New York's Medical Malpractice Lawyers
You may be one of millions of Americans who has a case against a doctor or hospital and not even know it.
It is not a secret that doctors regularly forego having patients undergo intensive and expensive diagnostic testing or referrals to specialists. Like many Americans, you may have medical insurance, but simply are "under-cared." It is that less-than-minimal medical care that can, and does, cause pre-mature death, pain, and prolonged negative consequences that we seek to uncover. Our firm is positioned to put 50 years of combined experience in the medical malpractice field to work for you.
Doctors make mistakes. If you want peace of mind, we offer it: we will investigate, free of charge, any case you may have against a doctor or hospital for malpractice.
Cornell and Columbia educated lawyers are on your side, for once, rather than on the side of the big insurance companies and 'big pharma'. And why are we not on their side? Because we believe in the US Constitution's guarantee that every aggrieved individual who is damaged, hurt or whose life is altered by the carelessness or negligence of another deserves, not only money, but more fundamentally, a trial by jury. It's a concept this country was built upon. We stand up for what we believe is right, and fight for what we know is wrong.
The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that medical errors kill up to 98,000 U.S. hospital patients each year (Kohn, LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, editors. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, D.C; 2000).
Harvard researchers examined more than 30,000 randomly selected records from New York hospitals. They concluded that only 4% of those who were injured by doctors, sued (Patients, Doctors and Lawyers: Medical Injury, Malpractice Litigation, and Patient Compensation in New York. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1990). The NY medical malpractice lawyers at Diefenbach Law Firm PLLC
are positioned in the legal marketplace with the resources, state-of-the-art computer technology and financial ability to take on even the most powerful insurance companies and biggest NY hospitals.
Medical malpractice is a general term that refers to all the various instances of medical
error, mistake or negligence by a doctor or hospital, and includes the following, but by no means exhaustive, list:
Wrongful
Death
Birth
Injury
Laparoscopy
Errors
Spinal Cord Injury and Brain Injury
Surgical
Errors
Unnecessary
Surgery
Failure
to diagnose a disease or ailment, which causes you harm or injury
Untimely
diagnosis of cancer
Wrong
diagnosis
Error
in prescribing proper medication
Failure
to be referred to a specialist
Adverse
drug reaction
If you want us to investigate whether you or a person close to your heart has experienced medical
malpractice, time is against you. Under NY law, and generally speaking (this is not legal advice, call us before you jump to that conclusion) -as there are exceptions such as the Continuous Treatment Doctrine- you have 2 1/2 years from the date of the malpractice to file a civil action in court. And don't think lawyers will stand on line to take your case on the 30th month; lawyers need to investigate the case, which can take months to order the medical records and then have a doctor review them for any malpractice. You have a right to be compensated for any injury, death, pain that a professional caused you. Our country was built on that principal and Congress and the Courts have consistently enforced that principal of American law. If a loved one
has been injured or has died due to a medical error, you may be able to pursue a
medical malpractice case. Some potential clients enter our offices and tell us they feel sorry to sue their doctor; this is a common misconception bolstered by the insurance lobbyists: the person that ultimately pays in a medical case is not the doctor or hospital; it's the insurance company. And the operative word there is "ultimately pays." Because simply bringing a case in Court against a doctor does not mean you will ultimately receive a check for your pain, suffering, health, additional surgeries, loss of income, etc. The insurance companies spend $ 1.4 million a day lobbying for tort reform in Washington DC www.sodahead.com/united-states/do-you-support-health-insurance-lobbyists/question-656083/ Who is the lobbyist for the unborn child? Or a baby injured during birth because the doctor who did the delivery was too busy eating a sandwich -a real case we have. We are. That's why retaining a top NY medical malpractice lawyer who sues doctors is like finding the Holy Grail: a good lawyer can make, and a bad lawyer can break, your case.The doctor's credentials are not affected in the least; he may not be a happy camper about it, but, believe us, his office is open billing for his services the next morning.
We will investigate the medical records in your case, free of charge, to see if you have a medical malpractice case. But you ought seek competent advice from a top NYC medical malpractice lawyer
immediately. If our medical malpractice lawyers take your case, you can rest assured we will go through every permissible legal channel to get you the monetary compensation you deserve. Since
there is a deadline by which the patient must file a civil action, it is important
to act quickly.
