Gerspach Sikoscow Innovation. Expertise. Results
Home Attorneys Practice Areas Results Testimonials Blog Contact Us
Contact Us
40 Fulton Street, Suite 1402, New York, NY 10601

Pre-Trial Results

October 2016

Internist Wins Summary Judgment in Case Involving an Alleged Failure to Diagnose and Treat Type 2 Diabetes

Gerspach Sikoscow obtained summary judgment and dismissal on behalf of a primary care physician who was alleged to have negligently failed to diagnose and treat diabetes mellitus in an elderly patient. The plaintiff claimed that as a result of alleged malpractice, she was required to undergo an above-the-knee right leg amputation. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant physician failed to appreciate elevated hemoglobin A1C and blood glucose levels on her blood labs, which demonstrated that she was a "high-risk" diabetic; failed to refer her for endocrinology and vascular surgery consultations; and failed to counsel her with regard to necessary lifestyle changes. In the summary judgment motion, the defense argued that this patient was never definitively diagnosed with diabetes, and that plaintiff's expert was conflating discrete, isolated lab values with "diabetes," a diagnosis which requires serial blood work. The defense further noted that a definitive diagnosis could not be made due to the patient's noncompliance. Lastly, the defense noted that during the period of alleged negligence, the plaintiff had multiple hospitalizations during which she was seen by multiple endocrinologists—none of whom diagnosed her as being diabetic. After oral argument in Supreme Court, Kings County, the Court granted defendant's motion in its entirety, finding that plaintiff's expert affirmation was conclusory, failed to address key contentions raised in defendant's moving papers, and was insufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact.


October 2016

Summary Judgment Granted to Neurosurgeon in Brain Surgery Case

Gerspach Sikoscow obtained summary judgment and dismissal on behalf of a board-certified neurosurgeon who performed a surgical resection of a left cerebellar cavernous hemangioma (a benign capillary tumor-like lesion). The plaintiff alleged that the surgery was unnecessary and improperly performed, and that there was a negligent failure to timely diagnose and appropriately treat post-operative cerebrospinal leak and bacterial meningitis. In support of their motion, defendants submitted an expert affirmation by a board-certified neurosurgeon who opined that the surgery was indicated and properly performed; that dural leaks such as the plaintiff experienced are unavoidable and occur even in the best of hands; that the patient exhibited no signs or symptoms of infection until her re-admission to the hospital sixteen days post-operatively; and that once re-admitted, she was given appropriate antibiotic therapy and seen by appropriate specialists. During the pendency of the motion, plaintiff's counsel advised his expert was unable to refute the defense's arguments and the motion was granted without opposition.


February 2016

Second Department Reverses Trial Court and Grants Summary Judgment

GS LLP successfully appealed the Supreme Court's denial of summary judgment, and obtained summary judgment for its neurologist client after oral argument in the Appellate Division, Second Department. Plaintiffs alleged that a 28 year-old, married woman unnecessarily died from a pulmonary embolus due the defendant-neurologist's failure to diagnose a left calf DVT. The evidence adduced during discovery established that approximately one month after a lumbar puncture the patient called the defendant-neurologist and complained of generalized leg pain. It was alleged that the defendant-neurologist was negligent in failing to have the patient present to the office for a physical examination, and in prescribing pain medication over the phone. The patient died two days after calling the defendant.

Mr. Sikoscow successfully argued on appeal that summary judgment was improperly denied given the insufficiency of plaintiff expert's affirmation in opposition to the summary judgment motion. Specifically, since the patient's complaints were limited to generalized leg pain, there was insufficient evidence for plaintiff's expert to have concluded that the defendant-neurologist would have suspected a left calf DVT even had he examined the patient. Mr. Sikoscow also successfully argued that plaintiff's expert lacked the requisite knowledge concerning the standard of care governing neurologists.


May 2015

Summary Judgment Obtained for Orthopedic Surgeon Regarding Foot Drop and Contracturection

GS LLP successfully obtained summary judgment for its orthopedic surgeon client. Plaintiff had alleged that he suffered a foot drop and muscle contracture as a result of an open reduction and internal fixation of the tibia and fibula performed by our client. We successfully argued that plaintiff's injuries were due to the initial trauma plaintiff sustained when he was struck by a car and not the surgery in question. In opposition, plaintiff was unable to raise a triable issue of fact.


