Maria Black defended a pain management physician who was alleged to have negligently administered joint injections to the right hip of a 60-year-old nursing assistant for treatment of leg and lower back pain. Plaintiff maintained that the improperly administered injections caused irreversible damage to the sciatic nerve resulting in right foot drop and leaving the patient wheelchair bound. Defendant physician explained that the plaintiff’s contention was an anatomical impossibility since the nerves in the area of the injections, even if injured, could not result in right foot drop. The judge presiding over the case, agreed with the defense position that the proper placement of the needle during the injections was evidenced by intra-operative images captured under fluoroscopic guidance, which eliminated the possibility of any mechanical damage to the nerves outside the region of the sacroiliac joint and granted summary judgment for the defendant physician. Subsequent nerve conduction studies revealed that the plaintiff’s right foot drop was caused by the affects and progression of the neurological disease, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease).

Andrew Garson successfully defended a local teaching hospital and its former employee, a pediatric resident, in the most compelling emotional circumstances. These claims were brought on behalf of a 4 year old child with hip dysplasia, a malformation of the hip joint, who had undergone multiple surgeries, extended rehabilitation and has a permanent limp and activity limitations. It was argued she would develop disabling arthritis in the joint, requiring multiple hip replacements beginning in early adulthood. Her attorney, one of the most prominent litigators in the nation with numerous multimillion dollar verdicts, argued that this condition should have been diagnosed at the time of the child’s birth. Plaintiff’s theory was that this abnormality developed in the womb, was present but unrecognized at birth, and if timely diagnosed, the child’s extensive injuries, future pain and ambulatory problems would have been averted. At trial, counsel aggressively attacked the credibility and knowledge of Garson’s client, attempting to demonstrate the resident was not adequately trained or competent to recognize this condition and failed to properly examine the infant assigned to her care. It was the defendants’ position that this condition was not in fact present at birth, but developed later as the infant matured. Therefore, there was no negligence attributable to his clients. As the trial progressed, these claims were dismissed. A rewarding outcome in light of the potential damages exposure and sympathetic nature of the case.

New York, March 16, 2023. Andrew Garson continued his string of jury verdicts, with a unanimous defense verdict after a four-week 2023 trial in Suffolk County Supreme Court. Plaintiff, a 42 year old nurse-midwife and Stony Brook professor, was permanently brain damaged and crippled, rendered blind, and was unable to work and perform activities of daily living after she suffered a stroke allegedly due to the Defendant’s failure to timely diagnose a bowel obstruction. This resulted in septic shock, brain hemorrhage, coma, and a massive bleeding disorder. Plaintiff’s claim arose from a gastric bypass procedure performed by Defendant, as shortly thereafter she complained of problems including excruciating pain and gastrointestinal malfunction persisting over an eighteen-month period, requiring longstanding treatment with narcotics. She claimed that Defendant continually advised her, despite her persistent and progressive complaints, that this was a normal part of recovery and she “should go live her life.” At trial, Plaintiff’s central theory was that Defendant never considered or recognized that there was an abdominal hernia present, causing a bowel obstruction. The claim was that if the Defendant had performed timely surgical intervention, the patient’s catastrophic and permanent injuries would have been avoided. Three experts were called in to support Plaintiff’s claims, asserting that imaging studies during the period at issue demonstrate injuries to her GI tract and a bowel obstruction. Plaintiff subsequently underwent multiple surgeries, removing 80% of her bowel as well as a number of other procedures, to attempt to alleviate her neurologic and abdominal deficits.

In May 2019, Mr. Jakub successfully defended a family practice physician accused of causing the wrongful death of her patient, a 72 year-old female. Mr. Jakub’s client had treated the decedent for various conditions over the course of many years and was charged with managing a complicated medical regimen to address heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. The patient developed an acute episode of gout for which Mr. Jakub’s client prescribed Naprosyn. One month later the patient was taken by ambulance to a local hospital in acute renal failure where she died the next day from renal failure. Plaintiff claimed that the Naprosyn caused the patient’s acute renal failure due to its interaction with other medications the patient was taking and because of her underlying renal disease.

Mr. Jakub, through his client and through expert witnesses, marshaled an alternative explanation for the onset of renal failure and the patient’s death which the jury unanimously accepted. (Miklos v. Gonzales, Supreme Court, Bronx County No.: 20739/10)