Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, P.C. is proud to announce that nine of its attorneys have been selected to the 2024 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists.
Super Lawyers is a part of Thomson Reuters and is a research and peer-review rating service. The Super Lawyers selection process comprises hundreds of thousands of statewide or regional surveys supplemented by a comprehensive examination of each nominee’s background and experience, focusing on such criteria as verdicts and settlements, transactions, representative clients, honors and awards, educational background, and any other outstanding achievements. Only 5 percent of the total lawyers in the state are selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers, while only 2.5% of attorneys under the age of 40 or who have been practicing for ten years or less will be selected as Rising Stars.
The DHD attorneys recognized on the 2024 Super Lawyers List are:
In addition, the firm is also proud to announce that Ryan Notarangelo, Alexa Luzzi and Cara Anan were named to the 2024 New Jersey Rising Stars list.
…
For more information about the selection process methodology for the awards referenced above, please visit SuperLawyers.com
No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Mark Petraske secured another defense verdict after a 7-week trial in Camden County. Mr. Petraske represented an Emergency Room physician in a significant personal injury case brought on behalf of a 54-year-old woman who died after presenting to the Emergency Room with necrotizing fasciitis and severe sepsis. Plaintiff alleged that the surgical team delayed in bringing the patient to the operating room by doing unnecessary imaging and engaging in poor decision making and that the Emergency Room doctor delayed in starting antibiotics and fluid resuscitation and failed to communicate with the surgical team in a timely manner which delayed the patient from receiving timely surgical intervention. Mr. Petraske defended the allegations against the Emergency Room physician on both liability and causation grounds and, while the orthopedic attending was found negligent, the Emergency Roon physician was determined to be not negligent by the jury.
Mark Petraske is the Co-Chair of DHD’s Medical Malpractice Defense Department. Mr. Petraske is a Certified Civil Trial Attorney and throughout his distinguished career has successfully represented healthcare professionals and institutions in professional negligence cases. Since March 2022, Mr. Petraske has started 16 trials, and secured 10 defense verdicts. Three cases involved mistrials due to plaintiff-related issues, one has been retried to a defense verdict. Three matters settled during trial for the initial offers. Two of the cases have resulted in published appellate decisions, along with two unpublished Appellate decisions in cases where he had secured dismissals on behalf of DHD’s clients.
Mark Petraske secured another defense verdict after a 9-day trial in Middlesex County. Plaintiff alleged that a cataract surgery was performed improperly that resulted in a near loss of vision in the eye. During the insertion of the artificial lens the trailing haptic broke which required the artificial lens to be cut up and removed piece by piece. A new lens was inserted, and the patient was seen on post operative day one. On post op day one the cornea was noted to have significant edema, a known risk of any cataract surgery. The patient had a history of uveitis and an ocular herpes virus that was quite in the eye leading up to surgery. The defendant doctor believed that the virus may have been reactivated due to required extra surgery and began an aggressive course of therapy to resolve the corneal edema. Ultimately, she achieved 20/50 vision under the doctor’s care but could not recover the central portion of the cornea and a referral to a corneal specialist was made. After consulting with several cornea specialists, the plaintiff underwent a cornea transplant but due to some technical issues only achieved a 20/400, uncorrected vision. She now must wear a scleral lens to be able to correct to 20/25. The defense argued that many of the things she is claiming as current complaints pre-existed the surgery, and that her complaints of vertigo were not ocular complaints at all and were being treated by a neurologist on referral from her ophthalmologist. The jury returned a verdict of 5-1 in favor of the doctor, after just under an hour of deliberations. This defense verdict continues a streak of 9 defense jury verdicts — in 5 different counties — since May 2022.
Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, P.C. is proud to announce that seven of its attorneys have been selected to the 2023 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists. Super Lawyers is a part of Thomson Reuters and is a research and peer-review rating service. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than five percent of the attorneys in the State of New Jersey.
The DHD attorneys recognized on the 2023 Super Lawyers List are:
In addition, the firm is also proud to announce that Ryan Notarangelo, Alexa Luzzi and Cara Anan were named to the 2023 New Jersey Rising Stars list. Each year, this designation is given to less than 2.5 percent of New Jersey attorneys recognized as the top up-and-coming attorneys who are 40 years old or younger, or who have been practicing for 10 years or less.
…
A description of the selection process methodology for the awards referenced is available at SuperLawyers.com
No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
In Camp v. Scimeca, plaintiff alleged the defendant physician deviated from accepted standards in failing to diagnose and treat glaucoma in the plaintiff’s left eye, resulting in permanent loss of vision. Plaintiff, an avid reader and author, had presented to the defendant ophthalmologist with complaints of loss of peripheral vision and was found to have elevated intraocular pressure. Defendant physician prescribed medication to increase the outflow of the fluid within the eye (aqueous humor) to reduce the pressure, which initially was effective, but the patient was not able to tolerate the medication. The patient then underwent two laser procedures to reduce the intraocular pressure, which also was initially effective, but the pressure ultimately crept back up. The patient went to another eye surgeon and underwent a shunt procedure, the placement of a tube directly into the eye to drain the fluid to reduce the patient’s intraocular pressure, but the patient nevertheless lost 90% of her peripheral vision in her left eye. Plaintiff’s expert opined that defendant physician should have performed the shunt procedure much earlier and that had he done so plaintiff would not have lost her eyesight. The defense demonstrated that the doctor maintained intraocular pressure below the 30 mm Hg threshold that damages the optic nerve, a standard with which the plaintiff’s expert agreed. Using literature supplied by plaintiff’s expert, the defense demonstrated that it would have been inappropriate to do the shunt procedure until it was clear that the less risky and less invasive treatments of medication therapy and laser therapy were not working. The jury returned a unanimous verdict that the defendant was not negligent in his treatment.
