Could you tell us about your upbringing in Coop City and how it influenced your perspective on social and economic justice?

Well, I grew up in the Bronx in New York City, and even from a young age, I saw a lot of social inequality and injustice. The law is one way I can make a difference and be able to do something. That's why I chose law and became a trial lawyer. I spent most of my career representing people who have either been disenfranchised or have had something terrible happen to them. It also allows me to write the scales of justice and bring justice to people who can't always get justice.

Let's dive into that a bit more. You mentioned growing up in the Bronx and seeing, of course, injustices growing up. Tell me more about the path that led you towards practicing law.

I would say the past started when, for example, like many kids from the Bronx who were harassed by the police from time to time for no reason. There were also a lot of times friends who were hit by cars or fell on the subway and got hurt. I've also had a lot of friends in construction who got hurt on dangerous drop sites. Becoming a lawyer was a way to help these people out and to get back. Even though it was not the best area in the world, we always had a strong sense of community where we tried to help each other. And that was my way of trying to give back to the community. Now, for 20-plus years, I've been representing New Yorkers who have been victims of either social justice police misconduct, they've been falsely arrested, or people who are hurt on construction sites, or people who are hit by cars just walking the street because of careless drivers. So I feel a sense of pride in being able to write the scales of justice and bring justice to people who otherwise, you know, wouldn't have a voice or otherwise disenfranchised.

What were some of your formative experiences when studying law at Tulane?

One of the most rewarding experiences I had in law school was becoming part of the criminal clinic, where instead of taking a class, we were assigned to represent needy people facing criminal charges. And that was one of the most formative experiences I had in my law school career. Because I was doing real work on real cases for real people. Also, having had a background as a private investigator, I could investigate charges and things that people were being accused of more thoroughly. Many of my work resulted in either cases getting dismissed, we could show that people didn't do what they were being accused of, or there were some mitigating factors. And we were able to make the system work for a large group of people that were disenfranchised. In New Orleans, Louisiana, the criminal justice system is horrendous. Public defenders are overworked, so they can't pay much attention to cases. So, in those days, I learned what effect doing an adequate investigation and looking under every stone can have in making a case, building a case and presenting it, and presenting a compelling case to challenge the accusations being brought against somebody.

Please explain some of those first few years after law school and starting to build your practice and reputation.

Well, I was learning my craft in the first handful of years. I started doing public defense, so I was constantly in court, handling 1,500 cases on the calendar a day. But they also had the opportunity to try cases. When you try a case, you also have to prepare the case. So, it gave me a lot of lessons on how to prepare a case, how to get evidence, how to build up a case, and how to prove a case ultimately. After that, I went to a small firm in Manhattan that was focused on construction accidents and maritime accidents. And I was doing a lot of heavy litigation. And in those years, I perfected my craft. I learned to write motions into discovery and get the information and evidence to put my clients in the most vital position. Those basic skills I learned at the start are still with me today.

I still go the extra mile. I still look under every stone. And I still go the extra effort. Nobody outworks me in terms of preparing the case for trial and being in a strong position when you know you have a case-prepared trial. It leads to good sentiments. And that's why we get very favorable sentiments here: every file gets worked up, and every client has an attorney they speak to. I know all of my clients, and we go the extra mile to ensure that we've done our homework, done everything we can, and got all the evidence to prove the case. So that means I'm invested in the case. I'm invested in going the extra mile to ensure we can win the case because I don't get paid if I don't win and don't do a good job. So, my clients and I have a common interest in favorably concluding the case. And we offer free consultations because you want to know if I'm the right fit for you. You want to know if this relationship will be good for you. So, we always offer complimentary consultations. That way, we know if this is the case I'm comfortable handling and if I'm the guy you want. I will only expect people to pay me to determine if I could do something for them.

 Why don't you tell us more about your approach to building rapport and trust with each of your clients?

Any relationship with a client is significant. This business, where people entrust me with profound or essential things in their lives, is a relationship business. So people have to feel comfortable knowing that I will do what I need to do to... I'm going to do my job. They have to feel comfortable knowing that I'm going to do my job and that they can trust me. Whenever someone is retaining a personal injury lawyer, something terrible happens to them. Or even in a commercial case, they've been cheated and swindled. So they're trusting me with something significant in their life. So, of course, they need to know who they're dealing with and have a meeting and see if and make sure that they feel comfortable working with me.

And you've worked on and gotten many favorable outcomes for those cases for your clients. What's a particularly challenging case you've had and are proud to have worked on?

Some cases where I've been very happy or proud of are a couple of areas. One of them was some of the construction accidents I've worked on where people had promising careers, and because a company cuts corners on safety, they get hurt. And suddenly, they're going from making union scale and, you know, a six-figure salary to being paid 400 bucks a week on comp. And I've heard stories where fathers have had to tell their children that we can't do this, or we can't go on this trip, or we can't. There are activities at school that they can't provide for because now they're just getting on comp. And this happened because a construction contractor cut corners and didn't provide proper safety equipment. So, in those cases, several cases, I've tried a case; I remember one particular one where a landscaper working on a construction site was hit with a piece of excavation machinery and thrown 20 feet in the air into a tree. I mean, this was a life-altering injury. And we went to a trial in Westchester County, which is generally an unfavorable location to try a case, especially for construction workers. And we got a complete 100% liability verdict with a seven-figure recovery. So the difference that made in his life Words can't express what we did for him. Another significant case I had was a landmark case where we sued the city for malicious prosecution. We had a security worker and a part-time police officer who was wrongfully charged with murder. This ended his career. We went to trial in the Southern District of New York, and we got a complete liability verdict against the detectives who wrongfully prosecuted him, who used dirty confidential informants that they knew were lying and went forward with the case anyway. This man sat being indicted for murder for three years, and his career was over. He fell into a major depression to the point that he couldn't leave the house. So I felt good to be able to have him sit there and have a jury vindicate him and tell him not only had he been cleared by one jury already and found not guilty, but when we tried the civil case, the jury told him, yes, he was maliciously prosecuted. There was no probable cause for him to have been charged. And I think that having that recognition went a long way towards clearing his name. Because even though he was found not guilty, people still looked at him like he did it. But having gone to trial in a federal court and having a jury in a federal court said, no, these officers maliciously prosecuted you and were awarding you, I think the verdict was about $1.7 million. I think that went a long way toward making them take responsibility for the damage they did to his life.

