2.05 million recovery for the family of a Philadelphia man tragically killed in a motorcycle accident
N/A
OUTCOME: 2.05 million recovery for the family of a Philadelphia man tragically killed in a motorcycle accident
The plaintiff, a 38 year old family man, was traveling down Essington Avenue in South Philadelphia on his motorcycle when he crashed head on into an airport shuttle bus. The bus pulled out into traffic... from a parking lot creating an immovable blockade. Despite his best efforts, the plaintiff could not evade the bus. As a result of the motorcycle accident, the plaintiff suffered dislocations and fractures to the skull, spine, ribs, face, and limbs. He was pronounced dead on the scene by paramedics. Portions of the plaintiff’s skull were found lodged into the shuttle bus and no amount of protective gear would have been able to save him from the horrific crash.
Immigration
Special Residency Staus Obtained for Iraqi Interpreter
N/A
OUTCOME: Special Residency Staus Obtained for Iraqi Interpreter
In the first case of its kind, in 2006, Privitera represented a former Iraqi interpreter who sought permanent residency status in the United States after being nearly-killed in a car bombing attack.
...
For nearly 2 years, Safa Ismael, then a college student, worked as a translator for U.S. soldiers stationed in Mosul, Iraq who were involved in building schools, water systems, infrastructure and advising local government. As conditions deteriorated in Iraq, however, Safa and other interpreters became the subject of escalating violence. Safa knew several interpreters who were kidnapped and killed in busy markets and/or shot dead in their homes. Safa continued to work as an interpreter even though locals and neighbors branded him a “traitor†and insurgents identified him on a list of collaborators posted on a Mosque. Eventually, insurgents targeted Safa, and tried to kill him in a car bombing attack. Although Safa survived the car bombing incident, he knew that he would be killed if he did not flee Iraq. With the help of several soldiers, in November 2005, Safa came to Philadelphia after having been granted a temporary visitor’s visa.
Over the next year, Privitera succeeded in obtaining special residency status for the former Iraqi interpreter under legislation enacted in January 2006, which at that time permitted only 50 interpreters from Iraq or Afghanistan to seek permanent refuge in the United States. Privitera’s client was the first person ever to receive the benefit of special residency status under the new law.
In January 2007, U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, who at the time had co-sponsored refugee legislation, invited Privitera and his client to appear before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, which had convened hearings regarding the “Plight of Iraqi Refugees.†Using a pseudonym and hidden behind a curtain to protect his identity, Privitera’s client testified about his work as an interpreter for American military forces stationed in Mosul and the threats made on his life. At the time, the need for anonymity was critical and necessary to protect Safa, and members of his family still living in Mosul, from retaliation. Only now has Safa felt safe enough to speak publicly about his journey, as detailed in a front page newspaper article published in June 2010 in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
In 2011, Privitera was awarded a Legislative Citation from the Pennsylvania House of Representatives commemorating his outstanding pro bono representation in this case.
Today, Safa is alive, well and flourishing. Safa lives and works in Philadelphia, and is pursuing a master’s degree in government administration. Upon completion of his studies, Safa hopes in the future to work in the State Department, perhaps translating in the middle east. In obtaining permanent residency in the United States for Safa, it is no exaggeration to say that Mr. Privitera was involved in saving Safa’s life and in helping this young man achieve his future dreams and aspirations.
Personal injury
$1.4 million for catastrophically injured construction worker.
N/A
OUTCOME: $1.4 million for catastrophically injured construction worker.
On April 13, 2007, while installing rafters on a new rooftop, Plaintff, a seasoned carpenter, fell approximately 18 feet and struck his head on a stone and gravel surface. Due to the fall, Plaintiff su...stained life-threatening orthopedic and neurologic injuries.
This is an accident which should never have occurred. Implementing simple safety procedures, including providing adequate fall protection equipment to workers on-site, would have ensured Plaintiff's safety. But the owner of the property and the developer of the construction project failed to provide workers with adequate safety equipment, including a properly installed carpenter bracket scaffold.
The owner and developer failed to ensure that a simple, inexpensive and routinely used carpenter bracket scaffold was properly installed and made available for workers doing their jobs at elevated heights; they failed to comply with mandatory OSHA and workplace safety requirements.