Don't be one of the 96 out of every 100 people who do nothing in the face of medical malpractice in NY. It's a right you have, and lawyers and judges throughout NY (as well as in the highest court of the land in Washinton, D.C.)have spent many a day and night protecting that right for you.
Our Medical Malpractice
FAQs and Medical Malpractice Blog are excellent resources
for finding up-to-date medical malpractice news.
Medical malpractice--negligence and recklessness by hospitals and physicians--injures hundreds of thousands of people each year. During the Bush administration and with the help of that administration, states pushed aggressively to limit the amount of money that juries could award people for one element of damages that a NY medical malpractice jury could award: money to the victim for pain and suffering. For example, in California, there is a $ 250,000.00 limit for "pain and suffering" in medical malpractice and other cases. The Founding Father's guarantee to a trial by jury seems to have gone out the window, to be replaced with the legislature's all-knowing wisdom that in every case and for every injured medical malpractice victim, it-- the legislature-- seems to know that you should be limited to $ 250K. To make sure that the jury system works effectively, you and me and all aggrieved by doctors', psychiatrists', hospitals', ER rooms' mistakes must be reported and a claim ought be filed. It is only when we, as citizens, are quiet and do nothing that the jury system, because it is not called upon, will slowly be eradicated or limited in the scope that it was intended to have when this country was formed. There is currently no legislative limit in New York, to cap medical malpractice jury awards, but that does not mean there will not be caps in the future. In response to these efforts, scholars and experts embarked on the formidable task of addressing some of the misleading rhetoric of tort reform. At the Diefenbach law firm, our medical malpractice lawyers here briefly present some of their findings, drawing chiefly on Geoff Boehm's excellent article in the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law & Ethics, entitled 'DEBUNKING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE MYTHS: UNRAVELING THE FALSE PREMISES BEHIND 'TORT REFORM.'
In our opinion, Boehm's 'false premises' is too soft a phrase; it's more like propaganda spun by the insurance companies that take the insurance premiums from doctors, try to pay little or nothing on meritorious NY medical malpractice cases, and as every corporation is apt to do, and insurance companies are no exception, their aim is to maximize their corporate profits, not to bend over backward to make sure you are compensated for a New York doctor's negligence. Below are some of the New York medical malpractice insurance companies' most egregious whoppers, rebutted with the help of Boehm and others.
Myth 1: Tort Reform and liability caps cut down on preventable medical error.
Everyone acknowledges that mistakes by doctors are a huge problem. Everyone, that is, besides the American Medical Association (AMA). The AMA's takeaway from the Institute of Medicine's findings should have been, "How can we reduce our doctors' fatal, preventable mistakes?" Instead, the AMA arrived at an entirely different understanding of the "malpractice crisis." When organizations like the American Medical Association (AMA) speak about a malpractice 'crisis,' they are referring not to the people injured or killed by, say, a hapless doctor in some New York City ER, or to the widespread failure to monitor or re-train negligent doctors, but rather to doctors' increasing malpractice insurance premiums. Unfortunately, lawmakers and others have focused too much on reducing liability for those preventable errors and too little on reducing their occurrence. As a result, a July 2004 study shows that over a decade in which two-thirds of states passed 'tort reform' measures that limit or restrict medical malpractice lawsuits, there was no improvement in safety: The number of avoidable deaths in hospitals alone is now approximately 195,000 per year, not including deaths resulting from obstetrics errors.
Myth 2: Malpractice lawsuits have skyrocketed "out of control."
Tort reform lobbyists seeking to limit the rights of victims of medical malpractice through caps on damages often string together various concerns about health care in the United States that are unrelated to, or would not be addressed by, the reforms they seek. In particular, the insurance industry and other tort reform proponents rely on misinformation and largely anecdotal evidence that the civil justice system is 'out of control' and needs to be scaled back. However, the facts reveal a different picture. First, the number of medical malpractice cases being filed per capita has dropped over the last ten years, as have tort filings generally. Even in the states that the AMA has labeled 'crisis states,' the number of cases per capita has been dropping. The vast majority of those injured by malpractice never file a claim seeking to hold the wrongdoers accountable. Even though medical malpractice kills some 195,000 hospital patients every year and injures many more.
Myth 3: Caps on liability affect only the most outlandish claims and jury awards.
