top of page
Personal Injury lawyers - Wolf Law PC Red Bank NJ

Top-Rated Personal Injury Lawyers in New Jersey

Get the Compensation You Deserve

Personal Injury

When you’ve been injured because of an automobile accident, a fall down, a defective product, or medical malpractice you need experienced legal representation. You are naturally concerned about paying your medical bills and your loss of income. You may be entitled to receive money to compensate you for the injuries, disability, and lost income you have experienced due to no fault of yours.
 
Randolph H. Wolf has been successfully representing clients suffering injuries since 1983. Along with his Partner Amanda Wolf, he has achieved results for his clients ranging from a settlement of one million dollars for a client burned in an industrial accident to what may be the only punitive damage verdict in the state of New Jersey ($500,000.00) against a doctor for covering up a surgical error in a medical malpractice case. Many of his cases have been written up in the New Jersey Jury Verdict Review.

Car & Truck Accidents

Representing drivers and passengers injured in crashes caused by negligence, distracted driving, or commercial vehicle incidents

Medical Malpractice

Pursuing claims against healthcare providers for surgical errors, misdiagnoses, and other preventable medical mistakes

Motorcycle Accidents

Fighting for motorcyclists seriously injured in collisions due to careless drivers or unsafe road conditions

Pedestrian Accidents

Advocating for individuals struck by vehicles while walking, often suffering serious or life-threatening injuries

Products Liability

Holding manufacturers accountable for injuries caused by defective or dangerous products

Slip and Fall Accidents

Helping clients recover damages for falls caused by unsafe property conditions like wet floors or uneven surfaces

Results

$1,000,000 Settlement - Product Liability IGNITION WHILE CLEANING ELECTROSTATIC SPRAY PAINTER – SEVERE BURNS TO ARMS, CHEST, BACK AND LEGS. Monmouth County, NJ This was a products liability action in which the male plaintiff in his 50’s, who was standing next to a co-worker who was cleaning an industrial electrostatic spray painter by flushing solvent through the hose into a bucket in a sink, contended that the spray painting device was defective. The plaintiff contended that the equipment should have contained an interlock which would prevent it from being cleaned if the high voltage component of the power supply, which was used in the spray painting of metal, was inadvertently activated during the cleaning process. The plaintiff contended that the high voltage component resulted in the build up of the “electrical potential” which caused a spark which in turn ignited solvent vapors that had built up in the area of the sink. The plaintiff further contended that warnings supplied by the equipment manufacturer were inadequate. The plaintiff contended that he sustained third degree burns over 39% of his body including the arms, chest back and legs. The evidence disclosed that the electrostatic paint equipment is often used to paint metal and that it comes equipped with a high voltage component which facilitates even coating on metal. The investigating police officer had determined that the high voltage power source was activated when he inspected the device after accident. The plaintiff’s expert engineer contended that the use of the high voltage power supply when using the solvent was dangerous because the solvent was more likely to build-up an electrical charge which could result in a spark and fire. The expert contended that the machine should have had an interlock to prevent the high voltage power supply from operating while the machine was being cleaned. The defendant denied that the product was defective or that such an interlock was necessary. The defendant further contended that the warnings were adequate. The plaintiff maintained that the warnings on the machine were not sufficiently clear and were not placed in a conspicuous location. The defendant further contended that it had offered a training program and that the employer failed to have the plaintiff and co-employee take part in this program. The plaintiff countered that if such a course was necessary, the defendant should have placed warnings on the equipment that uncertified persons should not be permitted to use the machine. The plaintiff also contended that the machine could have been rendered much safer without undue cost by providing an interlock and that in view of the failure of the defendant to do so, its reliance on warnings should not be accepted. The plaintiff suffered third degree burns over 39% of his body, including the arms, chest, back and legs. The plaintiff contended that he required a one-month hospitalization during which he underwent regular debridements. The plaintiff maintained that the procedures were painful despite the use of painkilling medication. The plaintiff related that he missed approximately one year from work. The plaintiff contended that the permanent scarring is particularly severe and that it is clearly permanent in nature. The plaintiff also contended that the skin has a mottled and puckered appearance. The plaintiff maintained that he will suffer relatively minor restriction of motion in the non-dominant arm permanently. The plaintiff contended that he suffered a very significant post- traumatic depression and required some months of psychotherapy. This condition essentially resolved. The plaintiff is married. The case settled prior to trial for a total of $1,000,000. The defendant paint sprayer manufacturer had contributed $700,000. The plaintiff had also contended that the solvent itself was defective because of mislabeling which reflected that the solvent was “combustible,” rather than “flammable.” The plaintiff contended that the solvent was, in fact, flammable which reflected that it had a lower flash point and that flammable products would not be appropriate for use when cleaning the paint sprayer. The defendant solvent manufacturer contributed $150,000. Finally, the plaintiff had also named the renter of the industrial uniform, contending that the combination of cotton and polyester of which uniform was made was susceptible to melting as it burned and that cotton, which would not melt and which comprised the plaintiff’s pants, would be less dangerous. This defendant contributed $150,000. COMMENTARY The defendant had contended that the warnings were adequate and further stressed that it had offered a safety program to the employer which trained workers to avoid dangers. The plaintiff, who would have argued that the warnings were not sufficiently clear or conspicuously placed, would also have endeavored to undermine the defendant’s case by arguing that the defendant should have taken greater steps to ensure participation in the training program such as placing warnings on the machine that uncertified individuals should not use it. Moreover, the plaintiff would have strenuously argued that the hazard could have been easily and effectively prevented through the use of an interlock which would prevent the equipment from being cleaned through flushing solvent through the system when the high voltage component was activated. In this regard, the plaintiff would have argued that since the defendant could, as a practical matter, have readily made the equipment much safer, obviating the need to solely rely on warnings, the safety program and/or warnings provided should not relieve the defendant of liability. Regarding damages, the plaintiff would have argued damages in a low key manner, preferring to permit the severe scarring from the burn injuries to speak for themselves. Additionally, the plaintiff, who would have briefly shown the actual scars to the jury, had also planned on introducing the photographs without initially having them passed among the jury members, permitting them to view the photographs for the first time during deliberations, thereby endeavoring to minimize the chances of the effect of the photographs being diluted by repeated observations. Finally, as has often been noted, traumatic incidents such as the ignition which occurred in this case leading to extensive burn injuries can often create a very strong jury response.

