Sarasota, FL
Health care Lawyer at Sarasota, FL
Practice Areas: Health Care, Medical Malpractice ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Settled
Client retained Defendant approximately one month after the death of her husband to file workers’ compensation death claim. Defendant failed to file a claim within the two-year Statute of Limitations.
OUTCOME: Settled
Client, a manufacture’s sales representative, brought suit against manufacture when they failed to pay him the agreed 5% commission of gross sales from a large sales contract he brought to the manufact ... urer. The manufacturer played with sales figures totaling over $8.4 million over several years in order to cheat client out of his commission. After extensive review of manufacturer’s sales records and financial documents, we were able to determine the actual amount of gross sales relating to client’s agreement with defendant and quickly settled just shy of the actual cash value of the commission he had earned.
OUTCOME: No Cause
Client, a PEO (Professional Employer Organization) was sued by Michigan Employment Security Commission for alleged SUTA (State Unemployment Tax Act) dumping. The MESC alleged that the PEO underpaid une ... mployment taxes by $4,290,027.99 resulting in a claim for damages totaling $26,627,318.06 after interest and penalty fees. PEO sought judicial relief following the Agency's determination of unpaid taxes for alleged SUTA dumping. The alleged dumping took place prior to July 1, 2005. The parties stipulated the new 2005 changes did not apply. The State of Michigan State Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules concluded that “while the PEO did create new entities and transfer employees to such entities to reduce unemployment taxes, the practice was not prohibited by the Act prior to July 1, 2005”. The Administrative Judge reversed the Agency’s determination.
OUTCOME: No Cause of Action
Plaintiff alleges that clients failed to timely evaluate and determine cause of anemia, right thyroid nodule and bilateral masses, leading to the death of Plaintiff’s decedent from non-Hodgkin’s Lympho ... ma. We filed a Motion for Summary Disposition and were denied. We successfully appealed and the case was returned to the trial court. It was argued at trial that clients, internal medicine physicians, were well within the standard of care having referred patient to specialist and having relied on recommendations, advice and treatments made by specialists. The jury returned a verdict of No Cause of Action on behalf of our clients.
OUTCOME: No Cause of Action
Patient was a 16-year-old boy who died from meningitis. Plaintiff alleges that client, an emergency room physician, failed to timely diagnose and treat son’s Fulminant Meningococcal Meningitis. It was ... argued that medical intervention could not have saved patient and that client was well within the standard of care having diagnosed and begun treatment within 2 hours of patient presenting to ER. The jury returned a verdict of No Cause of Action on behalf of our clients.
OUTCOME: No Cause of Action
Plaintiff died as a result of a ruptured aneurysm. Plaintiff sued family practice physician (client) alleging he failed to order a CT or MRI five weeks earlier when Plaintiff complained of headaches. C ... lient referred Plaintiff to a neurologist for further investigation, and asked Plaintiff to return if headaches worsened. For health insurance reasons, Plaintiff was unable to see a neurologist for six weeks. Plaintiff never returned to client. Plaintiff died five weeks later of a ruptured brain aneurysm. The jury returned a verdict of No Cause of Action on behalf of our clients.
OUTCOME: Order Vacating the Verdict and Judgment
Plaintiff brought a claim alleging damage to aorta during laparoscopic surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. Plaintiff prevailed at trial, Defendants appealed and prevailed at the Court of Appeals. The Co ... urt of Appeals entered an unpublished opinion holding that because Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent was defective, the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. The court found that Plaintiff’s NOI was defective for two reasons: 1) it did not contain a proper statement concerning the alleged action that should have been taken to achieve compliance with the standard of care, and 2) it failed to sufficiently specify proximate cause by not detailing the manner in which Defendants’ alleged breach of the standard of care factually or foreseeably caused injury to Plaintiff.