From a lawyer's perspective, could you explain how deciding to bring a case in an unfavorable district works? What does that mean, and how do lawyers navigate that?"

The jury pool is a reflection of the community. So, where you bring a case depends on where the accident happened and where the parties live. But sometimes, unfortunately, you have to be in an unfavorable jurisdiction. What does that mean? That means that, particularly with affluent or upper-class jurors, they don't necessarily relate to laborers, people who work on construction sites, or the average person. And they look down on people who sue. There's no two ways about it. They look down on some lawsuits. So, we've developed a lot of skills and techniques that, in jury selection, we try to weed out that kind of jurors that are going to view our clients negatively because they're socially, economically better off or they just look down on people who work for a living as opposed to putting on a suit and tie every day. So, in those cases, we've been successful because we're able to get to expose a lot of those biased opinions, and we're able to get those people off the jury. The problem is that in places like Westchester or maybe Long Island, there's a higher percentage of them than in places like the Bronx, Brooklyn, or Manhattan, where people tend to be more liberal.

How does this connect to your work in social and economic justice? Could you explain why having that perspective is crucial to doing your job?

Regarding the potential jury pool, you have to remember people always view whatever case they're listening to or judging through their lens. And their lens reflects who they are, how they lived, and the experiences that have happened to them. When they did a study where they studied different jury pools concerning various issues, the most common words they use is, this is just like. So, they always compare what they see or consider with their own lives, whether conscious or unconscious. And if people come from a specific background where they think people suing is something they shouldn't do, or they look down on people, they will look down on the plaintiff. If certain people come from an insurance background, they will look down on the plaintiff. If people come from a background where their family members are doctors who have been sued, or they tend to identify with defendants more than they do people who get hurt, They will be defense-oriented jurors. So I think it's essential in terms of the technical skills to weed those people out in jury selection and identify them.

What would you advise aspiring lawyers or newly practicing young lawyers who wish to make an impact in this way?

My advice would be to follow your dreams and to recognize that it's a hard road ahead of you. that it's a lot of work, and if you don't want to do it and you don't have a desire to do it, you're not going to make it. So don't even try. But if it's something you have a desire to do and it's something you have the fire inside you for, then go for it. Apply to the positions where you can make a difference and see where you land. There's enough injustice in the world that there's plenty of opportunity to do the right thing or to handle cases that can make a difference.

What kind of encouragement or something do you feel is very hopeful looking forward that you see developing?

One thing I'm hopeful I see developing, which is very positive, is coming out of COVID, where the courts were shut down and forced to adopt different models, we've had a tremendous increase in deficiency. There's still a massive backlog on a lot of the cases. We still need to get cases out of trial like we used to, but we're improving ng, and I think one of the big things is that this is somewhat technical, but one of the big things that are coming out is that courts have developed electronic or e-filing. Courts have produced virtual conferences and started using virtual conferences regularly rather than having 200 people go and sit in a Bronx courthouse waiting for their cases to be called. Now there's a time slot, you're in, you're out, and that efficiency allows attorneys like me to do a lot more work and be able to handle a lot more cases for people because rather than sitting around in court and waiting for something to be occasionally called or having to send someone down to the courthouse to physically submit papers, we can do it from our desk with a button. I'm very encouraged by the efficiencies the courts have developed, mainly due to COVID-19. We're still working through the COVID backlogs, but I'm hoping that with these efficiencies, the COVID backlogs will start to clear up. Then we can start getting more and more cases to trial, and it's terrible telling people that there's a year and a half to wait to get a trial date from the point in time that everyone agrees that they're ready for trial. And that gives the insurance companies an advantage in waiting people out and making lowball offers. With some of these improvements and efficiencies, we'll get back to the point where once cases are ready for trial, they'll be tried within a few months.

Michael, I'd love for you to tell us a bit about yourself, including your upbringing and why you do what you do.

I grew up in the Bronx in New York City. Even from a young age, I saw a lot of social inequality and injustice. The law is one way where I can make a difference and do something about it. That's why I chose law and became a trial lawyer. I spent most of my career representing people who have either been disenfranchised or have had something terrible happen to them. I really feel it gives me the opportunity to, in some way, right the scales of justice for those who don’t have that opportunity.

Tell me more about the path that led you towards practicing law.

I would say it all started when, when I was growing up in the Bronx and saw many kids being harassed by the police from time to time, for no reason. I also had a lot of friends who were hit by cars or fell on the subway and were injured. I've also known a lot of people who work in construction who were hurt on dangerous drop sites. Becoming a lawyer was a way I could help these people out.

