Blog: Thoughts on Law and Life


Depending upon one’s practice area(s), most lawyers spend a considerable amount of time writing. Litigators compose pleadings, trial briefs, motions, affidavits and an array of other legal documents. Commercial practitioners write contracts, leases, deeds, etc. Those engaged in estate planning and probate work assemble wills, trusts and other testamentary documents. Nearly all of us write letters, many letters. For many years, I flirted with the notion of writing outside of my law practice. The results were many quiet evenings at the keyboard, culminating in the publication of was my first book, entitled “A Roomful of Elephants & Other Essays.”

The book is a collection of thirty non-fictional essays, covering a wide range of topics including pursuits that have interested me, people who fascinated me, places I have visited and various random subjects. Only two of the thirty touch upon the practice of law. Many deal with things that happened to me a long time ago, during my childhood and teenage years.

I have been pleasantly surprised by the positive reception the book has received. You can sample it on, where it is available for sale. As of this writing, I have a handful of promotional copies still on hand but just a few. If you would like to receive a free copy and I still have one available by the time you contact me, I will be happy to send one to you. You can use the contact form on this website.

Lavern’s Law Finally Passes

In 2017, 606 bills passed through the New York State Assembly and the Senate on their way to Governor Cuomo’s desk. Cuomo signed or vetoed 605 of them.

So what’s left? Lavern’s Law. This past February 2018, after it was finally passed by the New York State Assembly and Senate, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed Lavern’s Law into effect.

The law is named after Lavern Wilkinson, who went to Kings County Hospital on February 2, 2010, with chest pain. A radiologist saw a suspicious mass on the x-ray, but didn’t inform Ms. Wilkinson. Two years later when her complaints worsened and Ms. Wilkinson was finally correctly diagnosed with cancer, the 15-month statute of limitations to report medical malpractice in cases against a City hospital had expired. (The statute of limitations is 2 and ½ years in cases against private hospitals and physicians). Wilkinson passed away shortly thereafter at age 41, leaving behind a severely autistic daughter.

Under Lavern’s Law, a cancer victim who was misdiagnosed would have 2 1/2 years from the date of discovery to bring a lawsuit. However, if the negligence happened more than seven years prior, the person would be barred from suing. It should be noted that the reforms of Lavern’s Law only apply to cancer cases and not to other instances where the statute of limitations expired due to non-discovery of the malpractice.

Prior to Lavern’s Law, New York Law gave just 2 1/2 years for suits against non-governmental medical facilities, one of the shortest statutes of limitations in the country (and 15 months against governmental facilities). However, the clock starts when the treatment error occurs, not when the patient learns of the problem. New York is one of just six states without a “date of discovery” law.

This is problematic for a few reasons. Treatment error is sometimes not documented by medical professionals and oft times not discovered until the statute of limitations has expired. But more importantly, patients and the family of patients who have already suffered severe, preventable harm are now being denied a chance at legal restitution due to no fault of their own. Critical medical information was withheld from Lavern Wilkinson, information that could have potentially saved her life. In what world does it make sense to close legal doors to citizens before they even get a diagnosis?

New York State patients already have the odds stacked against them. With some of the lowest legal fees for attorneys, the New York State medical community has broad leeway for many acts of malpractice – since taking smaller suits is often not financially feasible.

New York has some of the best medical care in the world. In a cruel twist of irony, it has also become one of the worst places at holding healthcare providers accountable when that care goes wrong.

Research by Alex Eidman


The Supreme Court of the United States hears only certain types of cases and it accepts only a small minority of the cases that it has the power to hear. Then, it hears oral argument in a small minority of the cases that it does accept. The nature of my practice makes it highly unlikely that any of my cases will ever make its way to the nation’s highest court or that I will have the opportunity to argue a case there. Still, when I was presented with the opportunity to be admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court, I decided to take advantage of it.

