Philip Russotti

After several weeks of trial Phil Russotti obtained a verdict in excess of $18 million dollars on behalf of a 42 year old construction laborer and his wife. The laborer fell three stories from a defective scaffold and suffered comminuted fractures of his left calcaneus, osteomyelitis in the left heel and a painful neuroma in his foot. We proved at trial that the continuing pain and need to be non-weight bearing for an extended time altered his gait and mechanics of his back, which ultimately caused a herniated disc requiring laser surgery. We also proved that the herniation caused damage to nerve roots leading to the pudendal nerve which innervates the penis and as a result he became impotent.

Phil was able to connect the various injuries and prove that the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life were unusually extensive. He also obtained an extremely large loss of consortium verdict on behalf of plaintiff's wife. She was awarded $1,000,000.00 for past loss of consortium and $2,000,000.00 for future loss of consortium. The awards are on appeal.

Police Brutality - Victim Shot in the BackOn October 9, 2003, a Manhattan Supreme Court jury awarded plaintiff $17.5 million dollars in connection with a shooting by an off-duty New York City Police Officer rendering the plaintiff a paraplegic. The incident arose in March of 1995 in Yonkers, when the plaintiff mistook the off-duty officer for a friend who owed him money and went up to him from behind asking him for the money. The plaintiff realized his mistake, apologized to the officer, but the officer continued the verbal argument and when the plaintiff walked away, the officer shot him in the back. The officer, a now retired NYC detective, testified that the plaintiff grabbed him around the neck from behind, put a hard object into his back and demanded money, that the officer handed him his wallet and $15.00. After being pushed to the ground, the officer got up, drew his off duty revolver and told the plaintiff to "stop, police" because he was going to arrest him.

The plaintiff turned toward the officer, and the officer believing the plaintiff had a gun and was going to shoot him, fired one shot into his back. A knife was recovered from the plaintiff and $15.00 was found on the street when police responding to the shot arrived on the scene. In November 1996, the plaintiff was tried in Westchester County for Robbery in the First Degree and was acquitted of all charges. Today, the civil jury in Manhattan specifically found that there was no robbery and that the police officer provided false testimony to the Grand Jury which indicted the plaintiff. The plaintiff, 32 years old, is a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair and the jury awarded $4 million in past pain and suffering, $1 million for malicious prosecution, $4.5 million for future medical therapy and rehabilitation, and $8 million dollars for future pain and suffering. The plaintiff was represented by Philip Russotti in both the criminal and civil trials.

Brain Damage at Birth

Phil Russotti recently obtained settlements for two brain damaged individuals and their families totaling guaranteed payouts in excess of $16,000,000. One case involved, a now seven-year-old boy who was brain damaged at birth because of a delay in performing a C-section and in resuscitating him following birth. He has learning disabilities, ADHD and is borderline mentally retarded. He will not be able to live alone as an adult. The case settled during jury selection for $5,250,000.00, much of which was invested in an annuity for the family which has a guaranteed payout of $10,081,734.00 and a possible lifetime payout of $22,286,689.00.

Severe Brain Damage Due to Decreased Oxygen

The second case concerns a Rochester, New York gentleman who had cervical fusion surgery following which he developed signs of airway obstruction. However, the nurse in attendance failed to call a code for assistance for over fifteen minutes despite his deteriorating condition. The 54-year-old suffered severe brain damage because of decreased oxygen to his brain until an emergency tracheotomy/trachestomy was finally performed some fifteen minutes after the episode began. In addition to other medical conditions which have rendered him totally disabled prior to this incident, he is now paralyzed, speechless and blind. The annuities purchased with the settlement funds will return a guaranteed payment of $6,500,000 over ten years.With the settlement funds, both families have been able to purchase homes, specifically adapted to accommodate these handicapped individuals and to obtain the best therapies and care to tend to their needs. This will enable these individuals to reach their now limited potentials.Despite the tragic nature of these cases, the benefits to the victims of medical malpractice and their families make the difficult, demanding and exacting nature of this kind of litigation worthwhile when it significantly contributes to a better quality of life for the individuals and those who care for them.

Phil Russotti obtained an $11.1 million verdict in Queens County Supreme Court, for a 53 year old man who was injured on a construction site at a New York City High School. Our client fell ten feet onto his head from a ladder causing a traumatic brain injury evidenced by dementia and organic mood disorder. This was a vigorously contested case because our client had failed a number of neuropsychological tests designed to uncover malingering by intentionally giving wrong answers. The defense seized upon this to insist that the plaintiff was exaggerating his disabilities. The defense also claimed that depositions given by the Plaintiff in this case and in an unrelated automobile accident proved that the plaintiff was not cognitively impaired but was lucid and had normal memory. However, with the assistance of a neuropsychologist and psychiatrist, Phil showed that our client suffered a dramatic personality change which altered his life by preventing him from working or being the constructive member of society he had been prior to the accident. Phil called the client's wife, two children and three life long friends to corroborate that Plaintiff lost all interest in his prior activities, and that the relationships with his family and friends permanently deteriorated after the accident.Regarding the failed malingering tests, plaintiff's neuropsychologist, who had administered one of the tests Plaintiff failed, testified that our client answered incorrectly due to a serious psychiatric condition called an "adjustment disorder" which caused him to revert to a regressed childlike state and answer questions like he thought a child should. Additionally, the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist testified that his diagnosis of mood disorder was complicated by bi-polar features which rendered him oppositional, accounting for his intentionally giving wrong answers because he just refused to cooperate with the testing. Regarding the depositions, the neuropsychologist identified memory lapses, misunderstanding of questions and unresponsive answers.Additionally, Phil proved through an independent witness that information the client gave in the deposition about the circumstances of his accident and conditions at the work site were incorrect. Using this evidence, the neuropsychologist testified that this demonstrated evidence of neurologically based brain damage and that the client was not cognitively intact. He explained that this behavior was typical of brain damaged people who "confabulate", i.e. make up details they forget. Phil also proved that our client's brain MRI taken 4 months after the accident, which was read as normal, was actually misread and that there was in fact evidence of brain damage on that MRI.That finding was confirmed by a recent MRI. Phil also called a Professor of Neuroanatomy from Columbia University Medical School who identified damage to the frontal and temporal lobes of Plaintiff's brain and explained that these damaged areas of the brain cause functional deficits such as loss of impulse control, memory impairment, loss of concentration and diminished executive function. This witness then correlated these damaged areas with the functional deficits and psychiatric symptoms exhibited by our client and identified by his psychiatrist. This testimony together with the testimony of Plaintiff's friends and family was persuasive in overcoming the malingering defense and convincing the jury that our client suffered serious and permanent brain damage. The jury returned a verdict of $11.1 million for our client's pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of earnings and cost of rehabilitation and medical services.