Even though the Bronx was not the best area in the world, we always had a strong sense of community. We were always trying to help one another. Choosing a career in law has given me a way to give back to the community. For 20-plus years, I've been representing New Yorkers who have been victims of social justice and police misconduct. I’ve seen people be falsely arrested. I’ve known people who were hurt on construction sites, or people who were hit by cars just walking the street, because of careless drivers. I feel a sense of pride in being able to right the scales of justice for people who otherwise wouldn't have a voice or who are otherwise disenfranchised.

What were some of your formative experiences when studying law at Tulane?

One of the most rewarding and formative experiences I had in law school was becoming part of the criminal clinic. Instead of taking a class, we were assigned to represent indigent people who were facing criminal charges. I was doing real work, on real cases, for real people. Also, having had a little background as a private investigator, I could apply those skills to cases where people were being wrongly accused of a crime. A lot of the work I handled resulted in cases being dismissed. I could show that these people didn't do what they were accused of. In other cases, I was able to show there were mitigating factors so a charge could be lessened. We made the system work for a large group of people that needed it.

While in New Orleans, Louisiana, I saw the criminal justice system was abhorrent. The public defenders, in general, are overworked. They can’t give their cases adequate attention. In those days, I learned what effect doing a thorough investigation can have on a case.

 For the sake of getting to know you now, please tell me about some of those first few years after law school and how you began building your practice and reputation as an attorney?

I was learning my craft the first handful of years after law school. I started off doing public defense. I was constantly in court handling upwards of 1,500 cases that were on a calendar each given day. I also had the opportunity to try cases. It was there that I learned how to properly prepare a case, how to get the evidence, how to build up a case, and how to ultimately prove a case.

 During those first few years after law school, I worked at a small firm in Manhattan that focused on construction and maritime accidents. I was doing a lot of heavy litigation. It was in those years that I perfected my craft. I learned how to write motions into discovery and get the information and evidence I needed to put my clients in the strongest possible position for their case. Those basic skills I acquired are still with me today. I still go the extra mile. I still look under every stone. I am invested in my cases. Nobody outworks me in terms of putting my cases in the best position through proper trial preparation. That's why my firm gets very favorable results. We go the extra mile to ensure we've done our homework. We have done everything possible to get the evidence to prove a case. I also offer free consultations so we can get to know one another and see if we are the right fit. We need to know if this relationship is going to work.

Why don't you tell us more about your view on building rapport and trust with each of your clients?

I value my clients' relationships, a business where people entrust me with significant events in their lives. People need to feel comfortable knowing that I'm going to do my job and that they can trust me.

What is a particularly challenging case you're proud to have worked on?

There are many cases I am proud to have been a part of.

For example, in construction accident cases, I’ve worked for people who had promising careers going for themselves, and because a company cut corners on safety, this individual was injured, and that all changed. Suddenly, they're going from a six-figure salary to $400 a week in compensation. I've heard stories of fathers who have had to tell their children they can’t do certain activities or go on specific trips now because of the injuries. There are activities at school they can't provide for. It’s incredible to think all of this happened because a construction contractor cut corners and didn't provide proper safety equipment for workers. I remember one case where a landscaper working on a construction site was hit with excavation machinery and thrown 20 feet in the air into a tree. He suffered life-altering injuries. I took this case to trial in Westchester County, which is generally an unfavorable location to try a case for construction workers. We got a complete 100% liability verdict with a seven-figure recovery. I was proud of that verdict. This made a massive difference to that man’s life. Words can't express what we did for him.

Another memorable and landmark case I worked on was representing a security worker and part-time police officer who was wrongfully charged with murder. This man was prosecuted for murder for three years. His career was over. He fell into major depression, to the point that he couldn't leave the house. We sued the city for malicious prosecution, took the case to trial in the Southern District of New York, and got a complete liability verdict against the detectives who wrongfully prosecuted him. It was discovered they had used dirty confidential informants that they knew were lying and went forward with the case anyway.

I was proud to be a part of getting a jury to vindicate this man. Not only had our client been found not guilty in his criminal case, but now a federal jury was saying to the public he was maliciously prosecuted and that there was no probable cause for him to have been prosecuted in the first place.

Regarding the potential jury pool, you must remember that people always view and judge things through their lens. Their lens reflects who they are, how they live, and the experiences that have happened to them. People have a tendency, whether conscious or unconscious, to compare what they're seeing or what they're considering with their own lives. People from a specific background may think negatively about people who file lawsuits. They are likely going to look down on my clients. This would also likely be the mindset of potential jurors who work in the insurance industry. The same could be said of people who come from a background where they or their family members are doctors who have been sued. In these examples, potential jurors will identify with the defendants more than with the injured person. This is why it is so important I have the skills to weed those people out in jury selection.

What advice do you have for new and aspiring lawyers who want to help solve these issues and biases in our society?

My advice is that if you have the desire and fire to get involved in solving these issues, follow your dreams. However, you also need to recognize that it's a hard road ahead for you. I encourage people to apply for positions where they think they can make a difference and see where they land. With the abundance of injustice in the world, there are plenty of opportunities for you to make a difference.

Given your experience and perspective, I'm curious about what you feel you are very hopeful about in the legal realm.

During COVID, the courts were essentially shut down, causing a significant backup in filed cases that go to trial. Even today, we aren’t getting cases filed and to trial like we used to. Because of the development of e-filing and other electronic options, courts have started using virtual conferences regularly. Rather than having 200 people sit in a Bronx courthouse, waiting for their case to be called, you now have a time slot. You are in and out. That efficiency allows attorneys like me to do much more work on my cases. Rather than sitting around in the courthouse, waiting for a case to be called or having to send someone down to the courthouse to physically submit papers, we can do it from our desk with a button. Of course, we are still working through the COVID backlogs. However, I'm hoping that with these efficiencies, things will start to clear up, and we can start getting more cases to trial more quickly. It's terrible telling people that there is a year and a half wait to get a trial date for their case. I also think that waiting to get to trial gives the insurance companies the advantage. They are trying to wait people out and then give lowball offers, hoping the plaintiffs will bite. Hopefully, with some of these improvements and efficiencies, we can get back to the point where once cases are ready for trial, they will be tried within a few months.

