Lasik Eyes Surgery - Hagele "certified" doctor drowning in malpractice lawsuits

Author

Hagele "certified" doctor drowning in malpractice lawsuits

Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com

2004-10-21, 7:12 pm

Hagele claimed that "There is no unusual legal trouble regarding medical
care" for Dr. Dello Russo, whom Hagele has "certified".

"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:l98an0dsciib2hamdgko2pbkqv8beooh2m@4ax.com...
> 2) Dr. Dello Russo's "legal trouble" includes him suing vendors who
> did not deliver as promised and suing others to protect his assets and
> rights. There is no unusual "legal trouble" regarding medical care.

However, an article devoted to Dr. Dello Russo's legal problems appeared in
the New Jersey Law Journal in March 2004. Perhaps Hagele hardly bothers to
read legal journals.
____________________________

New Jersey Law Journal
March 29, 2004
LENGTH: 1512 words

HEADLINE: Seeing Eye to Eye;
Driven by coverage issues, lawyers reach multimillion--dollar settlement of
malpractice suits against N.Y. tristate area's king of laser eye surgery

Joseph Dello Russo, the eye doctor whose aggressive ad campaigns made him
the king of laser surgery in the New York metropolitan area, wants to stop
fighting 16 former patients from New Jersey who claim in malpractice suits
he made their vision worse.

Without admitting that Dello Russo did anything wrong, his lawyers agreed on
March 12 to settle on the issue of liability and let an arbitrator decide
how much compensation, if any, is due to plaintiffs treated at one of his
clinics, the New Jersey Eye Center of Bergenfield.

Under the agreement presented to Bergen County Superior Court Judge Peter
Doyne, the decisions by the arbitrator, retired Judge Arthur Minuskin, will
be nonappealable.

There was one glitch. Dello Russo wasn't happy that word of the settlement
leaked out last week, and he said during a break in treating patients in his
New York office on Friday that there was no deal.

His lawyer, Steven Kern of Bridgewater's Kern Augustine Conroy & Schoppmann,
says Doyne told lawyers on Thursday that confidentiality appeared to be a
central element of the settlement and that Dello Russo had a right to seek
cancellation of the pact.

It remains to be seen whether Dello Russo exercises that right and tries to
scuttle a settlement that looks like an ingenious compromise.

Insurance issues drove the warring litigants together.

Dello Russo's personal malpractice carrier, Interstate Insurance Co., has
conceded it is on the hook for claims totaling up to $3 million. The purpose
of the settlement was to lock in an even bigger policy with Princeton
Insurance Co. For weeks, Princeton had been denying that its $24 million
worth of coverage on the Eye Center alone was not available for the claims
in the case. That denial gave Dello Russo the right to settle on his own.
Four days after his lawyersdid so, Bergen County Superior Court Judge Joseph
Yannotti ruled that Princeton has to provide coverage. The company can
appeal. It also would have an opportunity to prove that the separate peace
between Dello Russo and the plaintiffs is collusive and therefore not
binding.

Would Princeton's cash be needed? Plaintiffs' lawyers have said in the past
that some of their cases might be worth seven figures, but the defense
suggests that's hype.

"If you ask the plaintiffs, it's seven or eight hundred million dollars,"
Kern says. "If you ask the defendants, it's about $1.95. It's somewhere
between those figures."

Dello Russo Not Liable for Claims

Lawyers for Princeton did not return calls for comment on whether they plan
to appeal, bring a collusion charge or decide to go along hoping Minuskin
will be stingy with Princeton's money. Under the settlement, Dello Russo is
not personally responsible for the claims.

The suits allege that Dello Russo deviated from the standard of care, that
patients were treated by at least one staff member who did not have the
necessary licenses and that some patients suffered permanent eye damage.

The charges were repeated during years of pretrial maneuvering that required
state Supreme Court intervention at one point. The allegations clashed with
Dello Russo's much--advertised claims that his brand of laser surgery is
safe and effective and that the number of patients with post--operative
problems is low, given the thousands of people he has treated at his clinics
in New Jersey, Manhattan and Brooklyn.

In a landmark decision in February, the Supreme Court ruled that as a doctor
subject to professional negligence claims, Dello Russo couldn't also be sued
for false advertising under consumer fraud statutes ---- a ruling applicable
to all professionals, including lawyers.

His principal adversaries throughout have been Bruce Nagel and David Mazie
of Livingston's Nagel Rice & Mazie, who represent eight of the settling
plaintiffs.

Three years ago, Dello Russo sued the firm for defamation for running
newspaper ads inviting patients to seek the firm's legal advice. The suit
was dismissed on free speech grounds.