January 2015

Summary Judgment Granted to Orthopedic Surgeon on Statute of Limitations Grounds

Grspach Sikoscow obtained summary judgment and dismissal on behalf of an orthopedic surgeon, who allegedly left a k-wire within the plaintiff's left shoulder during a laparoscopic labral repair in 2004. Plaintiff, who commenced her lawsuit in 2011, admitted that she had learned of the presence of a metallic object within her left shoulder after undergoing a chest x-ray in 2009. Defendant moved for dismissal of the claims as time-barred, contending that plaintiff failed to timely commence her action within one year of discovery of the foreign body. In opposition, plaintiff argued that defendant should be estopped from raising a statute of limitations defense by virtue of his fraudulent concealment of his own malpractice. Furthermore, plaintiff contended that her cause of action did not accrue until April 2010, at which point she consulted another orthopedist and was led to believe that the metallic object visible on her 2009 x-ray was related to defendant's surgery. In this regard, plaintiff posited that it is not merely discovery of the foreign body, but discovery of the foreign body coupled with a basis for believing that it was left behind as a result of malpractice, that begins to toll the one-year limitations period. J. Stanley Green, Supreme Court, Bronx Co., rejected plaintiff's arguments and granted defendant's motion in its entirety.


September 2013

Discontinuance Obtained in Wrongful Death Action

Gerspach Sikoscow obtained a discontinuance on behalf of a family medicine practitioner who was alleged to have negligently prescribed an antidepressant medication to the plaintiff’s decedent. Plaintiff claimed that, while taking the medication at issue, his 32-year-old son experienced worsening depression, culminating in his suicide one month later. Prior to obtaining the discontinuance, Ms. Halford drafted the firm's motion for summary judgment, arguing that the anti-depressant which had been prescribed is not known to cause suicidal ideation in adults, that the decedent’s death was unforeseeable as a matter of law, and that his death could not be proven to have resulted from suicidal intent. Prior to oral argument on the motion, plaintiff voluntarily discontinued all claims with prejudice.


August 2013

Summary Judgment Won for Orthopedic Surgeon Regarding Postoperative DVT Prophylaxis

Mr. Sikoscow obtained summary judgment on behalf of an orthopedic surgeon whose patient developed DVT, a pulmonary embolism, and expired following a hip resurfacing procedure. An autopsy disclosed that the patient had genetic mutations, making him more prone to clotting. However, since this was not known to the orthopedic surgeon at the time of surgery, summary judgment was granted and the case dismissed.


May 2013

Summary Judgment Granted in Brain-Damaged Infant Case

Ms. Halford succeeded in obtaining summary judgment for a pediatric medical specialist who allegedly failed to diagnose and treat bacterial meningitis in a seven-month-old infant, resulting in global neurologic deficits. In support of the motion Ms. Halford and an expert E.M. specialist argued that the infant had presented to the defendant hospital E.R. with life-threatening respiratory distress, consistent with an infection of the lungs and without any meningeal signs or symptoms; that management in the E.R. was appropriately focused upon stabilizing the infant's respiratory status and vital signs; and that the pediatric medical specialist had no reason or opportunity to undertake a workup for meningitis during the infant's brief time in the E.R. In opposition, plaintiff argued the bactierial meningitis must be considered and ruled out in all infants with febrile illness, and therefore, a lumbar puncture and Gram staining of the blood should have been ordered. The Court was not persuaded by plaintiff's arguments and dismissed all claims against our client.


April 2013

Summary Judgment Granted in Wrongful Death Case

Ms. Halford successfully obtained summary judgment for a dermatologist who was alleged to have negligently failed to diagnose and treat a Methicillin-resistent Staph aureus infection in the decedent prior to an elective valve replacement surgery. Plaintiff claimed that the undiagnosed infection complicated the patient's post-operative course, leading ultimately to a ruptured aortic dissection and the patient's wrongful death. Ms. Halford argued that the decedent's pre-operative skin complaints were consistent with eczematous dermatitis, for which the decedent was appropriately treated, and were in no matter suggestive of an infectious process. The Court accepted the defense's position and concluded that the plaintiff had failed to raise in opposition a triable issue of fact.