What is  medical malpractice?

Medical malpractice is basically the failure of a doctor to do what a reasonably competent doctor would. whether it be they don't recognize a condition that the patient has, which is evident, or they fail to properly treat a condition, or they do take actions which a reasonably proven doctor would not take that make the patient's condition worse. A few examples could be, for example, if someone comes in with a heart attack and they don't realize it's a heart attack and the person dies. Or one of the more common cases, which we've actually handled in our office successfully, is sepsis cases. where a person comes in with sepsis, which is a very significant inflammatory response caused by an infection, we know the protocol is to administer broad-spectrum antibiotics, because they don't necessarily know what bacteria is causing the infection, so you have to give a wide variety of bacteria to address all possible infections, because it's such a fast-moving bacteria and such an aggressive bacteria that, or condition, that you don't necessarily have time to figure out what you're dealing with. And if you take the time to figure out what you're dealing with, the patient's gonna die. So sepsis cases in particular are one of the cases where the failure to administer broad spectrum antibiotics like right away is, can be, is or can be considered a departure from acceptance standards of care. Other examples include contraindicated drugs, So where a physician is prescribing one medication, they have to know and be aware of what other medications the patient is taking, and look out and take appropriate steps where you have a drug-on-drug reaction, where one medication may do one thing, another medication does something else, where the two are combined or administered in unison, that creates a problem. One of the most common examples of this, or a few of the cases we've been involved in, involve autoimmune suppressants, which are medications which reduce the body's natural ability to handle or to address or fight an infection. And we introduce that in combination with other medications that can have an adverse effect. It can also have an adverse effect where, for example, you administer autoimmune suppressants in a patient that has a latent infection. So the doctor who's ordering or administering something like an autoimmune suppressant really has to do their due diligence and looking at a patient's history, looking at the blood work to see what the patient's underlying conditions are and if they have an autoimmune suppressant. if they have some kind of latent infection, and you reduce the ability of the immune system to keep that particular infection in check, you're not going to let the infection run wild. So those are some of the cases that we've been involved in, and that's the general definition of what medical practice is. The common arguments we deal with from the defense side, of course, is that What the doctor did was medically appropriate or the bad result is something that happened, but it wasn't their fault. That's why we always have to work with experts who can really explain and understand the medicine and explain that if the doctor didn't do this particular thing or they did took this particular step, the result would have been different. And that's really where a lot of the battle becomes in medical malpractice is the doctor saying what was done was medically appropriate under the circumstances. And they always have reasons why it was done or why something was done or why something wasn't done. And we really have to be able to use our own medical experts to develop those claims.

As an attorney how do you develop relationships with medical experts?

Every medical malpractice case requires expert review. To find the right expert, we usually use third-party matching services. Before filing a complaint in court, I must certify that an expert has reviewed the case and confirmed that there is a reasonable basis to believe malpractice occurred.

The process involves obtaining the patient's medical records and any relevant test results, which are then reviewed by an independent physician. If the expert determines there is no case, we typically do not proceed. We move forward only when a physician in the same specialty as the accused confirms that there was a deviation from the accepted standard of care, specifies what the deviation was, and explains how it resulted in the patient's injury or condition.

Every medical malpractice case requires expert review. To find the right expert, we usually use third-party matching services. Before filing a complaint in court, I must certify that an expert has reviewed the case and confirmed that there is a reasonable basis to believe malpractice occurred.

The process involves obtaining the patient's medical records and any relevant test results, which are then reviewed by an independent physician. If the expert determines there is no case, we typically do not proceed. We move forward only when a physician in the same specialty as the accused confirms that there was a deviation from the accepted standard of care, specifies what the deviation was, and explains how it resulted in the patient's injury or condition.

Every medical malpractice case requires expert review. To find the right expert, we usually use third-party matching services. Before filing a complaint in court, I must certify that an expert has reviewed the case and confirmed that there is a reasonable basis to believe malpractice occurred.

The process involves obtaining the patient's medical records and any relevant test results, which are then reviewed by an independent physician. If the expert determines there is no case, we typically do not proceed. We move forward only when a physician in the same specialty as the accused confirms that there was a deviation from the accepted standard of care, specifies what the deviation was, and explains how it resulted in the patient's injury or condition.

We ensure that our experts have directly performed the specific procedure or treated the exact condition involved in the case. It's crucial that the expert is knowledgeable about the condition, including how it should be diagnosed, treated, and managed. This expertise allows them to evaluate whether the doctor deviated from the standard of care and, as a result, whether this lapse contributed to the patient's worsening condition or injury.

How long do these cases typically take?

In any medical malpractice case, there is often a significant delay at the start, which can be frustrating for clients who might feel that their case is stagnating. Initially, a major part of the process involves obtaining the necessary medical records, which can take anywhere from 30 to 90 days. Sometimes, doctors or medical facilities may be reluctant to release these records, requiring persistent follow-ups or even court orders to obtain them.

Once we have the records, they need to be thoroughly reviewed and summarized. We then consult with an expert to evaluate whether there was a deviation from standard care. If the expert confirms a potential malpractice claim, we proceed by filing a summons and complaint and serving the defendants, who then have 20 to 30 days to respond. Their responses often include extensive discovery demands, requiring detailed answers about what went wrong and how it affected the patient.