By limiting award amounts, caps target the most egregious cases of malpractice and the most severely injured patients--the very opposite of the 'frivolous' or 'junk' lawsuits that advocates for caps portray when they are trying to rile up the public or lawmakers to limit victims' rights. Two recent studies have confirmed that caps on damages in medical malpractice cases, such as California's draconian $250,000 cap on non-economic damages, are most devastating to those who suffered the most heinous injuries, those killed by the defendants' acts, and those who suffered the greatest loss to their quality of life. It's the mothers caring for infants with CP, or children dealing with fallout from their fathers' awful construction accidents that suffer from tort reform initiatives, not plaintiffs embarking on get-rich quick lawsuit schemes.
Myth 4: Medical malpractice suits are driving out decent, much-needed doctors.
Supporters of tort reform make unsupported assertions about the impact of medical malpractice litigation on the quality and availability of health care. One common trope of this rhetoric claims that doctors are being driven out of medical practice, leaving certain regions under-served and under-staffed. The AMA and other lobbyists repeatedly aver that doctors are leaving the twenty 'AMA crisis states,' and even the twenty-four 'AMA problem states,' in droves because of litigation concerns, resulting in a lack of access to care.
Despite the claims of the AMA and state medical societies, the number of medical professionals is actually growing. Moreover, the U.S. General Accounting Office, various reporters, and state agencies have searched for evidence of a causal link between high malpractice claims and lack of medical access in chronically under-served geographic areas, and have found none. Such areas (which often tend to be relatively poorer or more rural than other parts of the country) often have difficulty attracting or retaining other professionals as well. Moreover, this problem has existed for a long time, even before physicians considered malpractice insurance premiums problematic. Indeed, the relative shortage of health professionals in rural areas of the United States is one of the few constants in any description of the United States medical care system. Finally, the United States is hardly sui generis in this respect: Rural health care shortages occur throughout the world, including places where there is nothing like the U.S. civil justice system in place. Thus, it's simply wrong to connect that lack of access to malpractice litigation or jury awards, or to assert that a cap would make a difference.
Myth 5: Malpractice suits lead to "defensive medicine."
Tort reform advocates often claim that doctors practice 'defensive medicine' because of fears of medical malpractice suits and that this practice, in turn, raises the cost of health care. However, in 1994, the congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) found that less than eight percent of all diagnostic procedures result primarily from liability concerns. OTA found that most physicians who 'would order aggressive diagnostic procedures . . . would do so primarily because they believe such procedures are medically indicated, not primarily because of concerns about liability.' Thus, the effects of tort reform on defensive medicine 'are likely to be small.' The CBO has also reported that 'some so-called defensive medicine may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the income it generates for physicians or by the positive (albeit small) benefits to patients. In sum, then, it's misleading to tie malpractice suits to an increase in unnecessary or inferior care.
Myth 6: Plaintiffs are making medical care more expensive for the rest of us.
The insurance industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and corporate front groups such as the American Tort Reform Association have spent many tens of millions of dollars in pursuit of immunity or limitations on liability from wrongdoing. Moreover, federal and state lawmakers, regulators, doctors, and the general public are being told by medical and insurance lobbyists that doctors' insurance rates are rising due to increasing claims by patients, rising jury verdicts, and exploding tort system costs in general, despite clear evidence to the contrary. The increasing cost of health care in the United States and the high costs of medical malpractice insurance are legitimate and pressing concerns. Unfortunately, caps will do little to address these issues. In fact, costs related to litigation are a tiny portion of health care spending, amounting to less than two percent of total spending according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which noted that 'a cap on noneconomic damages and a ban on punitive damages . . . would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent.'
Myth 7: Liability Caps will stop the rise in insurance premiums.
Insurers insist that to recoup money paid to patients, they must raise insurance rates or, in some cases, pull out of the market altogether. By their reckoning, jury verdicts are the cause of the current 'crisis' in affordable malpractice insurance for doctors, and the only way to bring down insurance rates is to limit an injured consumer's ability to sue in court. However, historically, the cause of skyrocketing rates has little to do with the legal system. In fact, insurance premiums have little to do with the insurance companies' costs themselves! In reality, insurance companies make profits primarily from investment income. Insurance companies take in money in the form of premiums paid and then hold it for some length of time until they need to make a payout to, or on behalf of, a policyholder. Meanwhile, insurance companies take the money they have collected, or 'float,' and invested it to earn a return. When the investment market is strong and/or interest rates high (a scenario known as a soft market), the companies make a good profit by investing the float. Consequently, they may opt for a business strategy of under-pricing policies in an effort to attract more premium dollars.