The 1.4 million dollar settlement was particularly impressive in light of the vigorous defense. This was a complex construction case that presented many challenges for the plaintiff, including the defense contention that Plaintiff's accident and injuries were caused by his own conduct.
Medical malpractice
$1.2 Million for Failure to Diagnose & Treat Pneumonia
N/A
OUTCOME: $1.2 million verdict for the family of a young man who died from complications of pneumonia which were not properly treated by his physician.
Plaintiff, a 22 year old college student, developed a persistent cough in October 2005 and was prescribed an oral antibiotic by his pediatrician. At birth he was diagnosed with chronic granulomatous di...sease (GCD). GCD weakens the immune system and makes the carrier susceptible to infections, especially respiratory infections. If treated and handled properly, persons with GCD can lead relatively normal healthy lives. His pediatrician knew of his past history with GCD and had managed his care with the disease since early childhood.
Two weeks after his first visit in October 2005, the young patient returned to his doctor complaining of cough and shortness of breath. Blood studies taken prior to the visit showed that he had signs of an infection, a high white blood cell count and a normal sedimentation rate. A chest x-ray was ordered and demonstrated pneumonia in the left lung. The doctor gave him two more prescriptions to battle the pneumonia.
Despite the new medications his conditions worsened and he went to see his doctor for a third time. At this visit he was coughing and had developed a fever. The doctor ordered a second chest x-ray which showed the pneumonia had worsened and blood studies showed his infection had become more severe. The doctor determined the plaintiff “looked okay†and sent him home with medication for his cough and fever.
The condition worsened and he called his doctor to set up an appointment to discuss hospitalization. At that visit, the plaintiff met with his doctor who again told him he looked good, hospitalization was not necessary and he would see him in his office after the holiday weekend. Over the weekend, the plaintiff began to vomit and was severely short of breath. He called his doctor and was told to go to the emergency room.
Upon admission to the emergency room the plaintiff’s white blood cell count was exceptionally high and he was tacycardic, tachpneic and hypoxic. A chest x-ray showed the pneumonia was worsening in both lungs and blood cultures were ordered to identify the bacteria causing the pneumonia. Unfortunately, by the time the cultures identified the bacteria there was not enough time to save the Plaintiff and he died in the hospital from complications of pneumonia.
The doctor's conduct fell below the standard of care in not admitting the plaintiff to the hospital despite numerous signs of worsening infection and pneumonia. Given the plaintiff’s difficulty in fighting infections from his underlying condition of GED, and the fact that numerous prescriptions were not working to fight the pneumonia, the doctor should have hospitalized the plaintiff, at the latest, after his third visit. The doctor failed to do so and his negligence cost the plaintiff his life.
Wrongful death
$3.025 MILLION FOR FAMILY OF YOUNG MAN KILLED IN A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT
N/A
OUTCOME: $3.025 MILLION FOR FAMILY OF YOUNG MAN KILLED IN A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT
Dino Privitera recovered $3.025 million for the family of a young man who was tragically killed in a construction accident.
The 23 year old young man was working as a roofer's helper for a construct...ion company that was renovating an office building in New Jersey. During renovations, it was discovered that the existing roof had become rusted and rotted and needed to be replaced with a new metal overlay. As part of the renovation project, holes had been unnecessarily cut into the roof for the return and supply ducts, which created a cantilevered condition where only one side of the hole opening was supported. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was carrying a new sheet of metal for the roof when the cantilevered metal decking bent like a trap door under his weight.
Despite valiantly struggling to save himself, the plaintiff plunged through the roof opening approximately 25 feet to the concrete floor below. The plaintiff was not wearing any fall protection equipment at the time of the accident. Immediately after the fall, the plaintiff was unconscious and struggling to breathe. After being rushed by emergency personnel to a local hospital, physicians determined that the plaintiff's catastrophic injuries were irreversible and plaintiff's parents then made the heart-wrenching decision to remove him from life support.
