http://www.oginski-law.com
Listen in as Gerry Oginski, an experienced medical malpractice trial lawyer practicing law in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Staten Island, Nassau & Suffolk explains why a young woman agreed to have a hysterectomy when she didn’t need one. Find out what the doctor told this young woman would happen if she didn’t have her uterus surgically removed.
Learn what the pathologist found after the surgery was over. Watch the video to find out how I was able to help this young woman solve her legal problems.
For more information go to Gerry’s educational website, or call Gerry personally for answers to your legal questions at 516-487-8207. He welcomes your call.
The Law Office of Gerald Oginski, LLC
25 Great Neck Rd., Ste. 4
Great Neck, NY 11021
516-487-8207
Related Posts
Highest Rated Videos
Cardiac Malpractice in New York- How To Hire a Medical Malpractice Attorney in New York
- New York Medical Malpractice-Improper Knee Replacement
- New York Medical Malpractice Attorney Blooper
- New York Medical Malpractice-Death From Ruptured Shunt
- Unnecessary Hysterectomy-New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer Explains
- Misdiagnosed Heart Attack-NY Medical Malpractice Attorney Explains
- What is “Medical Malpractice” in New York?
- New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer-What Is An Answer?
- NY Medical Malpractice-What is a Bill of Particulars?
Pages
Archives
- December 2011
- October 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
Categories
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:21 am
Gerry,
Great video. And great job with the case you described. As a personal injury attorney myself, I am surprised the defense was willing to take the case so far as trial with such clear liability. Do you think the defense was testing your resolve and testing you to see if you were willing to go to trial because they know that inferior lawyers shrink from trial work?
Art
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Hi Art- thanks for the comments. I think the defense wanted to push as far as possible and try to limit the damages. Their liability expert sounded very convincing to the jury, however, on cross-exam he had to admit many of our claims.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Thanks for explanation. Congrats on a job well done.