When there's a soft market, insurance companies can sit back and make money without worrying too much about premiums. But when investment income falls because of a decline in the markets and/or drops in interest rates, insurance companies will raise their rates or cut back coverage. This scenario is known as a hard market, and it occurred in the mid-1970s, more severely in the mid-1980s, and again between 2002 and 2003. In a fascinating coincidence, it is during hard markets that insurance companies raise premiums. So while insurers and other tort reform proponents blame malpractice litigation for the hard market premium increases, they are in fact consistently driven by the insurance companies' response to the broader economic cycle. In fact, claims and payouts stayed flat or declined through each of the crises or hard markets. And since actual payouts by insurance companies didn't increase, but premiums did, insurers' profits skyrocketed. Of course, since insurers targeted the civil justice system, rather than the market downturns that lead to insurance companies' profit crises, liability caps pushed by insurance companies and their advocates during each hard market failed to bring down rates.
Unsurprisingly, when confronted with a report showing that tort reform does not lead to reduced premiums, the American Insurance Association scrambled to find an excuse, asserting that 'Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific savings.' From 2003-2005, insurance companies continued to raise premiums even in states that had enacted tort reform. Then, as the stock market boomed, premiums dropped or increased more slowly in all lines of insurance, including medical malpractice--in states with and without caps or other tort reforms.
Q. So what's tort reform really about?
A. Insurance companies are terrified of trial by jury.
If one puts aside the unfounded rhetoric that claims to connect a need for caps to rising insurance premiums and health care costs, to a supposedly growing number of frivolous lawsuits, and to alleged movement of doctors among the states, what then are the true motivators for tort reform proponents? First, tort reform efforts (including caps), are based on a fundamental mistrust of the American institution of civil trial by jury. The fundamental right of ordinary citizens and consumers to hold accountable those with power--including hospitals, emergency rooms, or doctors who have caused your loved ones' injuries or death--is a cornerstone of our democracy. In fact, one reason that several state courts have struck down tort reform laws as unconstitutional is the way in which the laws limit the power of juries to decide cases. Judges, who have more intimate knowledge of the system than anyone, find such mistrust of juries inappropriate. Overwhelmingly, state and federal judges have proclaimed their great faith in juries to solve complicated issues. Statistics also show that juries are generally conservative and reasonable, and their decisions rarely differ from what a judge would decide.
Our civil justice system exists to provide those who have been wronged a forum to seek truth and compensation, even to the dismay of those who may have acted negligently, recklessly, or worse. Caps limit the liability of wrongdoers, take away the fundamental power of juries to decide adequate compensation, and leave the most severely injured victims without sufficient means of redress, and they do not even address the increasing costs of health care or medical malpractice insurance to boot.
Unfortunately, lawmakers and others have focused too much on reducing liability for those preventable errors and too little on reducing their occurrence. As a result, a July 2004 study shows that over a decade in which two-thirds of states passed 'tort reform' measures that limit or restrict medical malpractice lawsuits, there was no improvement in safety: The number of avoidable deaths in hospitals alone is now approximately 195,000 per year, not including obstetrics patients. Despite these bleak statistics, when organizations like the American Medical Association (AMA) speak about a malpractice 'crisis,' they are referring not to the people injured or killed by medical errors or the widespread failure to discipline negligent doctors (including repeat offenders), but rather to doctors' increasing malpractice insurance premiums.
He further went on to state: 'Judges, who have more intimate knowledge of the system than anyone, find such mistrust of juries
inappropriate. A 2000 survey sent to one thousand trial judges, including every federal trial judge, revealed:
(1) Judges have 'a high level of day-to-day confidence in [the jury] system.'
(2) 'Only 1 percent of the judges who responded gave the jury system low marks.'
(3) '[N]ine of every 10 trial judges, those who work closest with the nation's jury system, think the system needs only minor
tinkering, at best.'
(4) 'Overwhelmingly . . . state and federal judges said they have great faith in juries to solve complicated issues.'
(5) '[N]ine of 10 judges responding said jurors show considerable understanding of legal issues involved in the cases they
hear.' Statistics also show that juries are generally conservative and reasonable, and their decisions rarely differ from
what a judge would decide.
