ACK Injury Law

$1.2M

Car Accident

Lawyers at Adelman Hirsch & Connors represented the estate of an elderly gentleman who was killed (and his widow, who was seriously injured) in a four-car collision. The car in front of our client’s car, traveling in the same lane, collided with the first of two vehicles racing towards our client’s car. As a result of that first collision, the oncoming car skidded along the road and crashed head-on into our client’s car. The issue in the case was which of the two cars that collided in front of our client’s car was slightly over the centerline of the road. Because each of the parties had a different recollection of how the collision occurred, each presented testimony from accident reconstruction experts who, based on the physical evidence, offered their opinions as to how the collision occurred.

$1.2M

Property Damage

We represented a woman whose house was blown up in a gas explosion. Although our client escaped physical injury by running from the house before it was engulfed in flames, she developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the explosion, the fire and the loss of all of her worldly possessions. We sued a construction company that had been installing a sewer line in the street outside our client’s home. The construction company had bent a gas line while digging to lay a sewer line nearby. Eighteen months later, during a freezing spell, the gas line cracked where it had been bent, and gas leaked into our client’s house.

$6M

Medical Malpractice

We represented the estate of a man whose doctor failed to diagnose his throat cancer. Our client had gotten a Positron Emission Tomography [PET] scan, which showed an area of increased uptake, a sign of cancer. His doctor performed a fiberoptic examination of the inside of our client’s throat, but this type of fiberoptic examination does not always reveal a small growth. The standard of care, in order to rule out cancer, is to do a follow-up PET scan and fiberoptic examination within three months. The doctor failed to recommend such follow-up. A year later our client’s cancer became symptomatic. The cancer was diagnosed and aggressively treated, but it was too late. He died two years later, at age 71.

$1.3M

Wrongful Death - Truck Accident

In a case we tried in federal court, the defendant truck driver was operating a tractor-trailer on Route 84. He started to notice brake problems, but continued to drive for over a mile, with his brakes smoking, trying to make it to the next exit. During this time, he passed several places where he could have pulled entirely off the road. When his brakes finally froze and he was forced to stop, he did not pull fully off the road and was partially blocking the right lane of the highway. Making matters worse, after he stopped, he failed to put out his reflective safety triangles, as required by federal regulations. Rather than dragging his rig off the roadway and ruining his tires, he decided to leave his truck where it was. About 30 minutes later, our client’s husband, driving a flower van, crashed into the rear of the truck and was killed. An expert human factors engineer we hired testified about studies showing that, without reflective safety triangles, drivers have trouble perceiving that a tractor-trailer in front of them is actually stopped until it’s too late. While many people can perceive that a vehicle is stopped from 400 feet away, this visual cue is not reliable for all drivers until they are 200 feet away. At highway speeds, this doesn’t leave enough room to avoid a collision.

$2.2M

Medical Malpractice

We represented the estate and widow of a 64-year-old artist who died following gallbladder surgery. Our client went to the hospital emergency room with severe abdominal pain. He was diagnosed with gallstone pancreatitis. Three days later, a surgeon performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy to remove his gallbladder. As part of the surgery, the cystic duct, which connects the gallbladder to the common bile duct, had to be cut and clipped to prevent bile from leaking into his abdomen. Our client was discharged from the hospital the day after surgery. A week later, he went to his surgeon’s office for a postoperative visit. He complained of pain and his blood tests showed his liver function tests were above normal limits. His surgeon instructed him to return to the office the following week. When our client returned the following week, his liver function tests were still abnormal, and he was admitted to the hospital. A CT scan done in the hospital showed that a large collection of bile had leaked into his abdomen. Despite the presence of fever, the surgeon did not react promptly and drain the bile collection until five days after admission. By that time, it was too late; our client died from an infection that had grown in the bile. On autopsy, it was found that the clip which the surgeon had placed on the cystic duct to prevent bile from leaking into the abdomen had fallen off. Adelman Hirsch & Connors presented expert testimony that the treating surgeon was negligent in four ways: 1) failing to properly clip the cystic duct during the surgery; 2) discharging our client from the hospital the day after surgery; 3) failing to start a workup on the cause of the abnormal liver function tests the week after the surgery; and 4) failing to drain the bile collection and commence appropriate antibiotics sooner.

$12M

Medical Malpractice

We represented a couple who were looking forward to having their first child. When our client was in her 18th week of pregnancy, she went to her doctor’s office for a routine prenatal visit. It is the standard of care that at this stage of a woman’s pregnancy, her health care provider should offer her an Alpha-Fetoprotein (AFP) test. The AFP test may detect birth defects. Most women elect to have the test because it enables them to consider ending the pregnancy if their child has severe birth defects, or to better prepare for childbirth. Some women elect not to have the test. The health care provider should get the patient’s informed consent to have or not have the test. Informed consent is a duty imposed by law on health care providers, requiring them to inform a patient of the risks and benefits of a medical test or procedure, so that the patient can make an informed decision about whether or not to have it. During the critical office visit, our client was seen by a midwife, who did not inform our client about the AFP test nor offer it to her. The day after the office visit, a nurse from the doctor’s office called our client and offered her the AFP test. However, the nurse did not properly inform our client about the risks and benefits. Our client declined it. Our client gave birth to a baby with birth defects. We brought suit against the doctor’s office, claiming that the midwife had failed to properly inform our client about the risks and benefits of the AFP test and that our client’s decision not to have it was therefore not an informed one.