EBENEZER KOFI ODOOM, M.D., et al. Our file #: I.uigi Brandimarte Lamont K. Rodgers.. Albert R. NIatuza. Jr.

Transcription

1 Sacco & Fillas, I I.P Attorners :'(tt<)r))e<, at I.aw Newtown Avenue December 21, 2017 Seventh Floor Astoria, NY Via NYSCEF and Fax Tel: Kings County Direct: Adams Street, Direct Fax: syang@saccofillas.com Supreme Court of the State of New York Brooklyn, NY "' Floor Attn.: Honorable Gloria M. Dabiri, J.S.C. Re: LAKISHA TAYLOR (Jada Danielle Duncan, Decedent), et al.v. ionino sacco Index No.: /2016 Elias N. Fillas EBENEZER KOFI ODOOM, M.D., et al. Our file #: I.uigi Brandimarte Lamont K. Rodgers.. Albert R. NIatuza. Jr. Dear Justice Dabin: Jeremy S... Ribakove N1athew W. Beckwith George Vomvolakis As you know we represent the plaintiffs in this wrongful death action. As set forth Nissim Abaev in our prior letter briefs we do not believe that South Carolina has the power to Ying Hua Hual)~»' Huang impose a stay on a legal proceeding in New York involving parties not under its S«<>tt J. Laird jurisdiction. L'. Kcil I "Êung Joanne Ciaramella navid L Rocr Celeste Cohen In the event the court upholds the South Carolina stay plaintiffs request that the Joseph Katz action against Defendant Robert Solomon M.D. be severed from the within action Patricia R. Lynch and proceedings continue unimpeded. Richard Schirmer James R. Baez Chad B. Russen CPLR 603 States as following: Wesley C. Glass N1assimo.>I().'>'>in) D'Elia Adam R. Nichols 603. Severance and separate trials. In furtherance of convenience to Ronald B. Groman avoid prejudice the court order a severance of claims, or may order a separate trial lîi2 1 I of any claim, or of any separate issue. The court may order the trial of any claim susan C... Ricciardi or issue prior to the trial of the others. Nielissa Klafter N1ikhail Sheynker It is well settled that Appellate Courts in New York have repeatedly held that a orcounse/ bankruptcy stay does not prevent a plaintiff from proceeding on causes of action I lon. Peter F.. Vallone. Sr. against nonbankrupt defendants. Moy v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 92 A.D. 3d 651, uso aanutted m Neuersm See also, Golden v. Moscowitz, 194 A.D.2d 385, Cen Trust Servs.v Guterman, uso admitted in oneeta m 160 AD2d 416, 418, Lottes v Slater, 114 AD2d 580). Additional offices: Bayside Bell &>ulevard Suite 301 N)' 14) side, 113til In Moy v. St. Vincent's Hospital and Medical Center of New York, 92 A.D. 3d (2nd 651, Dept. 2012) the Plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages for medical malpractice against the defendants St. Vincent's Hospital and Medical Center of New York and Michael G. Wayne, a physician. The hospital

2 subsequently commenced chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, resulting in an automatic stay pursuant to 11 USC 362(a) of the continuation of any action or proceeding against the hospital. The Appellate Division held as follows: "It has been generally held that 'the balance of the equities lies with plaintiffs when one defendant has received an automatic stay pursuant to 11 USC 3629(a)...and codefendants request a action" stay of the entire (Rosenbaum v. Dane & Murphy,. 189 A.D.2d. 760, 592 N.Y.S.2d 391,. quoting Lottes v. Slater, 114 A.D. 3d 1013, 1014, 778 N.Y.C. 2d 347). Here, as the prejudice to the plaintiff in being required to await the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceeding before obtaining any remedy outweighs any potential inconvenience to the defendants, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 603 to sever the causes of action asserted against Wayne from the causes of action asserted against the hospital (see Weber v. Baccarat, Inc., 70 A.D.3d 487, 488, 896 N.Y.S2d 12; Kharmah v. Metropolitan Chiropractic Ctr., 288 A.D.2d 94, 733 N.Y.S 2d 165; Golden v. Moscowitz, 194 A.D.2d 385, 386, 598 N.Y.S.2d; Rosenbaum v. Dane & Murphy, 189A.D.2d at 761, 592 N.Y.S.2d 391) Similarly, as in Moy the Plaintiffs and distributes of decedent in the case at bar would be extremely prejudiced if they have to await the conclusion of the liquidation proceeding of Defendant Robert Solomon's insurer Oceanus. Decedent left two young children, namely, Jeremiah Taylor age seven and Malachi Duncan age 23 months. Both boys live with decedent's husband Warren Duncan. Mr. Duncan is the stepfather to Jeremiah and the natural father to Malachi. They all live in a one bedroom apartment located at 319 Berriman Street, Brooklyn, NY. (See paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs Bill of Particulars setting forth the ages of decedent's children annexed hereto). In addition, Plaintiff Warren Duncan is employed as a chef and earns approximately Twenty Thousand Dollars a year. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and distributees would be severely Plaintiffs' disadvantaged if the action does not proceed. The effect of denying application for a severance is to stay the entire proceeding and that would ignore the competing interests of young motherless children as opposed to the practical problems imposed by the Oceanus Liquidation proceedings, which very well could be pending for a long period of time. Defendants' Further, will not be significantly prejudiced by separate Defendants' trials because their interests can be protected. could always bring suit against Defendant Solomon for contribution. However it is noteworthy that not one defendant has a crossclaim a ainst Defendant Solomon.