After getting my paperwork, including the required recommendations in order, I joined about thirty of my friends and colleagues for the group admission, which took place on a beautiful day in May. When we entered the hallowed halls of the most famous and influential court in the world, I was first struck by the small size and beautiful, understated intimacy of the space. I am certain that I have argued many simple motions in larger courtrooms in Manhattan. Suddenly, without fanfare, the most famous jurists in the world assumed their seats on the bench. Well, there were seven of nine present that morning because Justice Alito was absent due to a conflict of interest with the case that was about to be decided and the seat formerly held by the late Antonin Scalia, had not been filled. But it was still quite impressive. Within minutes, Chief Justice Roberts was reading the Court’s decision in a case involving water rights. He had a pleasant, friendly and open demeanor. I tried listening closely but my attention kept shifting from one Justice to another. As Chief Justice Roberts continued reading, I watched Justice Clarence Thomas leaning back deeply, really reclining, practically prone on his chair.

After the new decision became the law of the land, the court officer asked my colleague, Jay Breakstone, to present each of us for formal admission to the Court. Jay is an accomplished appellate lawyer, a prior member of the SCOTUS and had organized the group admission. I vaguely remember hearing my name called, then standing and being sworn in as a member of the Court. I was proud to be doing this in front of my wife Daphne and my youngest son, Benjamin, who had taken the train from Baltimore that morning. In addition, I was thrilled to be joined by my closest legal colleague, Sam Rosmarin, who was sworn in beside me.

After the ceremony, our group thoroughly enjoyed a private breakfast reception with the incredible Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who spoke to us and posed for a group photograph. Months before, Jay had written to each of the Justices, asking if any would be able to join us. One accepted and that speaks volumes about her.

With my admission, I now have the privilege to argue a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, should the opportunity ever present itself. I am also entitled to sit in the section of the Court reserved for its lawyer-members and to observe oral arguments, should I happen to be in Washington.

Supplemental Uninsured Motorist (SUM) Law Passes

Motorist insurance is a tricky thing.  One component that was traditionally ignored, neglected or misunderstood is Underinsurance or Supplemental Uninsured Motorist (“SUM”) coverage. This coverage is designed to “supplement” or add to the insurance coverage of the party who negligently causes your injury (or an injury of someone living in your household or riding in your car). The problem was that before June 18, 2018, drivers needed to actively purchase additional SUM coverage. For example, if Mr. Smith suffered a life-altering injury due to the carelessness of Mr. Jones and Mr. Jones only had $25,000 in bodily injury liability coverage, and Mr. Smith’s own policy contained $300,000 of SUM coverage, he conceivably would be able to collect $25,000 from the Jones policy and an additional $275,000 from his own policy (that is, $300,000 minus a credit for the $25,000 he already received). On the other hand, if Mr. Smith did not have additional SUM coverage, all he would recover is the $25,000 from Mr. Jones even if his own policy contained $300,000 in bodily injury liability coverage, to protect strangers. In fact, many people unwittingly drove around with bodily injury liability limits of $250,000 or more (at great expense) to protect strangers who they might hurt, without having additional SUM coverage to which protect themselves and their families (and which is relatively inexpensive).

About 15 percent of drivers do not have the legally required coverage. The unfortunate outcome for many drivers has been unexpected, exorbitant medical bills because they didn’t know supplemental coverage existed, or were unaware of their ability to purchase it and the modest price (about $33 a year for the lowest SUM coverage to about $135 a year for much higher coverage according to one car insurance company).

Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently signed a bill (A8519/S5644) that requires insurance companies to make available SUM coverage at the same level as bodily injury limits and removes caps related to such coverage. The law, which took effect on June 18, 2018, requires insurers to notify customers at least once a year about the availability of such coverage, explain what it is and encourage them to consider it.