As far as Nagel is concerned, the deal is a go. "I'm pleased that a large
group of cases have settled," Nagel said on Friday, but he, Mazie and other
lawyers didn't return calls or declined to comment on the settlement, citing
the confidentiality clause.

Despite the clause, none of the plaintiff, defense or insurance company
lawyers at two settlement hearings requested that the record of the
proceedings be sealed and the video system Doyne uses churned out a tape
that was placed in the courthouse inventory of recordings available to the
public.

The agreement, in Dell'Ermo v. New Jersey Eye Center, Ber--L--009074--01,
calls for the plaintiffs to stop pursuing Dello Russo on liability or for
personal contribution, to take assignment of his rights to the Princeton
policy and to consolidate the cases.

Dello Russo waived his right to contest liability or proximate cause. His
lawyers will not be allowed to present live witnesses on his behalf. They
will be allowed to rebut the plaintiffs or their experts and make arguments
to the arbitrator, whose decisions will not be appealable. One plaintiff who
is taking part in the process has reserved the right to appeal.

Removing the Tinge of Collusion

The impetus for the settlement was Princeton's refusal to provide coverage.
Under the so--called Griggs doctrine, named for Griggs v. Bertram, 88 N.J.
347 [1982], defendants whose carriers deny coverage can settle with the
plaintiffs. That settlement binds the carrier if the courts later find
coverage exists.

To prevent collusion against a carrier by the defendant and plaintiff, an
insurer doesn't have to pay unreasonable sums. In this case, Dello Russo
and the plaintiffs are betting that bringing in a respected former jurist,
like Minuskin, to set the damage amounts will dispel any suggestion of
collusion.

Kerns told Doyne on March 11 that Dello Russo settled because of the
position taken by Princeton Insurance Co. and otherwise would contest the
allegations vigorously "and is of the position that he has engaged in no
wrongdoing and has not deviated from recognized standards of care and would
vigorously defend the care he rendered to patients as appropriate."

For any plaintiff, using Griggs as a weapon is dangerous because there is a
risk that the carrier will prevail in the declaratory judgment action,
leaving behind a judgment--proof defendant. In this case, the carrier didn't
prevail. In his March 16 ruling in New Jersey Eye Center v. Princeton
Insurance Co., Ber--L--299--04, Yannotti rejected the carrier's assertion
that its policies on the clinic for the relevant years, 1999 through 2001,
didn't cover Dello Russo and his medical staff.

The company had argued that the Eye Center wasn't vicariously liable for
physician malpractice and that the doctors' acts were intentionally
excluded.

"Princeton's assertions are without merit," Yannotti ruled. "In general, the
Princeton policy provides that Princeton will pay all sums that the New
Jersey Eye Center may be legally required to pay for an act or omission
resulting from a 'medical incident,' which involves the provision of
professional services."

He added, "Under Princeton's interpretation, the policy would only cover
medical incidents involving the Center's two receptionists, its office
manager and the information systems employee." He also suggested that the
size of the premiums belied the suggestion that coverage was limited. The
Eye Center paid premiums of $39,000, $104,000 and $106,000. That provided
coverage of $6 million per medical incident with an $8 million aggregate,
bringing the total limit to $24 million. Mazie says the coverage decision
has wider application because it rejects the theory that an insurance
company can provide medical liability protection for a professional
association or corporation without implicating the professionals in the
group.

Daniel Pomeroy of Springfield's Mortenson & Pomeroy, a firm outside the case
that has done defense and plaintiffs'work in medical malpractice cases, says
policies tend to differ, so it's hard to make generalizations about a ruling
like Yannotti's. He also says many doctors in groups rely solely on their
personal coverage and do not obtain separate medical liability policies for
the practice as a whole.

In Dello Russo's case, if only the $3 million Interstate coverage is
available and the claims exceed that sum, each plaintiff would receive a pro
rata share.

At one point during the March 11 hearing when the issue of who would pay the
costs of the arbitration arose, Kern got a laugh when he blurted out,
"Princeton." In the end, the lawyers decided the parties would share the
costs. If the arbitration goes forward in Dello Russo's case and the
coverage is there, it won't be the end of litigation for Dello Russo.

A federal case against him remains and at least one new case against him is
in the pipeline. "I'm preparing one right now," says Alan Medvin, of
Newark's Medvin & Elberg.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-22, 7:12 pm

Hanson was finally right about something. I don't read a lot of law
journals. Tell Ariel thanks.

serebel

2004-10-24, 10:08 pm

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<iqvin0pk2d8mlp0tbute24eh9vdmhrr145@4ax.com>...
> Hanson was finally right about something. I don't read a lot of law
> journals. Tell Ariel thanks.

Glenn, this is just ambulance chaser crap, going after someone just
for the sake of "deep pockets". Law journals are just ledgers now.

SErebel