Archive for March, 2009

Some Notable Cases involving Mr. Smith

Sunday, March 8th, 2009

Hialeah Widow Settles Lawsuit Against Doctor Who Misdiagnosed Her Husband’s Fatal Heart Attack for $362,500.00

Case points out holes in the healthcare system and sends strong message to everyone it’s OK to question their doctor

WESTON, FL — The settlement of a medical malpractice case on behalf of the widow of a Hialeah man reveals the medical system we all rely on can have serious and sometimes life-threatening holes and flaws, according to the prevailing attorney, Roy Oppenheim, a partner in Oppenheim Pilelsky, P.A. a Weston, Florida-based law firm.

“This was an unfortunate case that involved not only misdiagnosis by the physician, but also a lack of follow-up care, lack of communication, failure to make an appropriate referral, and dismissal of the patient’s complaints,” said Oppenheim. “The settlement against the physician and the medical clinic should be a warning to others that physicians are not infallible and that each patient has an absolute right to ask questions and express concerns,” he said.

The case involved treatment by Dr. Jesus Escar and Qualmed of Florida. In 2000, the man visited Dr. Escar at Qualmed of Florida, a healthcare facility in Miami-Dade, complaining of chest pain and discomfort radiating into his shoulder. The man was known to Dr. Escar and to the clinic as having high blood pressure. During an examination, an EKG was interpreted as abnormal. There was no cardiac referral made and no instructions given concerning what to do in case this was a cardiac event. The victim was simply given prescriptions for his blood pressure and heartburn and was sent home. When he and his widow tried to explain to Dr. Escar that the symptoms, particularly the shoulder pain, did not seem to them to be consistent with heartburn, their statements were completely dismissed by Dr. Escar who stated, “I’m the doctor.” The patient suffered a fatal heart attack within 72 hours.

Unfortunately for the patient, it was also July 4th weekend. “The prescription written by Dr. Escar could not be filled because the dosage was not recognizable to the pharmacist,” said Boca Raton attorney Andrew Smith, who co-counseled the case with Oppenheim. “Both the pharmacy and the victim called the doctor’s office, but due to the 4th of July weekend, the calls were not returned and the prescriptions went unfilled, further compounding the problem,” Smith said.

“This case should send a strong message to the public that it is entirely appropriate and well within a patient’s rights to question a doctor’s diagnosis and to not merely be a passive, often intimidated participant in the process,” said Oppenheim. “Doctors need to listen to their patients’ concerns and must be available for follow-up. Had my client’s husband’s concerns been taken seriously, and he received his medication in a timely manner, and had Dr. Escar been available when needed, he would probably be alive today,” he said. The case was settled in mediation for $362, 500.00.

_________________________________________

Houston’s parent sued over breastfeeding incident

BOCA RATON,, Fla. (June  14, 2006) Boca Raton resident Simone Bertucci filed a lawsuit this week against Houston’s parent Hillstone Restaurant Group because the manager of a local unit asked her to leave the restaurant while she was breastfeeding her infant son.

Unaware that Florida law entitles women to breastfeed in public, Bertucci and her son Marcello relocated to her car while the rest of the family stayed to finish its meal. The Bertucci’s were celebrating the 13th birthday of the family’s oldest son.

Bertucci filed the suit, in the 15th Judicial Court of Palm Beach County, largely to raise public awareness of mothers’ right to breastfeed their children in public, said her attorney, Andrew Smith. He added that he and his client had not yet decided how much in compensation they will seek, but Hillstone spokesman Glenn Viers said the suit asks for hundreds of thousands of dollars in payment.

Hillstone does not deny that the 22-year-old manager of the unit mishandled the situation. Viers called it an unfortunate incident, and said the company “sees it as an opportunity to educate our managers.” But he said that basing a lawsuit on the occurence is “absurd,” and expressed hope that the court would summarily dismiss the action as lacking substance.

Viers noted that Hillstone had issued an apology to Bertucci, along with an invitation to return to the restaurant.

The situation underscores public sensitivities about breastfeeding, as Smith acknowledged. “Apparently my client’s [breastfeeding] offended the sensibilities of another Boca Raton patron – a woman – who then complained to the manager. Apparently the manager – who was also a woman - did not know the law because she asked my client to leave,” the attorney said.

In 1993, Florida passed what was heralded by a pro-nursing group, La Leche League International, as the first comprehensive breastfeeding legislation in the United States. Today approximately 39 states have some type of legislation pertaining to breastfeeding.

Bertucci contends she was breastfeeding her child under a blanket while at the Houston’s here, but the Florida law gives a mother the right to breastfeed whether or not she is covered or even exposes her nipples. The manager was apparently also unaware of a mother’s right, covered or not.

Smith said that the issue is so divisive it has even made the news in England. “People have been calling me from all over to voice opinions. Some older women who grew up in an era when breastfeeding was not in vogue feel very strongly against it. The opinions are all over the place and very, very strong,” he said.

This is not the only controversial incident involving breastfeeding in a public setting.