His recommendations at the end of the article were as follows: 'Our civil justice system exists to provide those who have been wronged a forum to seek truth and compensation, even to the
dismay of those who may have acted negligently, recklessly, or worse. Caps not only limit the liability of wrongdoers,
take away the fundamental power of juries to decide adequate compensation, and leave the most severely injured victims
without sufficient means of redress, but they do not even address the increasing costs of health care or medical
malpractice insurance.
An important solution to avoiding future spikes in premiums is stronger regulation of the insurance industry.
Unlike caps and other tort reforms, insurance industry regulation would lower premiums charged to doctors,
hospitals, and other policyholders, while protecting the rights of patients and consumers. Given the soaring
profits of insurance companies, such regulation is unlikely to put them in financial harm.'
The article ends by stating: '[D]octors would better serve themselves and their patients by directing their
anger and efforts regarding rising premiums toward the questionable practices of the insurance industry. Seeking to take away patients' rights is not
the answer.' [Excerpted from, "Medical Malpractice Myths: Unraveling the False Premises Behind 'Tort Reform', Yale Journal
of Health, Policy & Ethics, Winter 2005.]
NEW YORK MEDICAL MALPRACTICE BLOG
Top Strategies for Success to Win Your Malpractice Case
- Know Your Injury!
In order to start a lawsuit in the State of New York I have to be able to show that there was wrongdoing, and that the wrongdoing caused injury, and that the injury is significant and/or permanent.
All three of those elements must be confirmed by a medical expert who has either treated you, or whom we will obtain on your behalf. As NY's top medical malpractice lawyers, we have a list of over 50 medical expert physicians who are ready, at no cost to you, to review your medical records to see if you have a good case.
- Don't Trust Your Insurance Company to "Take Care" of You or to "Do the Right Thing."
Doctors love to complain about the fortune they pay for their medical malpractice insurance to cover "frivolous" claims. So you'd reasonably assume that their insurance coverage would actually pay you a fair settlement for any suffering or injury caused by one of their doctors.
Unfortunately, that's far from the case. In fact, insurance companies will do anything to stonewall the resolution of your dispute, throwing up obstacle after obstacle, and disputing you at every turn. Since doctors know that admitting fault will cost them, they may even conspire with the hospital where you were treated to blame your for your suffering. They may even alter your medical records to claim that you "declined to follow their advice", meaning that any injuries can be pinned on you.
Lawsuits may take up to two years to be resolved, and once you finally collect, don't expect to collect interest accrued during that period. Better hope for low inflation!
- Hurry Up! Remember that you must file a claim within the Statute of Limitations
The longer that you take to contact a medical malpractice lawyer, the best of whom practice law in Manhattan, the less likely we will be able to help you. Time is not on your side when it comes to medical malpractice, because of something called the "statute of limitations," strict rules that define "expiration dates" after which you can no longer bring a case against a doctor or hospital. Make sure to pursue your claims in a timely manner! Any attorney worth his salt will be able to tell you whether your claim is timely. Most often, this discussion will need to take place in person in our office. You need not bring any of the medical records with you. We will obtain them for you.
In general, you have only about 2 years to bring a medical malpractice case in Supreme Court of New York, in whatever county you or the doctor or hospital reside in. Please note that this is not legal advice, see disclaimer in our website. You need to contact and retain a New York medical malpractice lawyer in order for there to be a valid retainer agreement and legal advice. Cases brought against New York City owned hospitals have a much shorter time period within which you must file a case in court. NY medical malpractice cases are heard in the Bronx at: Bronx Supreme Court, 851 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York. Bronx juries have historically awarded some of the highest jury verdicts in the country. Mark Kressner, Esq. A Bronx lawyer, for example, once obtained a jury verdict in the Bronx in the amount of $ 45 Million to the parents of a baby born prematurely in a Bronx hospital. NY cases against doctors and hospitals in Queens are brought in the Queens County Supreme Court, at 88-11 Sutphin Boulevard, Jamaica, NY. In a famous Queens case, Harding v. Onibokun, a Queens jury awarded $ 5 Million dollars for an Erb's palsy injury.
The Court in Brooklyn which hears and tries before a jury medical malpractice cases is the Kings County Supreme Court, located at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York. For NY City owned hospitals run by NYHHC, the New York Health Hospitals Corporation there are also special requirements for filing a separate claim that must be done within a very short time after your malpractice has occurred.