Drivers who do not want to pay for it can sign a waiver to decline it or pay for a reduced amount of SUM coverage. Because drivers have an option to opt out, this is not a new, unsupported expense being forced on New Yorkers. Since drivers will pay for SUM coverage through their premiums, it’s not a new unfunded mandate on insurance companies. Rather, this is a sensible reform that provides individuals (who have been harmed through no fault of their own) and families a better chance to meet what can be severe medical costs. The physical and emotional toll an accident takes on an individual cannot be reversed.  Thanks to this legislation, the deck is now a little less stacked against victims.

Research by Alex Eidman

Ralph Nader and ‘The American Museum of Tort Law’

A tort, is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. The law of civil wrongs, whether caused by assault, battery, negligent (careless) conduct, medical malpractice, dangerous consumer products, libel or slander is all gathered under the large legal umbrella known as tort law. Generally speaking, if one has been injured by the tortious conduct of another, the injured party is entitled to be compensated for the loss or damages.

For many top executives in Corporate America, however both Ralph Nader and basic tort law are villains. Why? Because for Corporate America, the first priority is profits, not safety. What these critics fail to recognize or acknowledge is that personal injury lawsuits and especially large class-action cases, along with the negative publicity they generate, put pressure on big business to enact sorely needed safety measures and improvement. Frequently, litigation, along with the financial toll it can extract, is the only effective mechanism that will persuade big business including manufacturers, real estate empires, the medical establishment and insurance companies, to effect positive changes to safeguard the welfare of the everyday consumer. It is no surprise therefore, that for the past several years, big business, under the pretext of saving jobs and reducing medical malpractice insurance premiums, has placed our civil system of justice squarely within its cross-hairs and has made Tort “Reform” a legislative priority. Effective lobbying by Corporate America, along with the insurance and medical industries, have resulted in numerous anti-consumer measures in many states, including monetary limits on compensation, mandatory arbitration and the loss of trial by jury. But here I want to accentuate the positive, so I will leave Tort “Reform” (or “deform” as we call it), to a future, separate blog.

It is beyond dispute that lawsuits, judgments and public exposure can be directly linked to the dramatic reduction in car accident deaths in the last five decades. Warnings on cigarette boxes and the reduction in horrific 3rd degree burns from scalding cups of coffee, can also be attributed to the pressure applied by civil tort cases. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader has dedicated his life to putting corporations on trial for unsafe practices and to forcing changes in business practices that makes us all safer—safer cars, safer work and play environments, safer gadgets and appliances.

Despite all the improvements, the fight for product safety remains ongoing. GM, in a scandal involving the illegal concealment of deadly defects in ignition switches, was forced to pay $900 million to the government and $575 million to settle the majority of the civil lawsuits filed by the families of the 124 confirmed killed and the thousands injured. Volkswagen was just caught scamming auto-emissions tests by programming car software to switch to a low-emissions mode only when it detects a test underway. Recently the New York Times ran a three-part series highlighting the havoc that mandatory arbitration clauses, contained in the fine print on many software licenses and service contracts, has been wreaking on our rights. These clauses, with the blessing of the current Supreme Court of the United States, force consumers to submit disputes to privately-retained arbitrators and to forgo having their day in court. Apple and Google have both invoked arbitration clauses to fight lawsuits. If software runs your ‘smart’ car, and causes it to crash, will you be able to file a claim or class-action case in public court? Probably not. Medical providers are also beginning to insist that patients sign such clauses prior to treatment. As a result of legislative inaction, Americans are unwittingly signing away our legal rights to bring claims before a jury in a court of law, as is guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution.

For me, as both a private citizen and an attorney endeavoring to obtain just compensation for personal injury and medical malpractice victims, RALPH NADER is a HERO. To this day, he continues to work tirelessly to protect the rights of the individual and to uphold our constitutional rights to trial by jury in a court of law. You can now be the judge Mr. Nader and his life’s work by visiting the recently opened American Museum of Tort Law (Winsted, CT), which was developed by Mr. Nader. The museum, in a fun and user-friendly way, reveals the truth about the importance of tort law, emphasizing cases where the civil justice system led not only to compensation for injured parties, but also to changes in corporate practices that made everyone safer.