March 2013

Case Dismissed Prior to Depositions on Statue of Limitations Grounds

Mr. Sikoscow successfully obtained dismissal for his client radiologist prior to any depositions taking place. He successfully argued that the statute of limitations precluded any cause of action as against his client notwithstanding the fact that the practice that employed his client continued to render care and treatment to the plaintiff.


March 2012

Summary Judgement Granted in Breast Cancer Case

Mr. Sikoscow successfully obtained summary judgment for his client, an internist who allegedly had failed to order screening mammograms in a nursing home setting. Mr. Sikoscow successfully argued that the standard of care did not require screening mammograms in a nursing home population and that, notwithstanding, his client had no duty to order such studies.


May 2012

Case Dismissed on Procedural Grounds

Mr. Sikoscow successfully obtained dismissal for his client/neurosurgeon in Queens County based upon improper service of process. Plaintiff appealed to the Second Department arguing that they had attempted in good faith to secure service. However, Mr. Sikoscow also successfully argued the appeal and the lower court's decision was affirmed.


March 2011

Motion to Dismiss Granted in Malignant Melanoma Case

Mr. Sikoscow successfully argued that the statute of limitations precluded recovery for office visits paid to the defendant internist three years before the eventual diagnosis of melanoma, thereby reducing plaintiff's demand from $7 million to $90,000.


June 2011

Summary Judgement Granted in Brain Damaged Infant Case and Affirmed by the Second Department

In Supreme Court, Westchester County, Mr. Sikoscow obtained summary judgment on behalf of a pediatrician who was alleged to have caused brain injury to a neonate by failing to ensure proper blood glucose levels; failing to properly diagnose and treat hyperbilirubinemia; and failing to timely diagnose developmental delays during routine pediatric care. The Court accepted our showing regarding the propriety of the care rendered, and agreed that plaintiffs' expert's affirmation in opposition was legally insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Mr. Sikoscow successfully argued before the Supreme Court, Second Department, the propriety of the trial court's decision granting his client summary judgment.The Second Department agreed that plaintiff's expert affirmation in opposition to Mr. Sikoscow's motion for summary judgment was inadequate as a matter of law.


February 2011

Traverse Hearing Results in a Dismissal

Mr. Sikoscow successfully obtained dismissal on behalf of a metropolitan area hospital and employed physicians at a traverse hearing. He successfully convinced the presiding judge that plaintiff's hired process server failed to adequately maintain records required by law and demonstrated improper service of process on his clients.


February 2010

Summary Judgment Granted on Behalf of Pediatrician, Alleged Failure to Diagnose and Treat Neonatal Hypoglycemia

In Supreme Court, Westchester County, Mr. Sikoscow obtained summary judgment on behalf of a pediatrician who was alleged to have caused brain injury to a neonate by failing to ensure proper blood glucose levels; failing to properly diagnose and treat hyperbilirubinemia; and failing to timely diagnose developmental delays during routine pediatric care. The Court accepted our showing regarding the propriety of the care rendered, and agreed that plaintiffs' expert's affirmation in opposition was legally insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.


February 2009

Firm Successfully Opposes Post-trial Motion to Set Aside Jury Verdict.

Judge Janice Taylor (Supreme Court, Queens County) denied plaintiff's motion to set aside jury verdict obtained in July 2008 in favor of orthopedic surgeon, supported by testimony of infectious diseases and orthopedic experts called by the defense.

- July 2008 Verdict >>


July 2008

Firm Successfully Opposes Post-trial Motion to Set Aside Jury Verdict.

Firm successfully opposes plaintiffs' post-trial motion seeking to set aside November 2007 jury verdict, which found the defendant radiologist's failure to order additional radiological studies did not alter the plaintiff's prognosis. The plaintiffs argued that this departure from the standard of care contributed to a delay in the diagnosis of the plaintiff's appendiceal carcinoid tumors, resulting in diminished life expectancy. The trial Court denied plaintiffs' motion and refused to disturb the verdict.

- November 2007 Verdict >>

Attorney Web Design The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.