There are also several ways that an attorney can ask the Court for special permission to file a late claim. For example, cases involving children (eg cerebral palsy or Erb's Palsy) may have longer time periods.Cases involving "Continuous Treatment" may also extend the time that you would ordinarily have to bring a lawsuit. Continuous Treatment" does not apply simply because you keep going back to that doctor for different medical problems, generally.
- Determining Responsibility
In any accident case, we need to determine who, if anyone, was responsible for your accident? Was it a careless driver; was it a careless property owner; was it a negligent manufacturer who made a defective product? To determine who is legally responsible, it is necessary to start an investigation to look into this. At the Diefenbach Firm, we will obtain police reports, statements from any witnesses, photographs of the scene, and handle any other evidence needed to help determine who should be held responsible for your New York City accident.
In the case of a car accident, it is vital that you notify your no-fault insurance company within 30 days of the date of your accident (that time period is accurate as of the date I am writing this, February 14, 2010). This puts your insurance company on notice of the accident and will allow them to pay for your medical expenses arising out of your car accident. In addition to proving liability (who was responsible), we must also be able to show that the wrongdoing was a cause of your injury. This is known legally as "causation." We must also be able to show that you suffered signficant and/or permanent injury as a result of the wrongdoing.
There are very specific deadlines that come to filing a lawsuit for accident victims, including car, construction work and motorcycle or truck accidents. Generally, for an accident case in New York, you have only 3 years from the date of the accident within which to file a lawsuit. Again, this is not legal advice, please read our disclaimer in this website. There are exceptions; which means that in some cases you may have less time, and in others, more time.
Cases against municipalities have much shorter time periods to bring a lawsuit. There are also special requirements for filing a separate claim that must be done within a very short time after your accident has occurred. Failure to timely file that separate claim could have devastating results for you. However, all may be not lost, since there are ways that an attorney can ask the Court for special permission to file a late claim.
Cases against the State of New York also have a shorter time period. In addition, there is also a separate need to file a special claim in some cases.
Cases against the Veterans Administration and the United States Government have shorter time periods too.
- Obtain Your Medical Records
Your attorney should obtain your records within two to three weeks after you provide him with release authorizations. Within four to six weeks after you retain your lawyer, he should send your medical records to a medical expert and consult with the expert about your case. Six weeks after you first contact your attorney, he or she should be prepared to thoroughly discuss with you the merits of your case. At the Diefenbach Firm, experienced New York City malpractice lawyers are committed to obtaining your records and laying the groundwork for your lawsuit in a quick and timely manner.
- File a Complaint with the Department of Health
- Find A Seasoned Attorney
So you've established that you have a case and that you are still within the statute of limitations. Great! Now for the most important decision you will make: choosing the right attorney. This decision will make or break your case, and that's why it's so important to make sure that you find a lawyer with decades of experience trying malpractice cases in Brooklyn, Queens, and the rest of New York City.
It may be tempting to take the easy way out by falling for the razzle-dazzle commercials advertising law firms on late-night TV. Don't do it! These "tv law firms" are just factories that specialize on taking in and chewing up high volumes of cases. Often, the people directly responsible for your case won't even be lawyers, but former claims adjusters! These law firms will focus on getting you to quickly settle, even if you are entitled to far more for your pain and suffering. Often, they don't even have lawyers who can take your case to trial.
Instead, make sure to choose a lawyer who will devote the individual time and attention that your case deserves. At the Diefenbach Firm, all cases are tried by a seasoned team of expert lawyers with decades of experience actually winning trials! We will sit down with you, and patiently and honestly review your options. You trusted your doctor, and he caused death or injury due to his careless mistakes – you should be able to trust your attorney, at the very least, to act in your best interests.
- Line Up Expert Witnesses
At your medical malpractice trial, you will need to call on expert witnesses to prove that your doctor or hospital made a mistake or failed to meet the standard of care that you were untitled to as a patient. At the Diefenbach firm, we have a roster of over 50 expert witnesses. You won't need to worry about a thing - we will identify the appropriate witness and arrange for his or her testimony, whatever the specific nature of your injury (be it medical or obstetrical malpractice, anesthesia errors, or emergency room mistakes) or location (be it Brooklyn, Queens, or anywhere else in New York City).
- Know Your Rights!
|
