Med Mal News

Attorney Charged with Stealing from Med-Mal Claimants' Guardian Accounts

Brooklyn lawyer Steven T. Rondos has been charged with stealing more than $4 million from 23 guardianship bank accounts he supervised for incapacitated elderly people and children who received settlements in medical malpractice actions. Rondos and his law firm, Raia & Rondos, were charged Jan. 28 with money laundering, grand larceny and scheme to defraud. All the crimes charged in the indictment took place between 2001 and 2008. A Jan. 28 release from New York City's District Attorney stated: “In the medical malpractice cases, the victims were awarded large sums of money for their medical, physical, and developmental needs. As guardian of the assets of the incapacitated person, Rondos was legally obligated to manage and distribute funds as needed for the care of that person. Primarily, Rondos's obligation was to ensure that funds would be available for the needs of the incapacitated person and would be available for his or her lifetime. However, in addition to making distributions for the incapacitated people, Rondos wrote checks to himself and used the stolen funds to pay for personal expenses. In at least three instances, when he was confronted with the theft, Rondos stole funds from another victim to pay back the prior victim.” The District Attorney claims Rondos used some of the funds to pay his mortgage and make renovations to his home.

Surgery Checklist Saves Lives

A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine finds that surgical patient mortality rates decrease dramatically when surgical team members use a 19-item surgical safety checklist. Haynes, A.B., et al, NEJM Volume 360:491-499, Jan. 29, 2009, Number 5: “A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population”: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/5/491 (last accessed 2/2/09). Eight hospitals, all located in different countries, took part in the World Health Organization's “Safe Surgery Saves Lives” program, which asked their surgical crews to use the checklist to improve team communication and create a more uniform level of care for all patients. Researchers looked at surgical complications for patients before the checklist protocol was implemented as compared to the outcomes after surgical teams began using the checklist. One and a half percent of the 3,733 pre-checklist patients died post-surgery, while only .8% of the 3,955 post-checklist patients did. That reduction in deaths by nearly 50% was mirrored by the reductions in non-lethal complications.

The safety checklist's 19 items are spread among three sections: 1) Before induction of anesthesia; 2) Before skin incision; and 3) Before patient leaves operating room. The first item in the section “Before induction of anesthesia,” for example, tells medical personnel to have patients confirm their own identities, confirm what operation they are there for and what site is to be operated on and confirm their consent for the operation. The checklist can be found at: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/5/491/T1 (last accessed 2/2/09).

Detention Center Employees Disciplined for Detainee Medical Care Lapses

Rhode Island's Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility has taken disciplinary action against seven employees for their parts in the events preceding the death of immigration detainee Hiu Lui Ng in August 2008. The actions range from dismissal to reprimands.

Ng, who had been in the United States for several years and was seeking legal status through his marriage to an American citizen, was arrested and detained for overstaying his visitor's visa in July 2007. In April 2008, while still in custody, Ng began complaining of severe back pain and itchy skin. On July 3, 2008, he was transferred to the Wyatt Detention Facility where, supposedly, he could get better access to medical care. Instead, Ng's family's lawyers say, his medical condition was practically ignored, and Ng was denied the medical tests, physical assistance and medications he needed. Only a court order, issued after a July 31, 2008, hearing could persuade Wyatt's personnel to get Ng the medical tests he needed. Those tests, which showed Ng was suffering from late-stage cancer and a broken spine, took place just days before his August 2008 death.

Since the Ng case came to the light, the federal government has stopped sending immigration detainees to the Wyatt facility. Ng's family is suing the detention center.

Prosecutor and Judge Barred from Trying Nurses Who Quit

A New York appellate court has blocked prosecution of 10 nurses and the lawyer who advised them to leave their jobs when they felt they were being unfairly treated. The Suffolk County, NY, District Attorney Thomas J. Spota had charged the 10 Filipino nurses with, inter alia, conspiracy to engage in conduct constituting the crimes of endangering the welfare of a child and endangering the welfare of a physically disabled person. The lawyer was charged with criminal solicitation to induce the nurses to engage in their allegedly illegal conduct. In an unusual move, the defendants petitioned the court for a writ of prohibition, to bar the district attorney from prosecuting, and the trial court justice from presiding over, the cases against them.

The petitioners claimed the criminal action violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and their Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from involuntary servitude. In granting the petition, the court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that an individual's right to be free from involuntary service may be limited in “exceptional cases, such as the service of a sailor ' ” (Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 243). This, however, was not an extreme case because the nurses “were engaged in private employment rather than the performance of public service. Moreover, while they possessed the education and training necessary to care for chronically ill patients, including children on ventilators, these skills are not so unique or specialized that they cannot be readily performed by other qualified nurses.” Rather than endangering their patients by their actions, the court found that “the greatest risk created by the resignation of these nurses was to the financial health of [the nursing home].”

Having determined that the nurses could not validly be charged with the crime of which they were accused, the court also sided with the attorney who advised them to quit their positions, as there could be no criminal solicitation to induce the nurses to commit a crime if there was no crime. Additionally, the court would have been loath to proscribe the kind of advice the attorney gave to his clients, even if it had proven wrong. The court wrote, “We cannot conclude that an attorney who advises a client to take an action that he or she, in good faith, believes to be legal, loses the protection of the First Amendment if his or her advice is later determined to be incorrect. Indeed, it would eviscerate the right to give and receive legal counsel with respect to potential criminal liability if an attorney could be charged with conspiracy and solicitation whenever a District Attorney disagreed with that advice.”

