At the time summary judgment motion was filed, plaintiff made a 7-figure settlement demand. Mr. Murphy was able to craft strong arguments in favor of dismissal, which were supported by an affirmation by a well-credentialed expert hand surgeon. Notably, at or about the same time the motion for summary judgment was filed, Mr. Murphy also exchanged surveillance video of the plaintiff, calling into question the validity of plaintiff’s claim of permanent disability. Mr. Murphy’s motion was eventually submitted without opposition, after plaintiff was granted numerous adjournments and opportunities to oppose the dispositive motion.

Congratulations Jerry, on another firm victory.

As to the non-criminal defendants, including our client — a well-respected not-for-profit hospital with a long-standing reputation for delivering high-quality care to its patients — plaintiffs variously alleged that for decades, complaints about inappropriate conduct towards his pediatric patients were well known, such that a duty was triggered by the various institutions that either employed and/or affiliated with the perpetrating physician. Putting aside the in-artfully plead and totally disputed, putative “widespread” knowledge of the physician’s so-called propensity to harm his pediatric patients, and the fact that no actual knowledge was alleged, plaintiffs asserted that such “knowledge” required these various institutions to affirmatively do something, whether to pull the physician’s privileges, notify examining boards and law enforcement of the alleged conduct said to have been at least inferentially knowable by the institutional defendants, and otherwise take steps to keep him away from unnamed, scores of would-be pediatric patients within Nassau County, with a population well in excess of 1,000,000.

RPGRK’s team for this mass-tort consolidated litigation — led by partners Craig Rizzo, Juan Gonzalez and David Lafarga, with support and assistance from Partners Maria Massucci and Regina Sagesser, and Associates Julian Buffa, Kerrianne Russo, and Maria Stavrakis — quickly mobilized to develop an early aggressive strategy for defending our client’s interest in what could have been tremendous exposure in the realm of hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages before a jury. Pre-answer, the team investigated each and every plaintiff, performed meticulous research and analyses of the numerous and convoluted theories and counts of liability asserted, and then prepared a detailed, complex pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under any conceivable theory within the complaints.

On January 11, 2023, the Honorable Leonard D. Steinman issued a lengthy and well-reasoned 13-page Opinion and Order that thoroughly considered each and every plaintiff’s claims and theories as to each defendant (except the perpetrating, defaulting physician), rejecting each in turn and determining that under no theory raised in any of the 109 complaints did any of the plaintiffs state a cause of action — specifically, a duty owed to them running from the moving defendants — upon which relief could be granted!

CONGRATULATIONS once again to Juan, Craig, David and the entire RPGRK Team that contributed to this impressive, critical win that chartered novel legal terrain and saved our institutional client potential exposure in the hundreds of millions of dollars!!!!!!!!!!

Through the use of x-rays and CT scans, and with the assistance of expert testimony from an accomplished hip surgeon, John was able to demonstrate that lengthening is a known risk of surgery and in this case some minimal lengthening was necessary to achieve a stable artificial joint that would not dislocate. By unanimous vote, the jury found no departures from the standard of care and also agreed with our position that the doctor obtained a proper informed consent.

Accordingly, the Court granted our client’s pre-answer motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Another terrific result for the Firm, which protected the Municipality from large exposure potential, including a claim for punitive damages. Congratulations once again to Craig and Maria. Great result!

While the Court denied summary judgment on questions of fact, the Court agreed with Juan’s remaining arguments, stayed the action until the Trustee was substituted, and estopped plaintiff from any recovery in excess of $25,000!

Over 18 months later, plaintiff sought to substitute the bankruptcy Trustee as the real party in interest, an acknowledgment of the fact that plaintiff’s valuation was materially incorrect (the basis for estoppel and stay order). Juan opposed and cross moved to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel or for outright dismissal of the action in its entirety on a variety of grounds, including laches and vexatious and harassing litigation history that included at least three prior amendments, violation of court orders and wasteful and vexatious motion practice to the tune of no less than 10 frivolous motions that unnecessarily prolonged an action commenced in 2018.

On March 31, 2022, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for substitution and granted Juan’s cross motion dismissing the complaint in its entirety!!

Congratulations again to Juan and his team on a hard-fought victory for his clients!