appeals of Connecticut. April 18, 2006. Argued Oct. 19, 2005 [894 A.2d 1020] [Copyrighted Material O ... mitted] [894 A.2d 1021] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [894 A.2d 1022] Augustus R. Southworth III, Waterbury, with whom, on the brief, was Isabella S. Murray, for the appellants (named defendant et al.). Hope C. Seeley, Hartford, with whom was Sandra L. Snaden, for the appellee (named plaintiff). BISHOP DiPENTIMA and BERDON, Js. BERDON, J. This appeal calls on us to resolve a number of issues arising out of the jury trial of an action for medical malpractice brought by the plaintiff Joanne Page 831 Tornaquindici [1] against the defendant John M. Keggi, [2] a physician. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $157,000 in economic damages and $400,000 in noneconomic damages. The defendant filed this appeal, claiming that the trial court (1) should have set aside the verdict because (a) the plaintiff's counsel made prejudicial accusations in closing arguments [894 A.2d 1023] to the jury, (b) the verdict was against the evidence and (c) there was no properly admitted evidence that the defendant failed to communicate accurate information to the plaintiff postoperatively or that any withholding of such information was the proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiff; (2) improperly allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint on "the eve of closing arguments"; (3) failed to instruct the jury properly as to the standard of care; and (4) improperly precluded the defendant's expert witness from testifying. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. In February, 1999, the plaintiff slipped and fell while at work, landing on the right side of her buttock and lower back, causing injury to her hip. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff suffered considerable pain and was treated by several physicians. After undergoing various treatments, including a right hip arthroscopy and right hip anthrogram, she ultimately consulted with the defendant regarding surgery to address her pain. The jury reasonably could have found the following additional facts. On March 13, 2001, the defendant performed on the plaintiff an intramuscular psoas tendon Page 832 lengthening, right hip arthrotomy for labral tear and debridement of the psoas bursa. During surgery, the defendant caused injury to a structure that he initially thought was the plaintiff's tendon but later discovered was her femoral nerve. Following surgery, the plaintiff complained of numbness in her thigh, decreased sensation, reduced movement and burning pain in her leg. The defendant did not inform the plaintiff that he had cut a structure that he first thought was her tendon but later discovered was not, and omitted this information from his operative and postsurgical notes and the discharge summary. Rather, the plaintiff was informed after surgery that she suffered from femoral nerve palsy. After the surgery, the plaintiff continued to feel pain and consulted with pain management and nerve specialists. She eventually learned that she had the lesion on her femoral nerve. Thereafter, the plaintiff underwent two surgeries in March and June, 2002, which helped to lessen, but did not eliminate, the persistent pain. On December 4, 2001, the plaintiff brought this medical malpractice action against the defendant, alleging negligence and failure to disclose information. On April 20, 2004, following a ten day trial, the jury answered a set of interrogatories [3] [894 A.2d 1024] and returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Page 833 On April 29, 2004, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, to which the plaintiff objected. On June 25, 2004, after hearing argument from both parties, the court denied the defendant's motion. This appeal followed.

Paul S. Levin's Legal Cases (20)

Hammonasset Peeping incident

Oseni v Georgia Inc

Rea v Rubino et al

John Doe v Pain Center

Carey v Eitel

Amy Shopey v. Heil Environmental, Inc., et. al.

Oseni v The City of Hartford

Estate of Freddy Vazquez v MJM Carpentry et al

John Doe vs GCS Services, inc.

Tornaquindici v Keggi