New York medical malpractice lawyer, Philip Russotti, of the law firm of Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro & Halperin, LLP, won a $10,200,000 settlement for an infant who has catastrophic neurologic injuries caused by brain damage that resulted from herpes that went undiagnosed in 2003. The child is unable to talk, feed himself, or walk; has quadriparesis (weakness of all four limbs, both arms and both legs); requires help for all daily activities; can only eat pureed food; has limited resolute unprompted movement; and attends physical, occupational, and speech therapies.Multiple claims were filed on behalf of the young child against doctors, a hospital, and two medical centers. The claims proved that negligence was responsible for causing the boy to suffer serious brain damage due to the fact that he was not admitted right away; was not given a Zsank swab smear of the mouth for culture; was not admitted to receive Acyclovir; a neonatologist wasn't consulted sooner with regard to his symptoms; his condition was misdiagnosed as an oral burn; and he was given an improper consultation from an oral maxillary facial surgeon. It took almost one month for an accurate diagnosis of the infant's condition, which went untreated, causing irreversible brain damage, and ultimately, changing his entire life.The settlement amount obtained by Mr. Russotti will not only help deter the medical professionals and establishments involved from committing similar forms of negligence, but will also help ensure that the child grows up receiving adequate medical attention and care in addition to proper therapy for cognition, movement, and speech; therefore enhancing his quality of life.

WRSH Partner Philip Russotti obtained a $10 Million mediation settlement for failure to timely perform a Cesarean Section. The case was venued in Orange County, NY.Infant plaintiff sustained permanent and severe multiple injuries, including spastic quadriparesis, lack of speech, impaired vision, inability to eat, inability to talk, inability to communicate except by gesture and the need for total support for her care with a gastrotomy tube and tracheostomy.The infant plaintiff's mother presented on May 19, 2001 at 38 weeks, to defendant Hospital believing she was in labor. She was examined by Defendant Doctor One, who put her on a fetal monitor for 20 minutes. The monitor revealed decreased beat to beat variability, however she was discharged without further testing. Plaintiff returned three days later on May 2, 2001, again believing that she was in labor. She was put on a fetal monitor which again demonstrated decreased beat to beat variability. She was discharged after 2 hours. She returned that evening at 9:30 p.m. with ruptured membranes and meconium stained amniotic fluid. She was admitted and put on an external fetal monitor. The tracing was non-reassuring because of decreased beat to beat variability. Defendant Doctor One was not present and did not examine her, although he was called and made aware of her condition by the nurses.The tracing continued to be non-reassuring throughout the night of May 22, 2001, continuing until May 23, 2001, despite the fact that resuscitation techniques such as changing position and administering oxygen and fluids did not improve the tracing. Throughout the night, the nurses spoke to Defendant Doctor One at 2:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. and did not request that he come to the hospital to examine the patient, did not advise their supervisors of his failure to come to the hospital to examine the patient, nor the patient's continuing non-reassuring condition.Defendant Doctor One did not examine the patient until 7:30 a.m. the next morning. At 8:00 a.m. Defendant Doctor Two, Defendant Doctor One's partner, arrived to take over. He examined the strips throughout the night, did a pelvic examination and immediately ordered an emergency C-section. The baby was delivered with Apgars of 1, 1, 4, with the only score for a heart rate of less than 60 beats per minute. Resuscitation was attempted by pediatricians Third and Fourth Defendant Doctors who did not intubate the baby for ten minutes, did not insert an umbilical line, and were not able to increase the Apgars to 4 until ten minutes.The claim against Defendant Doctor One was for his failure to deliver the infant on May 19, 2001 or provide for further testing in the presence of a non-reassuring fetal heart tracing; in prematurely discharging plaintiff on May 22, 2001 without further testing, such as scalp Ph or acoustic stimulation, or failing to deliver the infant; and in not examining the patient on May 22, 2001 throughout the night while the patient was in the hospital, and relying solely on the nurse's communications regarding the patient's condition.The case against the Hospital dealt with the labor nurse's failure to demand that Defendant Doctor One come to the hospital; their failure to properly interpret the fetal heart strips; and failure to go up the chain of command in the hospital to the nursing supervisor and medical director of the hospital to complain that Defendant Doctor One had not come into the hospital to examine his patient.The case against the pediatricians, Defendant Doctors Three and Four, was their failure to timely and properly resuscitate the infant; giving inappropriate doses of epinephrine; and delaying ten minutes to secure an airway and provide an umbilical catheter which would have been the proper vehicle to administer epinephrine and sodium bicarbonate.A mediation was held on July 27, 2009 at which time the case settled for $10,000,000. Mr. Russotti retained expert witnesses in Neonatology, Neuroradiology, Pediatric Neurology, Nursing, a Life Care Planner, as well as an Economist. Mr. Russotti's thorough preparation of this case led to the successful recovery.

Plaintiff, a 40 year-old, undocumented immigrant from El Salvador, was working off the books for a roofing contractor when he fell through a hole in the first floor of a one family home he was working in. The fall fractured a thoracic vertebra injuring his spine rendering him a paraplegic. Suit was started against the owner of the property and two general contractors. The owner and contractors impleaded the plaintiff's employer for indemnification and contribution.WRSH partner, Ken Halperin, conducted numerous depositions attempting to establish who controlled the work site. At the conclusion of discovery, Ken moved for Summary Judgment which was granted under Section 240 of the Labor Law against the owner. One of the contractors also obtained Summary Judgement and that claim was dismissed. The case proceeded to trial against the owner and the remaining contractor together with their claims for indemnification and contribution against the employer. Under New York State Law an injured party is not allowed to sue his employer, but the employer can be liable to the main defendant for any part of the judgement for which the defendant is responsible because of imposition of strict liability under the Labor Law for the employer's conduct.While a judgement could have been collected against the uninsured homeowner, it was much easier to have the employer pay the owner who would then pay the plaintiff because the employer had unlimited coverage. This "pass -through" to the employer is permitted only if the owner could satisfy the judgment first.Phil Russotti tried the case and took the position during jury selection that the employer was primarily at fault because he controlled the work site and was negligent for not covering the hole through which the plaintiff fell. The defendants squabbled between themselves as to whether the owner or contractor had any independent liability.Ken had the plaintiff evaluated by a vocational rehabilitation expert who claimed that because of plaintiff's illiteracy in English and Spanish and physical limitations from his injuries, he was totally unemployable. An economist projected loss of earnings for the remainder of his prospective work life. We also had a life care planner prepare an evaluation of plaintiff's medical, therapeutic and equipment needs for the balance of his life. Although plaintiff was independent for activities of daily living, he had obviously suffered a grievous injury.Settlement negotiations began between the four attorneys during jury selection, which consumed one week, and continued for two days before the trial judge. This finally resulted in a $8,200,000.00 settlement for the plaintiff wherein the employer's insurance company paid $7,000,000.00 plus a waiver of approximately $150,000.00 Worker's Compensation lien, the owner paid $500,000.00, the contractor remaining in the case $500,000.00 and the contractor that had been dismissed from the case contributed $200,000.00 (to avoid an appeal of his dismissal). This outstanding result was achieved though the combined efforts of WRSH partners Ken Halperin and Phil Russotti.

