A New York hospital hit back on Thursday at a trial against the establishment and one of its best doctors by a popular comedian and host of “Daily Show” Trevor C. Noah. Along with a litany of denials, a law firm representing the doctor and the hospital demanded Noah’s deposition in early February.
that of Noah trial, which was first reported by Law & Crime on December 9, 2021, accuses the prestigious hospital of special surgery and Dr Riley J. Williams III, an orthopedic surgeon, for providing care “in a negligent and negligent manner.” This too alleged that the defendants “failed to inform” Noah “of the risks, dangers and alternatives to treatment and medical care” that he was receiving – or, in other words, the hospital would not have obtained consent enlightened. In addition, the legal claims the hospital “did not investigate the qualifications, skills, abilities, aptitudes and capabilities of” its “doctors, nurses and other employees”.
The hospital immediately said Noah’s trial was “without merit” in a December statement to Law & Crime. the hospital and Dr Williams confirmed that claim in court records this week. The two defendants – the doctor and the institution – are represented by Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP.
Besides admitting a few mundane matters (such as the hospital’s address, its corporate status, and the fact that Dr Williams is associated with the facility), the hospital in a Thursday court filing denied almost all of Noah’s factual and legal charges. Hospital noted there was insufficient information to answer some of Noah’s remaining claims. These answers and the ones that have followed are standard answers in the early stages of a civil litigation.
Closest to responnse – what is technically called a “verified answer” in New York State civil right – comes to the bottom of the case is the following missive: “the defendant answering [the hospital] and RILEY J. WILLIAMS III, MD has rendered certain professional services to and for TREVOR C. NOAH in accordance with accepted standards of medical care, and further seeks leave to refer all questions of law to court and all questions of fact to the judge of the latter. . “
The verified responnse also suggests that the damage that Noah allegedly suffered could have been his own fault – at least in part.
“[W]All damages which may have been suffered at the time and place alleged in the complaint by the plaintiff were caused, in whole or in part, by the culpable conduct of the plaintiff and without any negligence on the part of the defendant â, the document answers. âDamages, if any, must be reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s culpable conduct. “
This responnse thus sought to invoke the so called “pure and comparative negligence“law. In New York, offenders are responsible for the percentages of damage or harm they are deemed to have legally caused – even if the perpetrators are only responsible for 1% and the complainants are 99% responsible for what happened. (Some other states allow defendants to avoid paying damages altogether if the plaintiffs are half or mostly at fault.)
Elsewhere, the responnse suggests that Noah may have “failed to mitigate his alleged damage.” Further on, he said any âalleged damagesâ requested by Noah must be offset by âany collateral benefit, remuneration or compensation receivedâ. (Below New York law, plaintiffs are sometimes prevented from obtaining double payment for the damages suffered; for example, complainants cannot recover certain insurance or disability benefits then recover the same amount of money from a defendant in court. Any legal victory is therefore reduced by the value of the defendant’s eligible insurance claims. Certain types of payments, however, do not trigger New York’s âsource of collateralâ rule and may result in multiple payments to an injured defendant or the defendant’s estate.)
The defendant of the hospital also invoked as a protective shield the defenses offered by New York Public Health Law for the “alleged failure to obtain informed consent” for Noah’s proceedings. In addition, the respondent hospital claimed that it had “not been properly served with a copy of the summons and complaint”.
the document later states that “Noah’s action is barred or that the defendant is entitled to compensation against any award herein because the plaintiff has previously recovered sums for all or part of the damages claimed herein.” The claim does not provide any details of the compensation – if any – that has already changed hands.
Dr Williams issued a almost identical verified answer with similar denials and defenses.
In a separate document, the defendants’ law firm requested Noah’s deposition on February 8, 2022.
“That says the party [Noah] must be examined on all the material evidence and necessary to the defense of this action â, indicates the notice of filing.
The defendants also filed a 71-page collective series of questions and other requests was targeting Noah for details of his alleged illnesses.
that of Noah trial was short on specific facts and long on charges when he was filed late last year. He alleged that a surgery on November 23, 2020 was botched somehow – but he did not say specifically how or why. He further indicated that Noah had been a patient of the accused between August 25, 2020 and December 17, 2020.
In its closest possible disclosure of the details of the action, the original trial alleged that the defendants did not “prescribe the appropriate medications”, did not “stop certain prescription drugs” and did not “use the appropriate tests and examinations to diagnose the conditions from which” Noah “was suffering. “
The original trial also alleged that Noah suffered “serious bodily harm”. He has elsewhere described his injuries as “permanent, serious and serious”. The injuries are said to have left Noah “sick, lame and disabled.”
According to trial, Noah âsuffered grievous and painful bodily injuries; severe sustained nervous shock, mental anguish, severe emotional distress and great physical pain; has been confined to bed and home for a long time; was forced to undergo hospital and medical care, treatment and treatment; lost the enjoyment of life; has been prevented from carrying out his usual activity for a long period; and since some of his injuries are permanent in nature, he will continue to suffer similar damage in the future.
Justin blitz, a founding partner of New York law firm Schulman Blitz, LLP, filed the lawsuit on Noah’s behalf.
âMy client and I have decided not to comment on the pending litigation at this time,â Blitz said in an email to Law & Crime shortly after filing the case.
[Photo by Rich Fury/Getty Images.]
Do you have a tip we should know? [emailÂ protected]