3 defendants' In addition, claim that the evidence to be introduced by Plaintiffs as to the liability of the Dr. Solomon and remaining Defendants will be the same and presumably the defenses proferred by all Defendants will be the same is without merit. The claims against Defendant Solomon are strictly failure to properly interpret a Doppler. None of the other defendants are radiologists. Accordingly, it would be a proper exercise of discretion in granting a severance pursuant to CPLR 603 as such will prevent any prejudice to plaintiffs Oceanus' and distributees stemming from delay preceding termination of liquidation. See Kharmah v. Metropolitan Chiropractic Center, 733 N.Y.S. 2d 165, 288 A.D. 2d 94 (1St Dept. 2001). Respectfully submitted, Sacco Filla L onald B.Groman, Esq. Cc.: Laura M. Papa, Esq. (via electronic mail) Shaub Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP 1983 Marcus Avenue Lake Success, NY (516) Counsel for Defendant Robert Solomon, M.D. Betty L. Atlas, Esq. (via electronic mail) Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP 1205 Franklin Avenue Garden City, NY (516) Counsel for Defendant Senior Care Emergency Medical Services, Inc., Charles Wilborne, and Stephen Vega Connor Dolgon, Esq. (via electronic mail) Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara, Wolf & Carone, LLP 1 Metrotech Center, Suite 1701

4 Brooklyn, NY (718) Counsel for Defendants Stephen E. Owusu D.P.M., M.A. and Mount Zion Podiatry, P.C. Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein 4 Deutsch, LLP (via electronic mail) 600 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY (212) Counsel for Defendant Ebenezer Kofi Odoom, M.D.

5 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS x Index No.: l2016E LAKISHA TAYLOR as Administratrix of the Estate of JADA DANIELLE DUNCAN, Deceased and On behalf of the Distributees and Next of Kin, and WARREN DUNCAN, Individually, VERIFIED BILL OF PARTICULARS AS TO Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT EBENEZER - against - KOFI ODOOM MD EBENEZER KOFI ODOOM, M.D., STEPHEN E. OWUSU, D.P.M, M.A., MOUNT ZION PODIATRY, P.C., ROBERT SOLOMON, M.D., and EXPRESS MOBILE DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES, INC. SENIORCARE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., CHARLES WILBORNE and STEVEN VEGA Defendants. x Plaintiffs, for their Bill of Particulars, in response to the demands of Defendant EBENEZER KOFI ODOOM, M.D. by their attorney RONALD B. GROMAN, allege upon information and belief as follows: 1. The dates of the negligent acts complained of occurred from April 18, 2016 to May 17, The location of the negligent acts of this Defendant occurred at the offices of Defendant located at Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, New York Defendant EBENEZER KOFI ODOOM, M.D., was negligent in committing medical Malpractice in having performed his care and treatment of Decedent Jada Duncan in a careless and negligent manner; in failing to render proper, skillful and appropriate treatment to Decedent; in failing to heed and address Decedent's complaints; in failing to properly and accurately diagnose Decedent; in failing to timely prescribe appropriate 1