Russ Hewit and Mark Petraske both obtained defense jury verdicts of no cause for action in favor of their clients within the span of a week. Russ Hewit tried a medical malpractice case in Union County from January 9 to February 9 and Mark Petraske completed a 7-day dental malpractice trial in Middlesex County on February 7.
Russ Hewit obtains defense verdict in suit for the wrongful death of a 35 year old married mother of two. In Teixeira v. Khazaei, tried in Union County, Marlenes Teixeira, a 35 year old 1st time mother delivered healthy baby twins. Within an hour of delivery and for the next 3-4 hours, she developed elevated blood pressures that fluctuated into the severe range. She suffered a cerebral hemorrhage four and half hours after delivery and then passed 5 months later. Plaintiffs sued her treating obstetrician and the resident and labor and delivery nurse providing postpartum care for failure to diagnose and treat preeclampsia and postpartum hypertension. Plaintiff called an obstetrical expert on the standard of care and a neurologist and neuroradiologist that decedent’s cerebral hemorrhage was caused by untreated hypertension. Decedent was a public-school principal in Elizabeth and plaintiff’s economist testified that net economic damages exceeded $6.8 million. Plaintiff also sought pain and suffering experienced by decedent prior to her death. Russ Hewit, representing the attending obstetrician, presented expert testimony from an obstetrician that the decedent’s fluctuating blood pressures did not require treatment with antihypertensive medications and testimony from a nephrologist / hypertension expert and neuroradiologist that decedent’s cerebral hemorrhage was not caused by the elevated blood pressures, but by pregnancy induced changes to the mother’s cardiovascular system and/or by an unknown, pre-existing arteriovenous fistula in the brain. Following four weeks of testimony, the jury returned a verdict on February 9 that the attending obstetrician had not deviated from accepted standards of care in his treatment. The jury found that the co-defendant nurse had deviated from nursing standards of care, but that such deviation did not cause the decedent’s hemorrhage. The co-defendant resident settled prior to trial.
Mark Petraske secures jury verdict in case alleging permanent bone destruction in jaw. In Green v Albani, tried in Middlesex County, plaintiff alleged defendant dentist was negligent in the placement of two implants, causing an infection that developed into an antibiotic resistant infection and osteomyelitis (infection of the jawbone) and resulting in permanent bone destruction and bone loss. The patient required subsequent hospitalization, surgery and IV antibiotic treatment and also sought damages for the permanent bone loss in her jaw. Plaintiff called a dental expert who opined that the defendant dentist should have used advanced imaging techniques which would have enabled better evaluation of the jaw in order to determine where and how best to locate the implants in order to avoid a predictable jawbone defect that allowed the infection to take hold. Plaintiff also alleged a lack of informed consent on the risks of the procedure. Mark Petraske presented expert testimony and evidence that advanced radiology was not necessary and would not have resulted in any different location of the implants, and that the proper pre-procedure workup was performed. Using the existing radiology studies, Mark demonstrated to the jury that the implants were placed in solid bone structure and presented convincing evidence that the infection was a disclosed and accepted risk of the procedure. After 7 days of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant after only 26 minutes of deliberation. This is Mark Petraske’s sixth favorable jury verdict in 7 months. Since jury trials resumed in June 2022 (after courts were closed during COVID), Mark is 6-0 at trial.
Mark Petraske successfully defended a physician in a recent medical malpractice case and secured a “No-Cause” verdict after a 10-day trial in Burlington County. The case was complex and involved a dispute over whether a primary care physician failed to diagnose an evolving arterial occlusion in the lower leg and whether that alleged failure to diagnose resulted in the need for the amputation of the plaintiff’s leg below the knee. At trial, Mr. Petraske presented evidence which disputed the plaintiff’s contentions about the level of care and the alleged failure to diagnose by the physician, and effectively presented an alternative causation argument through expert testimony which showed that the likely cause of the plaintiff’s condition was unrelated to the physician’s care and treatment. The jury agreed with the defense presentation by Mr. Petraske and returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendant physician after deliberating for about 5 hours. In addition to the complex medical and scientific issues in dispute, the trial itself presented several procedural challenges brought about by Covid-19, including a “hybrid” approach to jury selection and participation – i.e., the jury was selected virtually but then the jurors attended the court proceedings in person. Most of the witnesses were live, but two witnesses appeared by video link. One interesting development during trial was that one of the attorneys and experts were diagnosed with Covid-19. Rather than declare a mistrial, the court stopped the trial for 5 days until the attorney and expert tested negative and the trial was then resumed to completion.
Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, P.C. is pleased to announce that seven of its attorneys have been selected to the 2022 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists. Super Lawyers is a part of Thomson Reuters and is a research and peer-review rating service. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than five percent of the attorneys in the State of New Jersey.
The DHD attorneys recognized on the 2022 Super Lawyers List are:
In addition, the firm is also proud to announce that Ryan Notarangelo and Benjamin Forrest were named to the 2022 New Jersey Rising Stars list. Each year, this designation is given to less than 2.5 percent of New Jersey attorneys recognized as the top up-and-coming attorneys who are 40 years old or younger, or who have been practicing for 10 years or less.
…
No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. A description of the selection process methodology for the awards referenced is available at SuperLawyers.com
Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a research-driven, peer-influenced rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Attorneys are selected from more than 70 practice areas and all firm sizes, assuring a credible and relevant annual list.
The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes:
The objective of Super Lawyers is to create a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys to be used as a resource for both referring attorneys and consumers seeking legal counsel. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country, as well as the New Jersey Super Lawyers Digital Magazine. Please join us in congratulating our DHD attorneys on their selection.
…
No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. A description of the selection process methodology for the awards referenced is available at SuperLawyers.com