Attorney Charged with Stealing from Med-Mal Claimants' Guardian Accounts

Brooklyn lawyer Steven T. Rondos has been charged with stealing more than $4 million from 23 guardianship bank accounts he supervised for incapacitated elderly people and children who received settlements in medical malpractice actions. Rondos and his law firm, Raia & Rondos, were charged Jan. 28 with money laundering, grand larceny and scheme to defraud. All the crimes charged in the indictment took place between 2001 and 2008. A Jan. 28 release from New York City's District Attorney stated: “In the medical malpractice cases, the victims were awarded large sums of money for their medical, physical, and developmental needs. As guardian of the assets of the incapacitated person, Rondos was legally obligated to manage and distribute funds as needed for the care of that person. Primarily, Rondos's obligation was to ensure that funds would be available for the needs of the incapacitated person and would be available for his or her lifetime. However, in addition to making distributions for the incapacitated people, Rondos wrote checks to himself and used the stolen funds to pay for personal expenses. In at least three instances, when he was confronted with the theft, Rondos stole funds from another victim to pay back the prior victim.” The District Attorney claims Rondos used some of the funds to pay his mortgage and make renovations to his home.

Surgery Checklist Saves Lives

A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine finds that surgical patient mortality rates decrease dramatically when surgical team members use a 19-item surgical safety checklist. Haynes, A.B., et al, NEJM Volume 360:491-499, Jan. 29, 2009, Number 5: “A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population”: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/5/491 (last accessed 2/2/09). Eight hospitals, all located in different countries, took part in the World Health Organization's “Safe Surgery Saves Lives” program, which asked their surgical crews to use the checklist to improve team communication and create a more uniform level of care for all patients. Researchers looked at surgical complications for patients before the checklist protocol was implemented as compared to the outcomes after surgical teams began using the checklist. One and a half percent of the 3,733 pre-checklist patients died post-surgery, while only .8% of the 3,955 post-checklist patients did. That reduction in deaths by nearly 50% was mirrored by the reductions in non-lethal complications.

The safety checklist's 19 items are spread among three sections: 1) Before induction of anesthesia; 2) Before skin incision; and 3) Before patient leaves operating room. The first item in the section “Before induction of anesthesia,” for example, tells medical personnel to have patients confirm their own identities, confirm what operation they are there for and what site is to be operated on and confirm their consent for the operation. The checklist can be found at: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/5/491/T1 (last accessed 2/2/09).

Detention Center Employees Disciplined for Detainee Medical Care Lapses

Rhode Island's Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility has taken disciplinary action against seven employees for their parts in the events preceding the death of immigration detainee Hiu Lui Ng in August 2008. The actions range from dismissal to reprimands.

Ng, who had been in the United States for several years and was seeking legal status through his marriage to an American citizen, was arrested and detained for overstaying his visitor's visa in July 2007. In April 2008, while still in custody, Ng began complaining of severe back pain and itchy skin. On July 3, 2008, he was transferred to the Wyatt Detention Facility where, supposedly, he could get better access to medical care. Instead, Ng's family's lawyers say, his medical condition was practically ignored, and Ng was denied the medical tests, physical assistance and medications he needed. Only a court order, issued after a July 31, 2008, hearing could persuade Wyatt's personnel to get Ng the medical tests he needed. Those tests, which showed Ng was suffering from late-stage cancer and a broken spine, took place just days before his August 2008 death.

Since the Ng case came to the light, the federal government has stopped sending immigration detainees to the Wyatt facility. Ng's family is suing the detention center.

Prosecutor and Judge Barred from Trying Nurses Who Quit

A New York appellate court has blocked prosecution of 10 nurses and the lawyer who advised them to leave their jobs when they felt they were being unfairly treated. The Suffolk County, NY, District Attorney Thomas J. Spota had charged the 10 Filipino nurses with, inter alia, conspiracy to engage in conduct constituting the crimes of endangering the welfare of a child and endangering the welfare of a physically disabled person. The lawyer was charged with criminal solicitation to induce the nurses to engage in their allegedly illegal conduct. In an unusual move, the defendants petitioned the court for a writ of prohibition, to bar the district attorney from prosecuting, and the trial court justice from presiding over, the cases against them.

The petitioners claimed the criminal action violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and their Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from involuntary servitude. In granting the petition, the court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that an individual's right to be free from involuntary service may be limited in “exceptional cases, such as the service of a sailor ' ” ( Bailey v. Alabama , 219 U.S. 219, 243). This, however, was not an extreme case because the nurses “were engaged in private employment rather than the performance of public service. Moreover, while they possessed the education and training necessary to care for chronically ill patients, including children on ventilators, these skills are not so unique or specialized that they cannot be readily performed by other qualified nurses.” Rather than endangering their patients by their actions, the court found that “the greatest risk created by the resignation of these nurses was to the financial health of [the nursing home].”

Having determined that the nurses could not validly be charged with the crime of which they were accused, the court also sided with the attorney who advised them to quit their positions, as there could be no criminal solicitation to induce the nurses to commit a crime if there was no crime. Additionally, the court would have been loath to proscribe the kind of advice the attorney gave to his clients, even if it had proven wrong. The court wrote, “We cannot conclude that an attorney who advises a client to take an action that he or she, in good faith, believes to be legal, loses the protection of the First Amendment if his or her advice is later determined to be incorrect. Indeed, it would eviscerate the right to give and receive legal counsel with respect to potential criminal liability if an attorney could be charged with conspiracy and solicitation whenever a District Attorney disagreed with that advice.”