6 . treatment for her condition; in failing to render appropriate medical care to Decedent; in failing to render appropriate radiological and diagnostic care to Decedent; in failing to properly and appropriately clinically examine Decedent to determine the true and accurate extent of her condition; in misdiagnosing Decedent; in failing to prescribe appropriate medication; in failing to adequately consider the symptoms and history of Decedent; in failing to possess the necessary skills, knowledge, learning, education, training, and background necessary to effectively and successfully diagnose and treat the Decedent; in failing to refer Decedent to other medical personnel possessing the necessary skills, knowledge, experience and education to effectively and successfully diagnose and treat Decedent; in failing to advise Decedent of the presence of a thrombus in Decedent's right lower extremity; in failing to clinically examine the Decedent; in failing to properly examine the Decedent; in negligently performing various diagnostic tests; in failing to order appropriate diagnostic tests; in negligently interpreting diagnostic tests; in reading diagnostic tests in a negligent and careless manner; in failing to properly follow-up with Decedent; in failing to treat complications of Decedent's right lower extremity; in failing to obtain appropriate expert consultations; in failing to utilize appropriate tests and examinations to determine a true and accurate diagnosis; in failing to take and obtain appropriate, complete and proper medical records and record on same, the appropriate signs, symptoms, treatment, diagnosis and other appropriate information; in failing to arrive at a proper, appropriate and reasonable plan to manage and treat said decedent; in failing to appropriately take and record the decedent's chief complaints, history of present illness and a careful, full and complete review of systems; in failing to timely diagnose and/or treat pulmonary embolism secondary to deep vein 2

7 thrombosis; in failing to timely institute therapy to minimize the thrombi; in negligently interpreting a Bilateral Lower Extremity Venous Sonography; in negligently interpreting a Duplex examination to R/O DVT; in failing to order a diagnostic test of Decedent's complete right lower extremity including from knee to calf; in failing to properly examine the veins below Decedent's knee; in failing to take appropriate, proper and timely precautions to prevent the spread, aggravation, escalation of a thrombus in Decedent's right lower extremity; in failing to diagnose DVT in Decedent's right leg; in failing to diagnose and treat Decedent's right leg venous thrombosis; in failing to order or take the proper examinations and procedures to determine the nature and extent of ailments and condition from which Decedent was suffering; and in other respects being negligent and careless, thereby causing Decedent extreme pain and suffering and wrongful death. 4. All named Defendants committed acts of negligence and medical malpractice which caused Decedent's pain and suffering and wrongful death. Plaintiffs' reserve the right to amend this response upon completion of discovery. S. At the present time PlaintifTs are unaware of any improper or defective equipment but reserve the right to amend this response upon the completion of discovery. 6. See no. 3 above. In addition it is the contention of plaintiff that the items demanded are improper on several grounds. Plaintiffs contend that the items call for extensive disclosure of evidence and are, in effect, a set of written interrogatories, a disclosure device not available in a negligence case pursuant to CPLR. Plaintiffs also contend that the items demanded seek evidentiary matter, which is beyond the scope of a bill of particulars whose purpose is to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof and prevent surprise 3

8 at the trial. It follows, therefore, that to request specific departures in a bill of particulars is not only evidentiary seeking expert opinion testimony, but would also serve to preclude a plaintiff if testimony adduced at trial of a departure not specifically pleaded. See: Felock v. Albany Medical Center Hospital, 258 A.D.2d 772, 685 N.Y.S.2d 844, (3rd Dept., 1999); Liddell v Cree, 233 A.D.2d 593, 649 N.Y.S.2d 101 (3'd Dept., 1996); Dellagio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806, 673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2nd Dept., 1998); Heyward v. Ellenville Community Hospital, 215 A.D.2d 967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167, (3'd Dept., 1995); McKenzie v. St. Elizabeth Hospital, 81 A.D.2d 1003, 440 N.Y.S.2d 109 (2nd Dept. 1981); Rockefeller v. Hwang, 106 A.D.2d 817, 484 N.Y.S.2d 206 (3rd Dept., 1984); Wadler v. Stern, 124 A.D.2d 725 (2nd Dept., 1986); Patterson V. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Center of Brooklyn, 94 Misc 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194, afpd 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2nd Dept, 1978), 7 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g). See no. 3 above. It is also the contention of plaintiffs that the items demanded are improper on several grounds. Plaintiff contends that the items call for extensive disclosure of evidence and are, in effect, a set of written interrogatories, a disclosure device not available in a negligence case pursuant to CPLR. Plaintiff also contends that the items demanded seek evidentiary matter, which is beyond the scope of a bill of particulars whose purpose is to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof and prevent surprise at the trial. It follows, therefore, that to request what specific tests should have been performed and what they would reveal, in a bill of particulars is not only evidentiary seeking expert opinion testimony, but would also serve to preclude a plaintiff if testimony adduced at 4