The discovery phase involves gathering evidence and taking depositions from all parties involved, and this process can be lengthy, especially if defendants are uncooperative. After completing discovery, we file a "note of issue" to notify the court that we're ready to proceed to trial. Depending on the county, this can result in a waiting period of two to three years before the trial actually begins.

Understanding the statute of limitations is also crucial. In New York, you generally have two and a half years to file a medical malpractice lawsuit. However, this period can be extended if the treatment was ongoing. If the treatment occurred at a public hospital or involved a city or county-employed healthcare provider, you must file a notice of claim within 90 days of the incident. Failure to do so may bar you from pursuing legal action unless you obtain a court order for a late notice. For municipal hospitals, you then have a year and 90 days to actually file the lawsuit after the notice of claim.

What are common cases you've handled involving obstetrics and birth injuries?

One common birth trauma issue is shoulder dystocia. This occurs when the baby’s shoulder becomes stuck under the pelvic bone during a vaginal delivery. As the baby’s head crowns but doesn’t emerge, doctors who fail to recognize shoulder dystocia may pull on the baby's head, potentially damaging the brachial plexus nerves, which control arm movement. This injury can lead to loss of arm function. Once doctors detect that the baby is stuck, they should use specific techniques to release the shoulder without pulling on the head.

Another problem arises when the baby is too large for vaginal delivery. If the baby’s head gets wedged, a C-section should have been planned to avoid complications.

Additionally, if the umbilical cord is wrapped around the baby’s neck, restricting oxygen, an emergency C-section may be necessary. If a baby is born with brain damage, it’s crucial to review the fetal heart monitor records for any signs of abnormal heart rates, which might indicate oxygen deprivation. Physicians should have recognized if the baby was too large for vaginal delivery or if the cord was affecting oxygen levels, and if so, performed an emergency C-section. Failure to do so may make them liable for the resulting injuries to the infant.

What should people know about collecting evidence for their own medical malpractice case? 

In cases involving birth trauma, it's crucial to have the newborn examined by an independent pediatrician to accurately diagnose any injuries. You can't rely on a doctor who may have been involved in the malpractice to provide an unbiased assessment of your baby’s condition. Therefore, seek an evaluation from an independent specialist.

Similarly, if you suspect malpractice by another doctor, it's essential to get an independent opinion. An objective evaluation will determine whether additional tests should be conducted and provide a clear picture of your actual condition. This is the only way to ascertain if malpractice occurred by understanding your true physical state.

When the medical expert says that there is likely a case of medical malpractice to counter the initial argument from the other side, is it always the case that the opinion of the medical expert wins out or does the counter arguments go back and forth even more?

Ultimately, the case goes before a jury, which must evaluate both sides and decide which version of the evidence they find more credible. Once we understand the other side's expert opinions, we conduct our own thorough investigation. This includes reviewing what these experts have stated in other cases and assessing whether their claims are medically feasible. If an expert asserts that there were no signs of a condition developing, we dig into the medical records to find evidence that contradicts this claim, revealing if the expert is not fully truthful or perhaps has not conducted a comprehensive review.

Dealing with expert opinions involves significant strategy. If one expert provides a certain opinion and another contradicts it, our task is to scrutinize and challenge the credibility of the opposing expert’s testimony. We look for gaps or overlooked details in their analysis. Often, defense experts may ignore crucial information in the medical records or charts, leading to flawed conclusions. By highlighting these omissions and asking pointed questions—such as whether they considered specific facts—we can demonstrate that their conclusions are based on incomplete or inaccurate information. This approach is essential for effectively challenging the opposing expert’s opinion and building a strong case.

How often are these cases actually brought to a jury trial?

The term "settled outside of court" can be a bit misleading, as many cases remain in the legal process for years. While they may not reach trial, they are still actively managed in court, with paperwork filed and discovery proceedings underway. In fact, approximately 90% of cases settle before trial.

Medical malpractice cases in New York are somewhat unique because insurance policies often require the doctor's consent for any settlement. Many doctors are reluctant to admit fault, which means some cases do proceed to trial. However, our firm is able to settle over 90% of our medical malpractice cases. We achieve this by gathering strong evidence and conducting thorough depositions, which demonstrate to the opposing side that we have a solid case. Even though doctors might delay agreeing to a settlement to avoid having it on their record—since New York maintains a database of such cases—they generally come to terms with us before trial, recognizing our ability to prove the case effectively.

Is it more favorable for clients to settle outside of court?

Settling a case offers a degree of certainty that you can't get from a trial. Jurors can be unpredictable, and if they have personal connections to the medical field, such as family members who are doctors, it can be challenging to ensure a fair verdict. You can't always exclude those potential biases from your jury.

A strong case presentation, where the defense recognizes the likelihood of losing, can significantly influence the outcome. This requires thorough preparation and the ability to demonstrate that you can prove your case effectively. While trials can be uncertain, there's a saying: "Show me a lawyer who has never lost a case, and I'll show you a lawyer who has never been to court."

We've achieved favorable results through diligent work, and often trials do end in a way that reflects the merits of the case. However, trials carry inherent risks and the possibility of appeals. If a case is tried and won, an appeal can lead to additional delays, sometimes extending the process by another two years, especially in certain jurisdictions like the Second Department. Settling avoids these risks and the lengthy appellate process.

Is getting to a reasonable resolution as quickly as you can what it means to have a favorable outcome?

The time value of money is definitely a factor. Additionally, there's significant value in closing a chapter and moving forward with your life. Settling a case can help you put past difficulties behind you and focus on the future.