Construction Accident - Work Injury - Scaffolding Defect

Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro & Halperin partners Phil Russotti and Ken Halperin settled the case of a union-affiliated painter in his 40s, who was injured while working at a chemical storage facility in the city of Niagra Falls. While painting a large chemical tank, our client fell as he ascended the attached ladder that provided access to the scaffold's platform. Because our client had not been provided a harness or any other safety device that could have prevented his fall, he plummeted 12 feet and sustained brain damage, including memory loss, concentration impairment, speech impairment, anxiety and depression, as well as a torn hip labrum, and a torn rotator cuff.

Phil and Ken would have introduced evidence of $2,400,000 for loss of earnings. Their meticulous preparation and relentless efforts resulted in the case being settled during the pendency of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, for $7,250,000.This dedication to advocating on behalf of our clients resulted in an impressive settlement and is what sets WRSH apart from other firms.

Improper Spinal Surgeries

At an extensive settlement mediation immediately prior to jury selection, Phil Russotti settled a medical malpractice action on behalf of a thirty-seven year old man against his neurosurgeon for improperly performing two spinal fusion surgeries on subluxed vertebrae which subsequently failed resulting in six further surgeries and permanent deformity in his neck. Our client had an underlying neurological disorder known as neurofibromatosis which can affect the ligaments and cause scoliosis. The defense to the case was that the surgeries failed because of our client's underlying medical condition and not due to anything the doctor failed to do.At the mediation, Phil successfully argued that even assuming defendant was correct, the neurosurgeon should have accounted for plaintiff's condition during his second surgery by providing more stable fixation rather than just wiring the vertebrae. The doctor should have immobilized his neck for at least two months after the surgery so that the bone grafts would take. Phil argued that as a result of the negligent manner in which he operated, the fusions failed, making the subluxations and instability worse. He contended that the departures necessitated six additional surgeries that were performed by subsequent non-party physicians and that the culmination of the instability and need for extensive surgeries superimposed on the underlying weakness caused severe and unrelenting pain, Which at one point required morphine and methadone. Phil further argued that the deviations led to a tilting of the neck which required rods to be placed alongside the spine. After the rods were inserted they began to extrude through the skin and had to be removed resulting in permanent deformity.Our client had worked as a customs inspector and returned to work approximately one year after his first surgery. He worked for three more years until the pain following the third surgery became so severe that he required morphine and could not work. The plaintiff loved his work and prior to the incident, was very active, having enjoyed scuba diving and snow skiing. Thereafter he had to live a very sedentary lifestyle and suffered severe and unrelenting pain. Finally, at the time of the alleged deviations, he was in a serious relationship with a woman, and his disabilities prevented him from continuing that relationship. We argued that his loss of enjoyment of life had been profound. Our economist would have projected approximately 2.7 million dollars in future lost earnings and 1.5 million dollars in future lost pension benefits. After two full days of mediation before a retired Supreme Court judge the case settled for 6.6 million dollars.

Negligent Administration of Excessive Steroids For Lupus - Steroid-Induced MyopathyWRSH Partner Philip Russotti recently obtained a verdict in a case that was venued and tried in Hawaii, for approximately six weeks. The result was a $6,150,000 jury award in an extremely complex medical malpractice case. The Infant Plaintiff sustained numerous permanent injuries, including bilateral foot drop and diminished fine motor skills in her hands.Infant Plaintiff, almost 15 at the time, was on vacation with her family in Hawaii when she became ill. The plaintiff contended that the defendant pediatric rheumatologist negligently embarked on a course of the administration of an excessive amount of steroids therapy when lupus was suspected. The plaintiff maintained that as a result, the infant plaintiff suffered steroid-induced myopathy that started with weakness in the legs, and progressed to total paralysis below the neck, only allowing plaintiff to communicate with her parents by blinking her eyes only for several months. The plaintiff went through extensive physical therapy, regained the use of her upper extremities, and the plaintiff, who was left with a bilateral foot drop, was ultimately able to walk a short distance with braces. The plaintiff further contended that the diminished fine motor skills in her hands are permanent in nature. The plaintiff has since completed high school, become a college student and generally ambulates on the campus by using a motor scooter.The evidence disclosed that when the child developed a facial rash, unsteady gate and some slurred speech, the mother brought the child to the hospital. The defendant, an attending pediatric rheumatologist, conducted testing that showed elevated ANA levels and an MRI that depicted some areas of white matter density in the brain, made a diagnosis of lupus. The defendant embarked on a treatment course that entailed an initial dosage of one gm of glucocortoids a day for three days in a row that was followed by 40 mg of steroids for four days. The course was designed to be repeated for three subsequent weeks or "pulses." The initial pulse was administered while the plaintiff was an in-patient. The evidence reflected that the plaintiff responded very well, the unsteady gait and difficulties with speech essentially resolved and the blood work appeared to be returning to normal. The decision was made to administer the subsequent pulses on an outpatient basis. The plaintiff and her mother returned for the 2nd and 3rd pulses, and when the plaintiff complained of muscle weakness the day before the 4th pulse was administered, the mother, alarmed because she had researched the possible complications of steroids, including myopathy, on the Internet, declined to permit her daughter to undergo the treatment.The plaintiff, who displayed signs of myopathy, was admitted and she became progressively weaker and ultimately was unable to move below the neck. The plaintiff was paralyzed in this manner for several months, and the evidence disclosed that during this period, the plaintiff communicated by blinking her eyes in response to questions. The plaintiff developed aspiration pneumonia during this period , required a tracheostomy and almost died during an extended period in the ICU. The plaintiff required a ventilator and feeding tube during portions of this period. The plaintiff gradually regained some use of her arms and legs and could sit in a wheelchair.Approximately six months after the alleged negligence occurred at the end of Dec., 2003, and after the patient was able to sit in a wheelchair the patient was transferred to a rehabilitation hospital where she remained for approximately six months, undergoing extensive physical therapy. The plaintiff, whose permanent injuries included a bilateral foot drop, was able to walk a short distance with braces and can ambulate using a motor scooter. The plaintiff returned home, graduated high school, and began college where she has a 3.9 G.P.A.The plaintiff's expert pediatric rheumatologist contended that the defendant administered significantly greater doses of steroids than accepted and the plaintiff maintained that the administration of such amounts is virtually unknown in the medical community. The expert maintained that because of the risks attendant to steroid administration, once the patient showed response from the first "pulse," the steroids should have been tapered off. The plaintiff also contended that because the defendant had only used this protocol on one patient prior to plaintiff she did not have sufficient experience with it to make an informed decision whether it should be continued after the positive response.The defendant maintained that this protocol had been followed when she was a resident and presented two physicians involved in her training who supported this position. The plaintiff pointed to the testimony of the defendant that she had seen the regimen used only 4-5 times during her residency and that only one of these patients had lupus, which like the plaintiff, significantly involved the brain.One of the physicians involved in the plaintiff's training testified that the protocol has been used approximately 200 times without complications. The plaintiff countered that such a number of cases was very small, especially when compared with the manner in which drugs are tested by the FDA where protocols under consideration typically go through a number of phases with progressively greater number of patients involved in each phase before final approval is given. The plaintiff also contended that the jury should consider that even when a drug has been studied for many years with large numbers of patients, adverse events are still reported, and maintained that the defendant's position that she acted appropriately and that the course seemed safe after being used on approximately 200 patients, should clearly be rejected.The defendant also maintained that she would have ordered a lower dosage of steroids, but the mother would not consent to the defendant also administering Cytoxin, a chemotherapeutic agent also known to be effective in treating lupus, arguing that this factor justified that higher dosage of steroids. The plaintiff countered that the defendant's records reflected that the defendant had already planned to follow this protocol of steroid administration before the parents declined when the defendant suggested that Cytoxin be added.The plaintiff maintained that because of the extensive physical therapy and the plaintiff's determination, she improved to the extent that she can excel at college and ambulate with the scooter. The plaintiff contended, however, that she will permanently suffer very significant difficulties with fine motor skills of the hands and will never be able to go up or down stairs without assistance. The plaintiff also contended that she faces a diminution in earning capacity of more than $900,000.Mr. Russotti called various experts, including, a Pediatric Rheumatologist; a Muscle and Nerve Pathologist and Neurologist; a Rehabilitation Medicine Neurologist; a Life Care Planner; and an Economist.