9 trial of specific tests that should have been performed and what they would reveal was not specifically pleaded. See: Felock v. Albany Medical Center Hospital, 258 A.D.2d 772, 685 N.Y.S.2d 844, (3"1 Dept., 1999); Liddell v Cree, 233 A.D.2d 593, 649 N.Y.S.2d 101 (3"1 Dept., 1996); Dellagio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806, 673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2"d Dept., 1998); Heyward v. Ellenville Community Hospital, 215 A.D.2d 967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167, (3"1 Dept., 1995); McKenzie v. St. Elizabeth Hospital, 81 A.D.2d 1003, 440 N.Y.S.2d 109 (2"d Dept 1981); Rockeffeller v. Hwang, 106 A.D.2d 817, 484 N.Y.S.2d 206 (3"1 Dept., 1984); Wadler v. Stern, 124 A.D.2d 725 (2nd Dept., 1986); PatterSOn V. Jewish Hosp. 4 Med. Center of Brooklyn, 94 Misc 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194, aff'd 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2nd Dept, 1978). Notwithstanding the above Plaintiffs are unaware of any contraindicated drugs or any proper drug administered incorrectly. Plaintiffs 0 reserve the right to amend this response upon completion of discovery. 8. See No. 3 above. It is also the contention of plaintiff that the items demanded are improper on several grounds. Plaintiff contends that the items call for extensive disclosure of evidence and are, in effect, a set of written interrogatories, a disclosure device not available in a negligence case pursuant to CPLR. Plaintiff also contends that the items demanded seek evidentiary matter, which is beyond the scope of a bill of particulars whose purpose is to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof and prevent surprise at the trial. It follows, therefore, that to request what manner a physical examination was improperly performed is evidentiary seeking expert opinion testimony. See: Felock v. Albany Medical Center Hospital, 258 A.D.2d 772, 685 N.Y.S.2d 844, (3"1 Dept., 1999); Liddell v Cree, 233 A.D.2d 593, 649 N.Y.S.2d 101 (3"I Dept., 1996); Dellagio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806, 673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2"d Dept., 1998); Heyward v. Ellenville Community 5

10 Hospital, 215 A.D.2d 967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167, (3rd Dept., 1995); McKenzie v. St. Elizabeth Hospital, 81 A.D.2d 1003, 440 N.Y.S.2d109 (2"d Dept. 1981); Rockeffeller v. Hwang, 106 A.D.2d 817, 484 N.Y.S.2d 206 (3'd Dept., 1984); Wadler v. Stern, 124 A.D.2d 725 (2"d Dept., 1986); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. 4 Med. Center of Brooklyn, 94 Misc 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194, aff'd 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2 d Dept, 1978). 9. Plaintiff sustained the following personal injuries: (a) Massive pulmonary thromboemboli resulting in seizures, ST elevations with bradycardia, agonal respirations, cardiac arrest and Death (b) Altered mental status; (c) Urinary incontinence; (d) Shock; (e) Multi organ failure; (f) Heart failure; (g) Brain damage; (h) Fear of death; (i) Conscious pain and suffering; (j) Severe mental and emotional anguish; (k) Loss of enjoyment of life. Decedent sustained extreme conscious pain and suffering prior to her death which was a result of Defendant's negligence. 10,11. Decedent was taken by ambulance on May 17, 2016 to Brookdale Medical Center where she passed away on the same day. 6

11 12. Plaintiffs are presently not in possession of special damages. 13. (a) Said subject of lost earnings claimed will be the subject of expert economic testimony at the time of trial. (b) (c) In the calendar year prior to her death, Decedent earned $16, (d) Plaintiff is not in possession of said information regarding other income at this time. (e) Prior to her death, Decedent was employed as a cashier at Kennedy Airport by Air Ventures LGA LLC with its main office located at 428 Beaver Street, Sewickly, Pa (f) See 13 (e). 14. Not applicable. 15. See no. 13 above. 16. Plaintiffs' did not incur any out of pocket medical expenses or was reimbursed for expenses. 17. Decedent passed away on May 17, Plaintiff Lakisha Taylor's date of birth is October 3, 1978 and she resides at 809 Pepperidge Road, Westbury NY Plaintiff Warren Duncan's date of birth is April 26, 1980 and he resides at 319 Berriman Street, Brooklyn NY Decedent Jada Danielle Duncan's date of birth is December 21, 1991 and she resided at 319 Berriman Street, Brooklyn NY Plaintiff Lakisha Taylor's social security number is xxx-xx Plaintiff Warren Duncan's social security number is xxx-xx