So let's jump in. I've read that there's a growing number of car accident cases in New York. Can you elaborate on this more for us?

The numbers have been higher this year and last year than in prior years as COVID has waned. More people are out and about, walking on the streets. Manhattan, especially, is busier than ever. You see people walking, taking the trains. People are out and about, and that's corresponded to a higher number of both car accidents and pedestrians getting hit by cars.

And with regard to that, what are the most common types of injuries you're seeing these days?

Injuries, well we see all kinds of injuries. We're seeing a lot of fractures from people being hit by cars while crossing the streets. Obviously, we're seeing a lot of knee injuries, a lot of shoulder injuries. For example, when people get hit by a car, it's not only the initial impact of the car that gets hurt. A lot of times they're thrown or they fall onto the ground. There's all kinds of twisting injuries, especially with the knees or they fall down onto like an outstretched hand, for example. So, you'll see a lot of wrist injuries or elbow injuries or even shoulder injuries from people trying to brace themselves from the impact after being hit by a car. And certainly with car accidents, as always, you know, with the forward and backward motion, when you're going at a rate that's commensurate with the speed of a vehicle, then all of a sudden the vehicle hits something, it comes to a sudden stop, obviously you're getting thrown forward and backwards, and we're even seeing more airbag injuries, because as airbags are getting a little bit more sensitive, The airbags themselves cause injuries like nasal fractures and burns. Burns are a big one. You're seeing a lot more burns from airbags these days. And also, when people are at a stop and they're hit from behind, what happens is they get thrown backwards and forwards. So, you're seeing a lot of neck, a lot of back injuries. Those are really the main types of injuries we're seeing with motor vehicle accidents and pedestrians knockdowns or pedestrians who are hit by cars

Would you say most of the time it's the driver, not the manufacturer?

Well, I'd say most of the time, yeah. Most of the time, it's the driver that causes the accident in the first place. It's somewhat rare to have airbags deployed when they're not supposed to deploy. Obviously, if an airbag deploys and there's no reason for the airbag to deploy and it causes an injury, then potentially, the manufacturer is going to be liable because the airbags are supposed to be triggered when there's a sudden deceleration in the movement of the vehicle. If there's a sudden explosion of the airbag when there's no sudden deceleration and that causes an injury, potentially, there might be a defect there.

So when someone is injured in a car wreck, what are the first steps someone should take?

The first question everyone wants to know when they're injured in a car accident is who's going to pay my medical bills? or if I'm out of work and I can't work, for example, if you're a construction worker or a laborer, and you have an injury that prevents you from working, who's gonna pay you while you're out? Those are the first questions everybody who's injured in a car accident has. In New York, it's somewhat counterintuitive, and it depends on kind of what your status is, meaning are you a driver, are you a pedestrian, are you something else? So the general rule in New York is if you're injured in a car, even if the other side is at fault, Your own vehicle has to pay your medical insurance. Your own vehicle's insurance company has to provide your medical benefits and wage benefits. And then later on, your own insurance company will go after the other driver for reimbursement, but that's sort of New York's way of making sure anybody who's injured gets treated regardless of fault. So New York doesn't want people fighting over who's at fault and getting delayed in medical treatment. So, the rule in New York is if you're in a vehicle, the car insurance company that covers the car that you are in has to pay your medical bills. However, if you're a pedestrian and you get hit by a car, then the car that hit you, their insurance company has to pay your medical bills and lost wages. And it's a little bit tricky because you have to file a no-fault application within 30 days, and sometimes if you're hit by a car and taken to the hospital, you have no idea who's supposed to pay your medical bills. That's why you need an experienced personal injury lawyer, because what we do is we get the police report, we look at the insurance codes, we figure out who the insurance company is, and we can get that application done, usually within a day, to make sure that people who are hit by cars are covered. Now also, when it comes to buses and bus accidents, it's even a little bit more nuanced, because if you're on a bus that's involved in a motor vehicle accident, and you have your own insurance, what happens? You're supposed to go through, you have to go through your own insurance company first, even though your own car wasn't involved in the vehicle, or if there's a car in your household, like your mother or your father's car, you have to go through their insurance, even though you were hurt on the bus. It's only where you don't own a vehicle or there's nobody in your household that has a vehicle that you can then make the application to the bus company's insurance company. And that's who pays the medical bills. The next question everyone asks after a car accident is, you know, do I have a lawsuit? Well, the lawsuit depends on who was at fault for the accident. This is generally determined by looking at New York's vehicle and traffic law and sort of the rules of the road. Basically, anybody that violated the rules of the road is at fault and can be sued for causing the accident, depending on what kind of injury you have. New York has a kind of a crazy rules thing, you need to have a serious injury to be able to sue. And what that means in English is either a fracture, an objectively verified injury that causes some limitations, loss of fetus or a disfigurement, or really any injury that keeps you out of work or out of school for 90 days or more. So generally a lot of whether you, even if the other party's completely at fault, if you don't have an injury that's objectively verified, you still can't sue, which a lot of people think is unfair, but that's the way it is in New York.

So to clarify, and I think you may have brushed on this a little bit, if somebody gets hit by another vehicle, are they automatically at fault in New York state?