Client Sustained Factured Tibia and a Severe Degloving Injury

Our client, a man in his 30s, was standing next to the rear of a truck while working as an assistant mover, when the defendant driver struck a middle car in the rear and propelled it into our client. Our client sustained a fractured tibia and a severe degloving injury to the calf muscle that caused profuse bleeding at the scene, and which necessitated multiple surgical interventions including fourteen (14) debridements, a muscle flap procedure, two skin grafts and an ankle fusion. Our client now walks with a severe limp and requires the use of a cane, as well as significant amounts of pain medication.

Phil Russotti recently obtained, by our research, the largest verdict, $4,500,000.00, ever rendered in the country for emotional damages for a mother who lost a child at childbirth. The case concerned the failure of paramedics to immediately transport the pregnant mother to a hospital despite signs of placental abruption in a term pregnancy. The baby died one day after birth and the mother suffered physical and emotional injuries.Phil proved at trial that two paramedics, who arrived after plaintiff's membranes ruptured in the early morning hours, negligently failed to promptly recognize signs of abruptio placenta and hypovolemic shock, and negligently failed to immediately rush her to the hospital. We contended that as a result, she arrived at least 18 minutes later than was acceptable under the circumstances and that the delay caused hypoxia to the fetus who died the following day. The mother suffered excessive bleeding and required a second surgery to control it. Her massive loss of blood resulting in kidney failure was ultimately resolved.In New York, family members are not entitled to emotional damages which they suffer as a result of the wrongful death of a loved one except in two very limited circumstances. We argued that one applied to this case. When a mother gives birth and the baby dies shortly after childbirth, the mother is entitled to damages for her emotional suffering if she is physically injured by the same negligence which injured the baby and those injuries would not normally have occurred during childbirth. In this case we proved that the mother was entitled to an award for her emotional distress stemming from the death of her child because of the injuries she suffered.The plaintiff, who had a life long history of low level depression, explained that the happiest time in her life was during the first 3-4 years following the birth of her first son eight years before trial. She became pregnant again a year before this incident, but miscarried shortly thereafter and had greatly desired another child because she believed that it would bring a return of this prior happiness. She explained that she was thrilled when she became pregnant. However, the pregnancy was extremely difficult and at one point she was hospitalized and then remained at home in bed on strict bed rest. This only served to heighten her disappointment following the baby's death. She suffered a severe depressive episode six months after the death which required medication which she continues with today. Although she has experienced significant improvement through therapy and the use of Prozac, she will suffer some residual depression and require medication for the remainder of her life.

Phil Russotti recently settled a case against five doctors after eight weeks of trial for $4.5 million dollars. The case concerned their failure to timely diagnose appendicitis and operate on a 17 year old boy. Phil proved that as a result of delaying surgery for three days the boy developed an abdominal infection which caused severe intestinal adhesions requiring five subsequent operations, leaving him with disfiguring abdominal scars and the likelihood of future surgery. Our research reveals that this is the largest recovery for a failure to diagnose appendicitis case in the country.An eight week trial was required because of the number of defendants and the complicated medical issues which dealt with infectious disease, gastroenterology, surgery, pathology, inflammatory bowel disease, gastrointestinal radiology and tropical disease. Phil’s cross examination of the defendant doctors contributed to the settlement because he was able to force them to contradict each other. For example, he got one defendant doctor to agree that his colleague deviated from the standard of care by not following up on a test result; another defendant doctor admitted that he made a medical decision which delayed surgery for three days because a co-defendant doctor failed to include appendicitis in his differential diagnosis; and a third defendant doctor conceded that the delay in surgery adversely effected the boy’s outcome. (Read excerpts of this trial testimony.)The case was made more difficult because at the appendectomy, the appendix was found to be fully intact and not perforated. Phil had to prove that during the delay prior to surgery the appendix developed micro perforations allowing bacteria to seep out which seeded the intestines resulting in the adhesions. The case finally settled after the first defense expert testified.