An investigation was launched by OSHA, which cited two separate contractors at the work site for "serious" violations, including failing to determine if the walking/working surface of the roof had the strength and structural integrity to support workers safely and failing to have workers equipped with appropriate fall protection equipment, such as harnesses. In the days before the plaintiff's fatal accident, it was determined that companies working on the roof renovation project knew that the roof was dangerous and that roof work should be halted until a structural engineer was able to assess the integrity of the roof, but these companies did not otherwise warn or stop the plaintiff or his co-workers from going up on the roof on the day of the accident. Had proper fall protection been provided to workers or had the companies involved in supervising and managing the renovation project properly warned plaintiff of the fall hazard or halted construction activity until it was safe to perform work on the roof, the plaintiff would still be alive today.
The result achieved for the family was especially remarkable given the vigorous defense mounted by the contracting Defendants. Each of the Defendants denied culpability for Plaintiff's death, asserting, among other things, that they were immune from suit, owed no duty of care to ensure a safe work environment, did not control the worksite, acted with requisite care in discharging their respective obligations, and that Plaintiff's accident and injuries were caused by his own negligent conduct. Defendants also hotly contested the damages as well, arguing that Plaintiff had not sustained any conscious pain and suffering as a result of the accident and that Plaintiff was not entitled to recover economic damages for loss of earning capacity. A settlement was reached with all of the defendants after jury selection in Philadelphia.
Privitera is a former well-respected Philadelphia prosecutor. From 1995 through 2000, Privitera successfully prosecuted a wide range of serious felony offenses, such as attempted murders, aggravated as...saults, sexual crimes, armed robberies, home invasions, gun offenses, shootings, burglaries, and drug offenses. Privitera was hand-picked to serve in an elite drug interdiction unit whose mission was focused on the prosecution of some of the most violent and dangerous drug organizations in West Philadelphia. A seasoned veteran of literally hundreds of non-jury and jury trials, Privitera has amassed an impressive record of achievement, including successful prosecutions in such high-profile cases as:
◠Commonwealth v. Vincent Wilkerson: Charges: Attempted Murder/Aggravated Assault/Shooting/Gun offenses/Robbery. Verdict: Guilty. Sentence: Life without Parole under Pennsylvania’s Third Strike Law.
â— Commonwealth v. Mark Smith: Charges: Aggravated Assault/Robbery/Gun offenses. Verdict: Guilty. Sentence: 15 - 31 years.
◠Commonwealth v. Ronald Tann: Charges: Aggravated Assault/Gun offenses/Shooting. Verdict: Guilty. Sentence: 12 ½ - 25 years.
â— Commonwealth v. Gerald Cherry: Charges: Aggravated Assault/Shooting/Gun offenses/Robbery. Verdict: Guilty. Sentence: 12 - 24 years.
â— Commonwealth v. Francisco Camaro: Charges: Conspiracy/Possession with Intent to Deliver. Verdict: Guilty. Sentence: 10 - 20 years.
â— Commonwealth v. Larry Ray: Charges: Burglary/Aggravated Assault/Robbery/Beating. Verdict: Guilty. Sentence: 7 - 20 years.
â— Commonwealth v. Jamar Tindle: Charges: Graffiti vandalism. Verdict: Guilty. Sentence: 6 - 12 years.
â— Commonwealth v. Robert Stewart: Charges: Conspiracy/Possession with Intent to Deliver. Verdict: Guilty. Sentence: 5 - 10 years.
Criminal defense
United States v. Carbo
N/A
OUTCOME: Motion for Judgment of Acquittal GRANTED
Among his many notable white collar criminal defense victories, Privitera was lead trial counsel in the federal corruption case of United States v. Thomas Carbo. Privitera made national news after a f...ederal judge granted a motion for judgment of acquittal on behalf of his client following a jury trial, agreeing with Privitera that there was insufficient evidence for a jury to convict his client of honest services fraud, a type of mail and wire fraud. U.S. District Judge Mary McLaughlin, in a lengthy and thoughtfully written opinion, ruled that no “rational†jury would have been able to convict Privitera’s client of a federal crime based on the evidence presented at trial. Professor David Kairys, a law professor at Temple University’s Beasley Law School, commented that the dramatic court ruling was “extremely rare.â€