Others reported situations include a woman nursing her baby inside Johnny’s Barbecue in Cullman, Ala. She alleged that an employee threw a dirty towel over the baby’s head to cover it up.

Also, a woman reportedly got into a breastfeeding dispute in a Houston Ronald McDonald House. Last year it was reported that a woman was removed from a Delta Airlines flight in Vermont because she was breastfeeding.

Smith acknowledged Hillstone’s efforts to address the situation.

“The company has admitted wrong doing and has apologized and has sent her check refunding the family’s meal for $150. But to date their position has been that their apology should suffice,” he said.

Smith added he has not heard from the company since Bertucci’s lawsuit was filed earlier this week.Viers said he had not seen a copy of the filing as of Thursday afternoon and was not familiar with its specific allegations.

__________________________________________

Nursing Home Arbitration May Limit Legal Alternatives
Know the Difference Between Arbitration and Mediation
.

Diane Lade and H. Cruz
Sun Sentinel
November 24, 2003

It’s understandable how, even on a good day, those two legal terms are easy to confuse.

So imagine a bad day, when you are finalizing what may be a permanent stay in a nursing home for yourself or someone you love. It’s an emotional time and the paperwork seems endless.

One of the documents states that you agree to arbitration, should you have a legal dispute with the facility. You sign, thinking you have promised to try to settle your differences with the nursing home before you head to court.

But what you’ve done is waive your rights to be heard by a jury if the home seriously neglects or mistreats you or your family member, and you later decide to sue.

Attorney Andrew Smith says people frequently mix up the two terms, especially since a Florida law passed two years ago requires nursing home disputes first go through mediation.

Mediation, however, is an informal conference and doesn’t change what the parties can do in the future. “It forces the parties to sit down together, which is good, but rarely do we get cases settled in pretrial mediation,” said Smith, of Boca Raton who specializes in nursing home litigation.

Under arbitration, however, the parties must agree to what the arbitrator decides and the decision is final.

“The most fundamental right people are signing away is their right to trial by jury,” Smith said. “These cases can tug at the heartstrings.”

Consumers are increasingly likely to be faced with arbitration clauses during the admissions process. Despite 2001 laws designed to curb litigation against Florida homes, there still are a large number of lawsuits against facilities and many are looking to protect themselves.

Mary Ellen Early, legislative director for the Florida Association of Homes for the Aging, points out that those with signed arbitration agreements still can file a lawsuit, even though they won’t be entitled to a trial. Most legal nursing home disputes are settled out of court anyway, she said.

Doing research through sites like the Nursing Home Compare at www.fdhc.state.fl.us/nhcguide will help consumers pick quality facilities, Early said.

Not surprisingly, the same attorneys who go after the homes now are, in some cases, going after the arbitration clauses. So far, the results have been mixed.

In September, Smith won rulings that overturned arbitration agreements with two HCR-Manor Case facilities, one in West Palm Beach and one in Boynton Beach. The courts found the agreements were “procedural and substantively unconscionable” because, in one case, the daughter who signed for her father did not have power of attorney to do so and, in another, the elderly man signing for his wife was told arbitration was a “take it or leave it” deal.
But in a case before the Fourth District Court this year, a judge ruled the arbitration clause was valid because the document clearly stated, in bold print, that it was voluntary and the family member still had signed it.

Those struggling with decisions about nursing home care can save themselves a lot of anxiety, and maybe legal fees down the road, if they understand arbitration clauses and the regulations governing them.

For starters, a nursing home cannot deny admission to residents who refuse to sign an arbitration agreement. Guidelines require that the clause be explained and that plenty of time to read the document and to think about it be given.

The clause is a legally binding agreement, so as with all contracts, read it carefully and understand what you are signing, Smith said.

Better yet, ask for 48 hours to think about it and take the paperwork to your lawyer. Each clause is different; make sure you are not agreeing to extensive caps on damages or other provisions that would severely curtail your rights.

During the admissions process, it’s a good idea in general to “step back and take a breath for a minute,” Smith said, especially since nursing home corporations are looking for more ways to limit liability and ensure they get paid.

As we mentioned in Mature Money last year, adult children or relatives of nursing home residents sometimes are asked to sign papers guaranteeing payment of the bill. If the resident’s Medicare or insurance benefit runs out, those who signed could find themselves liable for thousands of dollars.

To cover yourself, give the home a copy of your power of attorney for their files. And when signing anything, do so as: “Mary Smith, attorney in fact for John Doe.” By signing as someone’s agent, you are not responsible for the bills.

 

Equitable Distribution - What are MY Marital Assets?

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

Equitable Distribution – What Are My Martial Assets?

If you are getting divorced in the state of Florida, the courts follow a rigid guideline in the equitable distribution of all marital property. What does that really mean? Simply put, all assets and liabilities determined to be “marital,” or shared between both husband and wife while married, are assessed and then distributed evenly to both parties after the dissolution proceeding. But this begs the question: What about my non-marital assets, or assets that will not be factored into the court’s equitable distribution analysis? Because Florida distinguishes between marital and non-marital assets, if a wife believes that some piece of property she acquired before marriage should not be considered in the distribution of marital property, it is her obligation to show the court why that asset is a non-marital.