Phil Russotti recently obtained the second largest medical malpractice jury verdict in the State of Hawaii's history, a $4,250,000 award on behalf of our client, a young woman who developed permanent steroid myopathy after administration of excessive amounts of steroids. This verdict is second only to the largest verdict of $6.15 million, which was also obtained by Phil on the same case. However, that verdict was overturned by the Hawaii Supreme Court on evidentiary grounds and sent back for the retrial, which just occurred.The case concerned a 14-year-old girl who presented to a local hospital with symptoms of lupus. She was started on a course of high dose, intravenous pulse steroids comprised of three (3) grams of Solu-Medrol a week for four consecutive weeks. Despite the fact that she made dramatic improvement after the first pulse and was discharged from hospital, the doctor continued administering these very large doses of steroids, for which complications are dose and duration related. After the third week, our client developed muscle weakness (myopathy), a known complication of steroids which usually resolves. Her family transferred her via air ambulance to New York Cornell Hospital in New York City. She continued to decline and, after three weeks, could not move any muscle below her neck and was placed in the ICU. There she developed aspiration pneumonia and had to be intubated. She remained in the ICU for three months, unable to move a muscle and only able to communicate by blinking her eyes. She was transferred to a rehabilitation hospital where she underwent seven months of grueling physical therapy which enabled her to be able sit up in a wheelchair. Thereafter, she underwent seven months of physical therapy, for three hours a day, five days a week until she was able to walk short distances with crutches. She was otherwise wheelchair-bound.The case proceeded to trial on the theory that the doctor administered a treatment protocol that was not generally recognized within the medical community because it had not been peer-reviewed, published in any medical text, or discussed at pediatric rheumatology national meetings. The defense was that this protocol was taught to the treating doctor during her fellowship at a respected program in Texas. However, Phil obtained an admission from the defendant's expert that it was, in fact, not a recognized treatment protocol. Additionally, Phil proved that there was a lack of informed consent under Hawaii law, because the doctor did not advise the parents of recognized alternatives to the treatment which would have used less steroids and, therefore, had fewer risks of complications. This was a direct result of the ruling by the Hawaiian Supreme Court, which held for the first time in Hawaii, that an alternative dose of the same medication can be a recognized alternative under the Hawaii informed consent statute. Phil was able to get the defendant's informed consent expert to admit that two other treatment protocols were recognized alternatives to the one recommended by the treating doctor, and that she "should have advised the parents about" them but failed to do so. The doctor contended they did not apply to this situation and that is why she did not advise the parents. However, Phil showed that the Hawaii statute required mandatory disclosure if the alternative was recognized. Once the defendant's expert admitted that the alternative treatments were recognized, there was no defense to the informed consent claim.Accordingly, it is believed that an appeal will be unlikely and our client will finally receive her award after seven years of litigation, two trials and an appeal to Hawaii's highest court.

Phil Russotti obtained a $4,000,000.00 settlement for our 47 year old plumber who was injured in a construction accident at the Kings County Courthouse. A duct which was being dismantled struck him in the head as he walked through the area wearing his hard hat. It was not secured with ropes or pulleys and was just dangling over our clients head.The defendant contended that appropriate safeguards were used and the plaintiff was warned on two occasions preceding the incident to avoid the area because of the potential hazard and removed yellow caution tape to enter the area immediately before the incident occurred. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker, which constituted a defense under the labor law.WRSH partner Mitch Kahn established at deposition that the workers doing the dismantling, for amusement purposes, spent some time watching the night arraignments at the Courthouse, which remained open and set around drinking coffee until almost 6:30am. This caused them to start work when the day shift was arriving, exactly what they were not supposed to do.A co-worker of the defendant’s company heard the plaintiff scream and rushed to him, calling 911. In a sworn statement, the witness indicated that several minutes earlier, she observed the defendants working without pulleys or ropes and simply cutting the hangers that secured the duct. The statement also reflected that no caution tape was in the area. In the statement, the witness indicated that several minutes before the incident occurred, she chastised the workers for doing this work in an unsafe manner. The witness moved in the several year period following the incident and when ultimately found, she indicated that she had put the event out of her mind and had no recollection of the details contained in the statement. However, Phil took her pre-trial deposition where she testified that the contents of the statement were true and accurate. Thus, we established that in the absence of current recollection in view of the foundation created in the witness’ EBT, the statement would be admitted as a past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule strengthening our case.The plaintiff suffered a concussion as well as lumbar and cervical herniations. Approximately 1 ½ years after the event, the plaintiff underwent a lumbar fusion that included the installation of a titanium cage. Approximately eight months later, the plaintiff had an initial cervical fusion. However, because of pseudoarthrodosis, the plaintiff required a second cervical fusion approximately two years later. The plaintiff further contended that he suffered a mild TBI that left him with moderate but permanent memory and concentration deficits.The treating neuropsychologist found that the testing appeared to reflect a degree of malingering on the part of the plaintiff. However, we would have pointed out that in subsequent testing, the plaintiff’s results improved, which would be inconsistent with someone who was malingering. The plaintiff contended that he will be permanently unable to work in a physical capacity and that he sustained a significant diminution in earning capacity. However, he had a limited earning history which defendant capitalized on in arguing to reduce the lost earning claim.

WRSH partners, Philip Russotti and Kenneth Halperin settled the case at mediation for $3,750,000.00. Our client, a 50 year old bricklayer, contended that as a dumpster, situated on the forks of a hoisting machine was descending on a ramp, it toppled approximately six inches above the ground, pinning him against a wall. WRSH Partner Mitch Kahnwas able to establish during depositions that the dumpster was not properly secured and established numerous reasons as to why the dumpster was caused to fall off the forks of the hoisting machine onto the plaintiff. The plaintiff maintained that irrespective of whether the dumpster fell because the container was not properly secured, had inadequate hydraulics or if it was driven onto a flimsy ramp, the container was not properly operated or secured by hooks which were available to prevent it from falling and that the defendants owner and GC should be absolutely liable under Labor Law Sec. 240 (1). The plaintiff maintained that he suffered bilateral crush fractures to the feet, has already required three surgeries, including an arthrodecis, and that future surgery may be required. The plaintiff contended that he will suffer permanent pain that will require pain medication, has a limp and that he is permanently unemployable in a physical labor position.The plaintiff related that as the load was descending the ramp, a wheel at the right front corner broke off. He indicated that as he and another worker pushed from behind, another wheel, at the left front corner also broke off. The plaintiff then squatted in order to pick up the now wheel-less front end of the device. Plaintiff’s foreman, who was at the back of the device moved the device forward, which was not a movement the plaintiff was expecting. The device fell forward onto the plaintiff, pinning him against the wall.The defense moved for Summary Judgment, denying that Sec. 240 should apply. The plaintiff countered that even if the elevation was very slight, it was nonetheless the effect of gravity which caused it to fall onto and injure plaintiff. The plaintiff cross-moved for Summary Judgment on the Sec. 240 claim, and the motions were pending at the time of the settlement.The case settled for $3,750,000 after two days of mediation.