Usually, the driver has some fault. New York is a comparative state where, to be able to sue, you don't have to show the other side is 100% fault. But generally, where a vehicle hits a pedestrian, there's some fault on the part of the vehicle because New York's vehicle traffic law, especially Section 1146, requires that all vehicles exercise reasonable care to avoid hitting a pedestrian, okay? Now, the most common scenario we see where the driver of the vehicle is definitely at fault is crosswalk accidents. So, for example, when a vehicle has a green light, the pedestrians to his right or to his left, or the driver's right or to the driver's left, also have the right of way to walk. They also have the walk signal. So, typically, a lot of drivers don't realize this, but when they're turning, both the pedestrian and the vehicle have green lights. So, under New York law, the vehicle has to yield the right of way. So, the pedestrians have the right of way over a turning vehicle. So a lot of times, people will just see, oh, green light, and start turning and hit a pedestrian. Well, they're at fault, because they violated the vehicle and traffic law. And we've won case after case on summary judgment, where before even going to a trial, we've had the courts look at our motion papers and look at how the accident happens to the e-action. This driver turned, the pedestrian had the right of way, they hit the pedestrian, the driver's at fault. That's a slam dunk case. So if you're walking in a crosswalk with the light in your favor, and you get hit by a vehicle that turned, they're definitely at fault.

if a vehicle were to hit someone, can that someone still sue even if the driver had a green light?

That someone can sue always, especially if the driver had a green light, because whenever the driver has a green light, the pedestrian also has the walk signal. So if a driver is turning, because he's turning, he's going from one street onto another street. The driver who's turning has the obligation to make sure the intersection is clear of pedestrians before he starts his turn. In other words, he can't the driver of a bus, a truck, whatever, can't make a turn while there's still pedestrians in the crosswalk or so close that he's going to make contact with them because it's the driver's responsibility to avoid hitting a pedestrian.

So what is the danger to your car accident injury case if you don't seek medical attention immediately?

The biggest danger to a car accident or a personal injury case if you don't seek medical attention, it's just lack of documentation. You know, you can sit home and say, ow, it hurts, it hurts, it hurts, but the courts aren't going to buy that. You have to have an objectively verified injury to be able to sue at all. And even if I filed a case and said this person is terribly injured, they're sitting at home, they can't get out of bed. Without some medical documentation documenting what the injury is and why it's causing you to be limited, or why it's causing your pain, you have no case. So really, if you don't seek medical treatment after a car accident, you're really doing yourself a double disservice. Because one, you're still gonna have the injury, it's not getting treated, you're probably gonna get worse. And two, when you do file a lawsuit, you're not gonna be able to prove your case. You're not gonna be able to prove what injuries you have. And the longer you wait to see a doctor, the longer you try to delay and think you're fine and it's just going to heal on its own and don't see treatment, when it does turn out to be more serious than you originally thought, or when it does turn out to have some permanency, the insurance companies and the judges are going to turn around and say, hey, you weren't that badly hurt because you didn't go to the doctor. Or they're going to try and dispute causation and say, if this injury was really from this accident, well, then you would have went to the doctor sooner. You wouldn't have waited weeks or a month or whatever. So really, you're doing yourself a disservice. The no-fault benefits are there. They're there for you to get treatment. That's what they're there for. So if you're afraid your insurance rates are going to go up or you need to delay seeking treatment, you're really doing yourself a disservice.

So how should people pay for their medical bills while their personal injury case is ongoing?

In the case of a car accident, for example, the medical insurance is there for you. That's what the no-fault benefits are. Basically, you see the doctor and the doctor is billing the insurance company directly. In the case of, let's say, a construction accident, if you have ongoing medical treatment, there's workers' comp usually. By law, they're supposed to be workers' comp, even though not every employer carries it. They're supposed to, but in general, if you get hurt at work, you're entitled to workers' compensation benefits. And while we're talking about that, let's talk about a kind of a new thing that's coming up or a new scenario we're seeing. Uber, Lyft. food delivery guys, you know, it's kind of nuanced now. So under New York, if you get hurt while you're driving a person in Uber or Lyft, if you're on as long as you're on the app, you're an employee, you get workers compensation. If you're not on the app, and you're just driving around, you get no fault. Now, if you're on a bicycle, For example, or if you're doing Uber Eats, you're not covered by the liberty laws, and now you're an independent contractor, which means if you're in a car and you get hit by another vehicle while you're doing Uber Eats because you don't have a person in the car or you're not doing the equivalent of a taxi, a ride share, now you have to go through no fault. Same thing if you're on a bike. If you're on a bike, even if you're on the app, even if you're transporting food for Uber Eats, you're still technically an independent contractor because the Liberty Laws don't apply to bicyclists. So if you get hit by a car, now you have to go through no fault. And because you're a bicyclist, you have to go through the no fault of the car that hit you. New York's laws in terms of who pays for medical bills are a quandary. It's like a trap for the unwary. That's really why when you do get into an accident in New York, you don't want to get stuck on these medical bills. You want to be able to get the treatment. That's why you really need to see an attorney or consult with an attorney who has experience handling these cases and knows the ins and outs, because you take the wrong step and all of a sudden you're stuck with medical bills.

Well, it's funny, especially with what you're mentioning in terms of Uber and all that. I can imagine for a lay person, that's just a legal nightmare to try to dissect all that.

Yeah, especially if you're a young guy, especially if you're an immigrant, maybe English isn't your first language, all of a sudden you're taking food from a restaurant to your customer, you get hit by a car or on a bicycle, and you get taken away to the hospital. How are you supposed to know what to do and how to find who's supposed to pay for your medical bills? A lot of people get scared, a lot of people get nervous, a lot of people just don't pursue it because they're afraid. But there's a mechanism by law to pay for those medical bills and to make sure you can get the treatment that you need after you've been injured in an accident. But to really know and to do it right, you have to seek legal help because you can't do it yourself. It's almost trying to navigate the legal system in a personal injury case, in your own personal injury case, is really like trying to do surgery on yourself, even if you are a doctor. It's not a good idea.