12 Decedent Jada Danielle Duncan's social security number is xxx-xx At this time, plaintiffs are not claiming any violations of statutes, ordinances, rules or regulation. However, Plaintiffs reserve their rights to amend this response at a later time after the completion of discovery. 21. a) Decedent was survived as distributees and next of kin by her Husband Warren Duncan (DOB 4/26/80), Son Jeremiah Taylor, (DOB 9/2/10), Son Malachi Duncan (DOB 1/25/16). All distributes reside at 319 Berriman Street, Brooklyn, NY b) Warren Duncan is a chef. c) All distributes suffered pecuniary loss and injury as a result of Decedent's death. d) The amount contributed by Decedent to the support of each distribute will be the subject of expert testimony at the time of trial. e) Decedent's funeral bill was $2, f) Decedent passed away on May 17, She was 24 years of age. g) Cause of death listed on the death certificate was pending further studies. 22. a) Decedent was married to Plaintiff Warren Duncan on May 2, b) Decedent and Plaintiff Warren Duncan were living together at the time of her death. c) Plaintiff Warren Duncan is employed as a chef. d) As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Warren Duncan, suffered loss of consortium, having been deprived of the rights and interests which have accrued 8

13 by reason of their marriage, and the continuation of said marital relationship, conjugal fellowship, sexual fulfillment, support, aid, companionship, company, society, affection, comfort and services. e,f) The itemized statement of all monetary sums claimed and future monetary damages claimed as part of the loss of services cause of action will be the subject of expert testimony at the time of trial. g) All claims are permanent due to Decedent's death. Dated: Rockvillie Centre, New York RONALD B. GROMAN ESQ. June 30, 2017 RONALD B. GROMAN ESQ. Attomey for Plaintiffs 104 South Marion Place Rockville Centre, New York (516)

14 TO: Law Offices of Benvenuto 4 Slattery Attorney for Defendant Ebenezer Odoom, M.D Northern Blvd Roslyn, New York (516) Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara 4 Wolf, Attorneys for Defendant Stephen Owusu, D.P.M And Mount Zion Podiatry P.C. 1 metro tech Centre, Suite 1701 Brooklyn, New York (718) Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin 4 Spratt, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Robert Solomon, MD 1983 Marcus Avenue Lake Success, New York (516) Kaufman Borgeest 4 Ryan LLP Attorneys for Defendants Seniorcare Emergency Medical Services, Inc., Charles Wilborne and Steven Vega 1205 Franklin Avenue Suite 200 Garden City, New York (516)

15 VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF NASSAU ) ss.: LAKISHA TAYLOR, being duly sworn deposes and says: Deponent is the Plaintiff in the within action and has read the foregoing Bill of Particulars and knows the contents thereof; and the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to b e. Sworn to before me on July AKtSHA TAYLOR RONALD GROMAN NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York NO. 02GR Qualified in Nassau County Commission Expires July 16, 201

16 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Index No.: /2016E ÅI SHE TAÝLOR. as Adntinistratrix of the Estate of JADA DANIELLE DUNCAN, Deceased and On behalf of her Distributees and Next of Kin, and WARREN DUNCAN, Individually, Plaintiffs, - against - EBENEZER KOFI ODOOM, M.D., STEPHEN E. OWUSU, D.P.M., M.A., MOUNT ZION PODIATRY, P.C., ROBERT SOLOMON, M.D., EXPRESS MOBILE DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES, INC., j SENIORCARE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., CHARLES WILBORNE and STEVEN VEGA Defendants. VERIFIED BILL OF PARTICULARS RONALD B. GROMAN ESQ. 104 South Marion Place Rockville Centre, New York WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION (PAX) Servia of a apy of the within is horoby bsrsby nsbnittssi ndlnstttd Date& PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Attorney(s) for Defendant NOTICE OF ENTRY That the within is a true copy of an ORDER entered in the office of the Clerk of the within named Court On. NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT That an ORDER of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the Hon. one of the judges of the within named court, at the courthouse located at on Dated: New York, New York Ronald B. Groman Esq. Attomey for Plaintiff 104 South Marion Place Rockville Centre, New York '