$3,300,000 Recovery - Defendant trucker allegedly precipitates collision with host automobile proceeding from trucks right by encroaching into host's lane and causing initial impact as evidenced by tire markings on host car. Plaintiff contends second impact occurs when truck strikes car after initial loss of control. Defendant truck driver maintains that host automobile driver causes collision by turning left in front of him from right lane. Host driver indicates she was planning on turning left at next intersection approximately one block away. Plaintiff would have presented accident reconstructionist expert who was NASA scientist working on space shuttle and lunar landing module who would have concluded markings in collision supported plaintiff's claims and depicted similar damage as testing of vehicles conducted and filmed by expert in 1990s. Plaintiff front seat passenger suffers aggravation of lumbar herniation. Rotator cuff tear - inability to continue job as home cleaner.Richmond County, NYThis was a case brought by a 43-year-old plaintiff front seat belted passenger who had been picked up at her cleaning job by her sister. The collision occurred on Broadway in Manhattan and there were two southbound travel lanes as well as parking lanes on either side. The host, who was in the right lane, was en route to Staten Island and indicated that she would have turned left at the next intersection that was about a block away, to travel to the Brooklyn Bridge if the collision had not occurred. The plaintiff contended that the defendant truck driver in the left lane, negligently steered to the right, causing the initial contact as evidenced by rubber tire markings that were on the host automobile and absence of metal on metal gouge marks. The plaintiff maintained that the host car then traveled out of control and rotated around to become perpendicular to front of truck and was struck again by the truck that then left markings from metal on metal. The defendant trucker denied that the plaintiff's claims were accurate and contended that the host driver caused the collision by cutting him off as she was trying to move to the left lane in anticipation of the upcoming left turn. The plaintiff contended that she suffered an aggravation of a previously sustained lumbar herniation and a tear of the left, non-dominant rotator cuff tear. The plaintiff asserted that because of the pain and limitations attendant to the injuries, she will be permanently precluded from returning to cleaning work. The host driver, who had $100,000 in coverage, was also sued. The host automobile sustained rubber markings that ran from host's driver's side door back that could only have been made by the truck's tire. The plaintiff's accident reconstruction expert contended that unless the truck was steering to the right and leading edge of the right front of the tire impacted the car, the fender of the truck would have prevented truck rubber markings from being produced. The plaintiff's expert indicated that the metal indentation marks in 3 locations on the side of the car were produced by the truck, subsequently impacting with the car a 2nd time and that this physical evidence strongly supported the plaintiff's testimony of multiple impacts that commenced when the truck drifted into the right lane and struck the host automobile, causing it to spin out of control.The plaintiff's accident reconstruction expert related that he conducted testing in the 1990s which had dynamics that were identical to that involved in the subject case. The expert indicated that filming of this testing underscored his position, and the plaintiff would have played such films if the case had proceeded to trial. The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff had sustained a lumbar herniation in a work-related incident in the late 1990s that was treated with conservative care, including physical therapy. She related that except for a short period of exacerbation approximately eight years before the subject accident, during which she also underwent conservative treatment, she had been essentially asymptomatic until the collision with the truck occurred. The plaintiff maintained that because of the severe pain caused by the aggravation, she required a lumbar fusion.The plaintiff further contended that the subject accident caused a rotator cuff tear on the non-dominant side that required arthroscopic surgery and which will cause permanent pain and weakness.The plaintiff asserted that the injuries suffered in the collision with the truck will permanently prevent her from working.The case settled during jury selection for $3,300,000.

WRSH partners, Phil Russotti and Jason Rubin obtained a $3 million settlement in a medical malpractice/wrongful death case, involving a 59 year old woman who died of ovarian cancer.Decedent, then 52, required a hysterectomy due to endometrial hyperplasia. According to decedent, the defendant OB/GYN recommended against performing a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of the ovaries and fallopian tubes) in conjunction with the hysterectomy because this would bring on early menopause and its associated side effects. Approximately one year after the hysterectomy, decedent began to experience abdominal pain. She underwent a CT scan then MRI, which demonstrated that she had a hydosalpinx (fallopian tube filled with fluid). However, the defendant OB/GYN did not perform a physical examination and did not order any further radiology studies in the following months to follow up on the hydrosalpinx, despite continual abdominal pain. Eventually, decedent underwent exploratory surgery which revealed Stage IIIC Ovarian Cancer. She received over 30 cycles of chemotherapy over the course of the next several years, but eventually died from the cancer.We claimed that the OB/GYN was negligent in recommending against a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in light of the fact that decedent was close to menopause, and that a BSO virtually eliminates the risk of a patient later developing ovarian cancer. The defendant OB/GYN claimed that he did recommend to decedent that she undergo a BSO, but she refused. However, the doctor’s notes contained no record that a BSO was ever recommended or refused. We also claimed that the OB/GYN was negligent in failing to order timely follow up studies and perform physical examinations in light of the patient’s complaints of continual abdominal pain.

Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro & Halperin partners Phil Russotti and Kenneth Halperin obtained a settlement for our client in the amount of $2,750,000. Our client, who worked in the lawn care field and was in his early 40s at the time of the accident, had a previously asymptomatic and undiagnosed degenerative condition involving the calcification of posterior longitudinal ligament and lumbar disc space narrowing which were aggravated, causing herniations at L4-5 and C-3-4 with impingement on the thecal sac. Our client maintained that the injuries necessitated fusion surgery in both the lumbar and cervical areas, that he will suffer severe permanent pain and will require future periodic surgeries. Our client's motion for summary judgment on liability was granted in this case in which the plaintiff's motor vehicle struck in the rear.Our client's orthopedist would have testified that the MRIs taken shortly after the collision showed herniations at L4-5 and C3-4, which were of recent origin and consistent with the timing of the collision. The physician would have also testified that signs of significant preexisting degeneration that included the calcification of the posterior longitudinal ligament were noted on the diagnostic imaging taken the day of the accident. Our client was previously asymptomatic and contended that he was rendered much more vulnerable to trauma because of the degenerative condition.The orthopedist related that following unsuccessful conservative treatment, it became apparent that fusion surgery for both herniations was indicated. Our client first underwent a lumbar fusion, and while awaiting authorization for cervical surgery, our client was involved in an intersection collision. He was wearing his seatbelt during this accident as he was in the subject collision.Phil contended that our client will incur extensive future expenses, including medical and hospital bills, home health aide costs and help with everyday activities such as cooking and shopping. Our client's 21 year old son currently helps him with his everyday chores and he will move out on his own in the future. Our client's life care plan and future medical costs claim approximated $4,000,000. Our client's physician would also have testified that it is likely that he will require surgical intervention every approximate decade for the remainder of his life.

Immediately prior to jury selection, Phil Russotti obtained a 2.5 million dollar settlement for a 57 year old man who was struck by a car while walking his dog on the side of a roadway that did not have sidewalks. He suffered a fractured ankle, ruptured spleen and extensive internal bleeding caused by the ruptured spleen. The bleeding caused plaintiff's long standing kidney insufficiency, which had been managed only with monitoring, to progress to acute renal failure, necessitating permanent dialysis. He is now a candidate for a kidney transplant. The trial strategy certainly played a role in settling the case.The defendant's attorney was aware that if the case was tried, Phil would have cross-examined the defendant about a subsequent D.W.I. to which he plead guilty. Additionally, Phil would have endeavored to confront the defendant with a statement he made to the D.M.V. in which he said that the plaintiff had walked into the side of his car but the plaintiff's dog had more sense than the plaintiff because he avoided the car. The prospect of the jury becoming aware of this evidence clearly provided significant leverage for Phil in negotiating this settlement.