What are some of the holdups in terms of insurance that may limit or deny auto wreck claims in New York state?

One of the biggest issues you'll see in New York state with limitations in coverage is where a situation where the driver that hits you has inadequate coverage to cover the damages that he did. For example, if you have somebody who, if you're a decent driver and you're a decent person and you have good insurance limits and you're hit by somebody who has basic liability insurance, which in New York is 25 over 50, which means the insurance policy covers $25,000 per person with a maximum of $50,000 per accident, so it's up to $25,000 for each individual. And all of a sudden, you have these terrible and horrific injuries. Well, yeah, we have a problem, right? That's why New York affords somewhat of a remedy, which means that in every insurance policy, there's a provision called SUM, which is an acronym that stands for Supplemental Underinsured Motorist Benefits. What that means is say you're, you know, a decent person, you have high insurance limits, there's usually a clause in your insurance policy that says, in fact, it's mandatory that you have a clause, or you at least have the option to have a clause that says if you're hit by somebody who has lesser insurance than you, you can look to your own insurance company to make up for the difference between what they have and the insurance policy that you've paid for. So, for example, if you have one of the common scenarios you'll see is someone will be hit by a car and the car only has $25,000 in insurance. Okay, your own personal coverage or somebody in your household, maybe an older person like your dad, has coverage on their vehicle of $100,000 or $250,000. Well, you can settle for the $25,000 with the initial person who hit you and then go back and look to your own insurance company for the SUM, or Supplemental Underinsured Motorist, for the difference between, say, the $25,000, $100,000, or $250,000. So, when you get into an accident, it is actually important to look at your own coverages. And if you have high coverage, you want to put that insurance company on notice as soon as possible so they don't try and disclaim and say, oh, no, you waited too long, or you didn't give us reasonable notice of the claim, or that sort of thing. So, you know, it's like they say in the fight game, protect yourself at all times.

How does your experience in handling personal injury claims in New York help your clients?

When you come to me, you're getting somebody who knows what they're doing. I have over 20 years of experience. I can handle one of these cases in my sleep. I know the ins, I know the outs. I know I can see five moves ahead of what's going to happen before it even happens. It's almost like playing chess. I know, I know based on one or two moves, I know how the rest of it's going to unfold. So you want somebody with that experience, your background to be able to guide you, explain it to you. and make sure you just get it right from the get-go. That way you're not stuck with medical bills or you're not stuck in a situation where you don't have insurance and you can't get treated. You want things done right. You want to be in capable and experienced hands

Pedestrian accidents in New York are an unfortunate reality. The high volume of people walking throughout Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and other boroughs, combined with the endless stream of traffic, makes accidents bound to happen. As experienced trial attorney Michael Joseph explains, these accidents often leave victims facing serious injuries and complex legal situations. Understanding your rights as a pedestrian is crucial in navigating the aftermath of such incidents, especially when the driver involved lacks insurance or flees the scene.

Common Pedestrian Injuries

Pedestrian accidents can result in a variety of injuries, many of which are serious. According to Michael Joseph, some of the most common injuries include:

• Knee injuries from the initial impact.
• Fractures in the arms and hands, as victims instinctively try to protect themselves.
• Back, neck, and shoulder injuries from being thrown or pushed to the ground by the force of the vehicle.

These injuries can be severe, requiring long-term medical treatment, rehabilitation, and, in some cases, surgical intervention.

What Happens If the Driver is Uninsured or Flees the Scene?

One of the most common questions Michael hears is, “What do I do if the driver who hit me either has no insurance or fled the scene?” The good news is that New York law provides protections for pedestrians in both situations.

If you’re hit by an uninsured driver or involved in a hit-and-run accident, you can still seek compensation. New York’s Uninsured Motorist Coverage allows victims to file a claim with their own insurance company for benefits such as medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Additionally, the state has the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAC), which provides coverage for pedestrians hit by uninsured or unidentified drivers. This fund can cover up to $50,000 for medical expenses and lost wages and an additional $25,000 for pain and suffering.

However, as Michael stresses, it’s essential to file a police report within 24 hours of the accident. Without this documentation, you may lose your right to pursue a claim.

The Legal Steps to Take After a Pedestrian Accident

In any pedestrian accident, the steps you take immediately afterward can significantly impact your ability to recover compensation. Michael outlines the critical actions to follow:

1. Contact the police and file a report. This is crucial in any accident but especially important in hit-and-run cases.
2. Document the accident—take pictures of the vehicle, if possible, and gather any other relevant evidence.
3. Seek medical attention immediately, even if you don’t feel injured at the time. Some injuries, such as knee or back injuries, may not manifest until later.
4. Contact an experienced attorney who understands the nuances of pedestrian accident cases in New York. The legal process can be challenging, and one misstep could jeopardize your claim.

What If You’re Partially at Fault?

In some pedestrian accidents, the injured party may share some responsibility. New York follows a system of comparative fault, which means that even if a pedestrian is partially at fault, they can still recover compensation. However, any damages awarded will be reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to the pedestrian. For instance, if a pedestrian is found to be 25% at fault, their compensation will be reduced by 25%.

Pedestrian accidents are an unfortunate reality in New York. However, understanding your legal rights and the steps to take can make all the difference in the outcome of your case. Whether the driver is uninsured, fled the scene, or you’re partially at fault, legal remedies are still available. Working with an experienced attorney like Michael Joseph ensures that your case is handled properly, and you can focus on recovery while leaving the legal complexities to the experts.

Comining soon