Barker Patterson Nichols, LLP

Adam Covitt secures unanimous defense verdict in Queens County Supreme Court On March 14, 2025, Adam Covitt, assisted by Gonzalo Suarez, obtained a unanimous defense verdict before the Honorable Claudia Lanzetta in Queens County Supreme Court. The plaintiff alleged contraindicated removal of a congenital melanocytic nevus by our client, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon, resulting in significant scarring in an 8-year-old child. Through successful cross-examination of the plaintiff’s expert and lay-witnesses, Mr. Covitt was able to establish the procedure was indicated and properly performed. Moreover, he demonstrated that the family was aware of the possible outcomes. After extensive deliberations, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict.

Brian Andrews and Dylan Braverman Obtain Dismissal of Death and Statutory Claims Against Manhattan Catholic Nursing Home?????? ? Brian Andrews and Dylan Braverman moved to dismiss prior to answering the complaint against a claim of wrongful death, malpractice and statutory violations against a prominent Manhattan Catholic nursing home. Plaintiff asserted a lengthy and detailed complaint alleging that the patient was exposed to and died of COVID-19. This was rebutted pre-answer by the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Medical Officer. The court found that hose Affirmations conclusively established good faith compliance with COVID-19 guidelines and thus dismissed on the EDTPA COVID-19 immunity. Once again, the BPN team is thrilled to have help those that risked their lives to help New Yorkers during the pandemic.

Brian Andrews and Dylan Braverman Obtain Pre-Answer Dismissal of Wrongful Death and Nursing Home Claims Against Metropolitan Area Nursing Home ? Brian Andrews and Dylan Braverman are very pleased to obtain the dismissal of all death and nursing home violations claims against a Long Island nursing home which provided care during the heart of the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff claimed that longstanding infection control lapses resulted in exposure and death from COVID-19. The BPN COVID-19 Team moved to dismiss rather than answer the Complaint. The motion to dismiss was supported by evidence refuting the claims, and establishing that the care was impacted by the good faith response to the COVID-19 guidance. While plaintiff argued that the COVID-19 immunities did not apply due to a statutory exception for gross-negligence, the Long Island Court agreed with the BPN COVID-19 Team that the claims did not rise to the level of gross negligence. As a result, all claims were dismissed. The COVID-19 Team is thrilled to have obtained this result for our client, who served the most needy New Yorkers in their hour of need during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Jennifer Lobaito, Zack Benoit and Dylan Braverman Obtain Pre-Answer Dismissal of Wrongful Death and Infection Control Claims ? Plaintiff brought claims of wrongful death, lapses in infection control and statutory violations against our client, a Brooklyn, New York nursing home. Jenifer Lobaito and Dylan Braverman moved to dismiss rather than answer, with the support of the Affirmations of the patient’s attending physician and the facility’s medical director. Plaintiff opposed, and in doing so claimed that the alleged wrongful acts amounted to gross negligence. At oral argument, Zack Benoit pointed out that the claims do not constitute gross negligence and that the standard was met for pre-answer dismissal. Despite plaintiff’s opposition, the Brooklyn court agreed and dismissal all claims. BPN is very happy to have obtained dismissal of these claims on behalf of a very deserving community nursing home who has rightfully long been well regarding in New York City.

Joshua Cohen wins summary judgment on behalf of a major NYC Hospital Joshua Cohen won a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action against a major NYC hospital alleging negligence resulting in amputation of the plaintiff’s hand and leg. The plaintiff claimed the hospital failed to prevent, diagnose and treat tissue ischemia and gangrene following a cardiac arrest with the use of vasopressors.?It was further alleged that consultations and interventions were not timely obtained and implemented causing the need for the double amputations. The Court agreed with our arguments that the vasopressors were necessary to save the plaintiff’s life and all care was timely and appropriate. The Court further found that the plaintiff’s expert’s affirmation was conclusory, unsupported by the evidence and failed to raise an issue of fact as to proximate cause.

#TenYears!

EDWARD J. AREVALO AND ERISA GJINI SECURE A UNANIMOUS DEFENSE VERDICT IN SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY. ? ? On December 20, 2024, Edward J. Arevalo, assisted by Erisa Gjini, secured a unanimous defense verdict before the Honorable Stephen Hackeling in Suffolk County Supreme Court.?In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff claimed that right eye cataract surgery performed in 2015 led to a decrease in visual acuity and blindness in the right eye.?The defense contended that the cataract surgery was properly performed and that plaintiff’s decrease in visual acuity and blindness in the right eye was due to other conditions known as an epiretinal membrane and posterior capsule opacification.?Plaintiff refused to undergo any type of treatment or surgery for these conditions.?Regarding the informed consent claim, the jury found that the defendant ophthalmologist did not provide appropriate information to the plaintiff.?However, the jury found that a reasonably prudent person in the plaintiff’s position would have had the surgery had appropriate information been provided.?Regarding the medical malpractice question to the jury, the jury found that the defendant ophthalmologist did not depart from the standard of care in performing cataract surgery in March of 2015.?This was a one week trial with three hours of jury deliberations.?

Taryn Fitzgerald and Megan Lawless Obtains Dismissal of All Claims Against Prominent Nursing Home ? Taryn Fitzgerald and Megan Lawless moved to dismiss the negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, malpractice and statutory violation claims against a prominent nursing home based on the EDTPA and PREP Act immunities. The court granted the pre-answer motion and dismissed this case with prejudice prior to discovery. The court found that the medical record and the affirmation of the attending conclusively established entitlement to EDTPA dismissal. The court also found that the complaint’s gross negligence claims were conclusory and thus not a valid exception to EDTPA dismissal.

Dylan Braverman Obtains Dismissal of All Claims Against Major Manhattan Hospital, an ED Doctor and a Volunteer COVID-19 Attending ? Dylan Braverman obtained dismissal of all claims against a work-class Manhattan hospital, an ED attending and a New Jersey physician who volunteered to assist during the darkest days of the COVID-19 surge. Plaintiff brought negligence and malpractice claims against BPN’s clients as well as other facilities and physicians. After this case was transferred from another firm, the BPN COVID-19 team moved to dismiss mid-discovery claiming that both the state EDTPA and federal PREP Act immunities warranted dismissal. After protracted motion practice and court deliberation, the Manhattan judge dismissed all claims against BPN’s clients on the grounds that both the state EDTPA immunity and federal PREP Act warranted dismissal. In doing so, the court found this is the exact scenario that the PREP Act was intended to bestow immunity. We are pleased to have obtained dismissal on behalf of our clients, while the claims continue against the other parties in this litigation. ?

Dylan Braverman Obtains Dismissal of Death and Malpractice Claims Against a Pulmonologist?????? ? On a motion to reargue the court’s prior decision, Dylan Braverman argued that the court applied the wrong standard of review in denying a pre-answer motion to dismiss all claims against a pulmonologist who was treating a lung cancer patient. Dylan had originally moved on the grounds that the claim was barred due to the EDTPA COVID-19 immunity, since the lung cancer patient’s care was impacted by the fact that all outpatient care was closed due to COVID-19 restrictions in the early days of the pandemic. Plaintiff countered that there were factual questions relevant to surgical decisions that required discovery and a determination by the jury. The court agreed. However, in moving to reargue, Dylan pointed out that the court applied the wrong standard of review in this instance, where the proper standard of review was merely whether the care was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Finding that BPN met that burden, and that the factual issues introduced by plaintiff were not supported by the record, all claims against the pulmonologist were dismissed.