Man Struck By Car Walking Dog on Roadway that Did Not Have Sidewalks

Immediately prior to jury selection, Phil Russotti obtained a 2.5 million dollar settlement for a 57 year old man who was struck by a car while walking his dog on the side of a roadway that did not have sidewalks. He suffered a fractured ankle, ruptured spleen and extensive internal bleeding caused by the ruptured spleen. The bleeding caused plaintiff's long standing kidney insufficiency, which had been managed only with monitoring, to progress to acute renal failure, necessitating permanent dialysis. He is now a candidate for a kidney transplant. The trial strategy certainly played a role in settling the case.

The defendant's attorney was aware that if the case was tried, Phil would have cross-examined the defendant about a subsequent D.W.I. to which he pled guilty. Additionally, Phil would have endeavored to confront the defendant with a statement he made to the D.M.V. in which he said that the plaintiff had walked into the side of his car but the plaintiff's dog had more sense than the plaintiff because he avoided the car. The prospect of the jury becoming aware of this evidence clearly provided significant leverage for Phil in negotiating this settlement.

Prior to trial, Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro & Halperin partner Philip Russotti obtained a $2,250,000 settlement in a medical malpractice case involving a man who suffered a stroke as a result of his internist's prior failure to diagnose and treat a heart attack.Our client, a 51 year old man, first saw the defendant internist in February 2007 for treatment of hypertension. An EKG was performed and was essentially found to be normal.During another visit one year later in February 2008, our client complained of having an episode of chest pain one week earlier. Another EKG was performed which was interpreted by the defendant internist as showing no changes. However, the EKG did in fact demonstrate significant changes as compared to the February 2007 EKG. These changes suggested that our client had suffered a heart attack in the interim. However, because these changes were not diagnosed, no further workup or treatment was rendered at that time.In December 2009, our client suffered from an ischemic stroke, which resulted in significant cognitive deficits. As a result, our client has since been unable to resume employment in the financial industry and sustained significant loss of earnings.During litigation, Phil alleged that the defendant internist negligently misinterpreted our client's February 2008 EKG and failed to diagnose changes consistent with a heart attack. Phil further contended that these EKG changes required that plaintiff undergo a nuclear stress test, which he claimed would have likely diagnosed a heart attack and ischemia. Phil contended that our client likely would have then undergone cardiac catheterization and would have been started on a course of medication, including plavix and aspirin. Phil also contended that treatment with aspirin alone would have substantially reduced our client's risk of subsequently developing a stroke.

Medical Malpractice - Wrongful DeathPhilip Russotti, Senior Partner of WRS, obtained a $2,050,000 Million settlement for the family of a man who entered the hospital for surgical repair of an anal fissure and who died because of the negligence of the anesthesiologist. The decedent suffered anoxic/ischemic encephalopathy; anoxia; hypoxia; bradycardia; esophageal and vocal cord ulcers; seizures; deep vein thrombosis; need for mechanical ventilatory support; pneumonia; need for NGT; hyperglycemia; fever; need for steroid therapy; pulmonary emboli; pain; suffering; emotional distress; loss of enjoyment of life.Plaintiff contended that the defendant anesthesiologist negligently failed to wait a sufficient period after administering an epidural anesthetic into the spine before having the patient lie down while a surgical repair of anal fissures was performed. The plaintiff contended that as a result, the anesthetic agent prevented the nerves which allow for breathing to function and caused respiratory arrest. The patient died several days later because of the injuries. The decedent was collecting social security disability because of injuries sustained in an automobile accident.The surgery lasted ten minutes. Prior to the arrival of the non-party surgeon, the defendant anesthesiologist had administered an epidural injection of the anesthetic agent. The agent is denser than spinal fluid, and therefore takes a few minutes to descend to the area that innervates the surgical field. The surgery is then performed with the patient prone on his front. The plaintiff maintained that the patient was prematurely placed in the prone position and covered with surgical drapes with the operative area protruding. The plaintiff contended that when the surgery was completed and the drapes removed, it was noted that the patient was cyanotic. A code was called and resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful.The plaintiff contended that failing to wait for the anesthetic agent to descend to the operative field constituted a deviation. The plaintiff also maintained that the defendant's records did not reflect that he realized there were any difficulties before the surgical drapes were removed and contended that with proper monitoring, the defendant would have realized that the patient required immediate intubation.The defendant contended that he did ascertain that the patient could not breathe and that he made immediate attempts to place a mask on the patient and administer oxygen by bag, but that the plaintiff could not be revived. The plaintiff maintained that even if such attempts were made, the defendant was clearly negligent because the chances of successfully administering oxygen with a bag and mask while the patient was face-down were very low.The decedent left a wife, daughter and a son. The plaintiff contended that a note in the decedent's record made by the respiratory therapist which mentioned the patient resisting when the respiratory therapist attempted to change his mask the following day, proved that the decedent experienced some conscious pain and suffering.The evidence disclosed that the decedent had been declared disabled by the Social Security Administration some years earlier because of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff contended that the death occasioned approximately $215,000 in reduced benefits. The plaintiff would have also made a claim for approximately $180,000 in loss of pension benefits.The plaintiff contended that the decedent was very close with his family and that the loss of parental nurture and guidance by the daughter and son was extensive. The son would have testified that he and his father were avid fishermen, and described the manner in which they would fish for different types at different times of the year.

Phil Russotti settled this case after jury selection for $1,750,000. Our client was a 43 year old woman who was injured when, while standing on the curb in a bus stop waiting for the bus, she stepped into the roadway to see if the bus was arriving and was struck by the defendant's automobile. The defendant had been stopped partially in the bus stop and partially in a space and failed to look backwards before backing up in preparation of pulling into the parking space. Our client was not knocked to the ground but only stumbled a few feet. She banged on the trunk of the defendant's car to advise him that she was struck.The defendant maintained that he had looked in his mirror when he started to move, the plaintiff was not behind him and that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent for walking into the street. The plaintiff countered that when she stepped into the street, she noted that the defendant's reverse lights were not activated and that she believed that it was safe to do so. The plaintiff also contended that it was clear that the defendant did not properly look in his mirror and that had he done so, the accident would not have occurred.Our client, who had initial neck and back pain, contended that within two days the pain became very severe. The plaintiff maintained that she had a preexisting condition of spondylolisthesis and Pars defects in the lumbar area and although she had required chiropractic care, the symptoms were relatively mild. The accident caused a herniation in the area and because of the superimposition of the trauma on the prior condition, she suffered particularly severe pain and limitations, required lumbar surgery which probably otherwise would not have been require. She also sustained two cervical herniations and required cervical fusion surgery.

Failure to Diagnose Prostate Cancer in New YorkWRSH Partner, Phil Russotti, obtained a $1.7 million settlement for a medical malpractice suit. Our client, an active man in his late 50's, contended that his internist failed to refer him to a urologist for further work-up after a PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) test came back abnormally high. Therefore, we argued that Plaintiff's doctor failed to diagnose prostate cancer in a timely manner and as a result, it metastasized to his spine. We were able to settle before the scheduled trial date.