Florida courts generally presume that all assets and liabilities incurred after the exact date you get married are marital for purposes of equitable distribution in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. However, if you are a spouse with the premarital property and feel your husband is not entitled to share in that asset, look to the example mentioned above, you can defeat this presumption by a showing of why the assets and liabilities are non-marital. Because the division of assets and liabilities is one of the major concerns when couples are going through a divorce, it is a great idea to draft a list of all assets and liabilities and label them either marital or non-marital before the dissolution proceeding begins – this could save you a lot of time later on. To help you and the courts decided categorization, the Florida Legislature has enacted a statute that creates a list of assets and liabilities that are considered marital or non-marital.

Martial assets and liabilities include: (1) assets and liabilities incurred during marriage, either individually or both spouses; (2) increased value and appreciation of non-martial assets due to the efforts of either party during the marriage or because marital funds contributed to that increased value; (3) gifts one spouse gives to the other during that marriage; and (4) all vested and non-vested benefits, rights, and funds that came due during the marriage (including retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation, and insurance plans). It is also presumed that all real and personal property held as tenants by the entirety is marital, regardless of whether the property was purchased before or during marriage.

Nonmarital assets and liabilities include the following: (1) assets and liabilities incurred before you got married; (2) assets acquired individually by either spouse by non-interspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent, or any exchange for these assets; (3) all income received from non-marital assets during the marriage unless that income was used or relied on by the spouses as a marital asset; (4) assets excluded based on a valid written agreement made by the parties (think: pre-nuptial agreement!); and (5) liabilities incurred by one spouse as a result of the other’s forgery or unauthorized signature of that spouse’s name.

In Florida, all assets obtained during marriage will be considered marital until the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement (that may include a different date to consider) or the date a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed with the court. If you are in the beginning stages of a divorce, consult with an attorney to know what your rights are in regards to your marital and non-marital property.

The Importance of Establishing Paternity for Children Born Out of Wedlock in Florida

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

The Importance of Establishing Paternity for Children Born Out of Wedlock in Florida

Florida law dictates that the mother of a child born out of wedlock is automatically considered to be the legal parent who is required to provide support for her child. However, if a child’s parents are not married to each other when that child is born, Florida courts will not automatically presume a man is the biological father and thus recognize the father’s duties and financial obligations to the child unless paternity is legally established. Take, for instance, this example.

Eight months ago, Jane Smith was living with her boyfriend, John Doe. A couple of months after moving in, John was told by Jane that she was pregnant and she believed that they could raise the child together. However, one month before the baby was born, Jane and John broke up. When the baby was finally born, Jane felt she was entitled to child support from John because she believed him to be the biological father. Establishing paternity for children born out of wedlock is important to both the mother and child because it is essential for the child garnering the same rights as children born to married parents – including child support and inheritance.

For Jane and John, the easiest way to establish paternity would be to bypass a court proceeding and sign an affidavit saying the child belongs to both of them. When a mother completes the affidavit she attests that she was unwed at the time of the birth and that the man identified in the affidavit is the biological father of the child. When the man completes the affidavit of paternity, he swears he is the biological father of the child and he will be responsible for the medical and financial needs of the child until adulthood. But this is really only an option when the identity of the father is certain. This administrative procedure is most convenient because it can be performed at the birth hospital before the baby is discharged or at the local Child Support Enforcement Office. If completed at the hospital, the parents, like Jane and John, typically, do not have to pay a fee. But if done outside the hospital at the Child Support Enforcement Office, and Jane and John were from Fort Lauderdale or Miami, Florida, they could sign an affidavit at a Child Support Enforcement Office located in either Broward or Miami-Dade County.

But what if Jane was uncertain that John was actually the father because she got pregnant the month before he moved in with her, and she had also been seeing another man? She never told John about her uncertainties, but John eventually discovered these facts before the child was born. In this situation, although there is a possibility he is the father, John would most likely question whether he was the father, and signing an affidavit attesting to his paternity would probably not be in his best interest. In this situation, if Jane wants child support, she would most likely seek judicial help through the issuance of a court order to establish John’s paternity. Through judicial action, John can either sign legal documents establishing paternity or support, or both, which the court will then adopt as a stipulation, or the court may hold a hearing to establish paternity and support. If John fails to stipulate that he is the father, the court must hold a hearing to determine paternity of Jane’s child. In this hearing, the court may order genetic testing. If the court found John to be the child’s father, the court must then order support for the child.

In Florida, the child support guidelines that govern divorce proceedings also apply to determine, modify, or enforce child support for children born out of wedlock. This may include authorization of retroactive child support to the date when the parents did not live together in the same household with the child, but cannot exceed 24 months before the filing of the hearing to establish paternity. Therefore, if John failed to pay child support during the month before and the two months during the court ordered hearing to establish paternity, because the court determined John to be the child’s father, he must pay child support for those 3 months and for future child support expenditures.

If you are the mother and presumed father of a child born out of wedlock, consult an attorney to determine your child’s rights to financial and medical support.