WRSH Partner Phil Russotti, following jury selection, obtained a $1.7 million dollar recovery plus a waiver of a $50,000 Worker's Compensation lien on behalf of a 49 year old construction worker who was injured while operating an external elevator hoist, a device used on construction sites to transport materials and people to various building levels during construction. Prior to trial we obtained summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law 240(1). As a result of the fall, the plaintiff suffered a compound, comminuted, calcaneus fracture, which required surgery to insert a plate that was subsequently removed in a second operation.

Thereafter, plaintiff developed traumatic arthritis in the injured joint, which we were prepared to show would have prevented him from continuing as a construction worker. We believe the plaintiff, who resided in East Stroudsberg, Pennsylvania, would have made a powerful witness to the jury and led to the substantial settlement. He had his own contracting business until three years before the accident when he obtained the job in New York where he was hurt. He took this position because of the added union benefits provided to his family but had to commute three hours daily by bus into New York City from Pennsylvania. The loss of these benefits was a substantial part of the damages.

WRSH Partner, Phil Russotti, represented a 55 year old woman who was taking Tamoxifen following a radical mastectomy for breast cancer and who suffered liver failure requiring a liver transplant. After approximately nine months on the Tamoxifen she reported to her doctor, who was prescribing the medication that she was noticing fatigue. We claimed that her doctor should have ordered a liver function study. Three months later a subsequent treating doctor ordered liver function tests which were elevated. This second doctor failed to follow up on the elevated liver function studies, one month afterward she became jaundiced and shortly thereafter suffered acute liver failure resulting in the liver transplant. We claimed that the Tamoxifen should have been immediately discontinued when the liver study was abnormal which would have prevented the liver failure. Defendant claimed that the New York equivalent of Dalbert namely, the Frye requirement of scientific proof on the issue of causation had not been established showing a relationship between Tamoxifen and liver failure. After an extensive Frye hearing the trial court held that we proved it was generally accepted within the medical community that Tamoxifen could cause liver failure despite the fact that there are no test which directly show liver damage from Tamoxifen but the diagnosis is only made by exclusion, i.e. by ruling out all other causes of liver failure.

The case settled after the Frye hearing. The client has not had any difficulties with her transplanted liver for the past ten years. The settlement was solely for the necessity to undergo a liver transplant.

This was a medical malpractice case in which Attorney Phil Russotti argued during trial that the defendant's internist and ENT specialist, both of whom were employed by the defendant HIP Group, negligently failed to diagnose base of tongue cancer. Phil proved that during the six month delay in diagnosis the cancer progressed from a Stage 1, which carries an 85% cure rate, to Stage 4, which provided virtually no chance for survival. The 50 year old female decedent died a year and a half after the diagnosis was ultimately made, leaving one adult son.

New York State wrongful death law is very restrictive in that it only permits recovery for economic loss or pain and suffering of the deceased. Since there was no economic loss because the decedent was not supporting her adult son, Phil concentrated on the pain and suffering she experienced as the disease progressed. At the beginning of the trial, the defendants offered $150,000.00 to settle the case. During two weeks of testimony the offers were continually increased until the case finally settled for $1,350,00.00.

Intersection Accident - Crash with Fire Department TruckWRSH Partner, Philip Russotti, and Of Counsel, Brielle C. Goldfaden, obtained a $1.3 million settlement after jury selection on a trial against the City of New York, the New York City Fire Department and an FDNY employee. Partner William Hepner handled the case from inception until the point of trial including pre-suit investigation, depositions and all legal proceedings.Our client, a man in his 30s, was driving to work at JFK Airport from his home in Whitestone, Queens. He reached an intersection controlled by a traffic light which was green for traffic in his direction. As he drove straight through the intersection in the left lane, a New York City Fire Department truck heading in the opposite direction suddenly turned left in front of our client causing a near-head-on collision. The truck turned so suddenly that our client was unable to step on the brake or avoid the crash.The defendants claimed that the accident was our client’s fault. The FDNY driver said that our client crossed over the double yellow lines, striking the FDNY truck head-on before the truck began to turn left. They also argued that our client ran a red light.Although our client was wearing his seatbelt, the force of the impact caused multiple discs in his neck to herniate or erupt. The injured discs pressed on his spinal cord. When our client arrived at the emergency room, he had emergency surgery to relieve the pressure from his spinal cord and to prevent paralysis. The surgery was successful, and three days later he underwent another surgery to place rods and screws in his neck to stabilize his spine.Despite how serious the accident and injuries were, our young client made a remarkable recovery and was eventually able to return to work.

After Phil and Brielle successfully argued motions before the trial judge and picked a jury, the City of New York offered to settle the case for $500,000 which we rejected and continued to prepare for trial. Over the next few days, the City of New York increased their offer multiple times and ultimately presented their final offer, before opening statements were made, settling the case for $1.3 million.

WRSH Partner, Phil Russotti, obtained a $1 million settlement in a medical malpractice suit. Our client, a man in his early 50's, contended that his internist failed to refer him to a pulmonologist or surgeon after a CT scan of his chest demonstrated a suspicious nodule in the right lung, resulting in a delay in diagnosis of lung cancer and a progression of his disease from State I to Stage III. We were able to convince the Defendants to settle before the scheduled trial date. Our client died of lung cancer shortly after the settlement.

WRSH Partner, Phil Russotti, obtained a $900,000 settlement for our client, a wife and mother in her early 40's. We contended that the Defendants failed to provide glucose monitoring for our client who was receiving corticosteroids. Plaintiff underwent surgery for a benign tumor on a facial nerve and at the time of discharge from the hospital, she was taking Decadron, a corticosteroid that has the tendency to raise blood glucose levels. We argued that the Defendants failed to order or recommend glucose testing in conjunction with the administration of Decadron, resulting in diabetic ketoacidosis and prolonged hospitalization. We were able to settle prior to the scheduled trial date.

WRSH Partner, Phil Russotti obtained a $750,000 settlement when our client, a woman in her early 60's, contended that the Defendant hospital failed to follow up on a chest x-ray which indicated a suspicious lesion in the lung, resulting in a delay of diagnosis of lung cancer. Because of the delay, our client's lung cancer metastasized to her adrenal gland and ultimately caused her death. We were able to settle prior to the scheduled court date.

WE PREVIOUSLY advised that we are representing the relatives of a number of victims of the September 11th attacks before the Victims Compensation Fund, without charging a fee.

Phil Russotti represented the mother of a thirty-nine year old decedent who was single and his mother's sole support. He was an insurance company analyst who was killed in the attack on Two World Trade Center. Despite the decedant's modest earnings, Phil was able to prove not only the support for his mother, but the value of the services he provided to her, and with the aid of an economist, computed the future replacement cost of those services. Even under the stringent guidelines of the Fund, Phil obtained an award from Kenneth Feinberg, Special Master, of $681,325 for economic and non-economic loss, which the client has accepted.