$863,480 Verdict - Slip and Fall TORT CLAIMS ACT – COUNTY JAIL ACTS IN PALPABLY UNREASONABLE MANNER IN FAILING TO PROPERLY CLEAN SPILL – PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE OF STATE DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES PRESENT TO SERVE PAPERS ON INMATE SLIPS AND FALLS, SUFFERING HERNIATIONS SUPERIMPOSED ON PREVIOUSLY UNDIAGNOSED SPINAL STENOSIS – NEW JUNCTIONAL HERNIATION FOLLOWING SURGERY WITH RETURN OF RADICULOPATHY. Monmouth County, NJ The plaintiff, at the time a 60-year-old assistant case worker for the NJ State Division of Child Protective Services, contended that the defendant Monmouth County acted in a palpably unreasonable manner in failing to follow procedures for cleaning a spill. The plaintiff maintained that as a result, she slipped and fell on a clear liquid as she was walking in the main corridor with a corrections officer as she was attempting to serve papers on an inmate. The plaintiff asserted that she suffered herniations at L3-4 and L4-5 that were superimposed on previously asymptomatic and undiagnosed spinal stenosis. The plaintiff underwent an initial fusion, had minimal residuals and was able to return to work for approximately 1 ½ years. The plaintiff contended that she then developed a junctional herniation at L2-L3 with return of radiculopathy, that she declined recommended surgery and that she was forced to retire at an earlier time than otherwise would have been the case. The plaintiff maintained that immediately after she fell, she stuck her finger in the liquid, and that although it was clear, it felt oily. The plaintiff also related that she observed an inmate with a mop standing to the side of the corridor with two other inmates. The plaintiff elicited testimony from jail officials that the policy is that after a spill was reported, an officer would stand next to it until a work crew arrived and cleaned it. The plaintiff also elicited testimony that the policy provided that the officer would remain until the area was dry and that while it remained wet, warning signs would be placed. The defendant denied that the incident took place. The defendant pointed out that the plaintiff did not file an incident report with the jail. The defendant also denied that inmates would be permitted to carry a mop in the facility unless as part of a cleaning crew under the supervision of an officer. The plaintiff contended that she was trained to report an incident to her employer and that since it occurred at approximately 6:45 p.m., she could not do so until the following morning. The plaintiff reported the incident to the state at that time and contended that her claims should be accepted. The defendant argued that if the incident occurred, the plaintiff failed to make adequate observations and was comparatively negligent. The plaintiff developed pain radiating from the lower back and into the back of the of the leg. MRI revealed disc herniations that were superimposed on previously asymptomatic spinal stenosis. The plaintiff underwent fusion surgery with instrumentation. She had minimal residuals and was able to return to work for approximately 1 ½ years. The plaintiff contended that she then began experiencing lower back pain that radiated to the front of her leg. The plaintiff’s orthopedist diagnosed a junctional herniation at the level above the previous fusion and recommended a second surgery. The plaintiff, was advised of the risks, which included paralysis and the possibility it would be unsuccessful, and decided that in view of the risks, and the fact that a junctional herniation had occurred after the first surgery, not to have the recommended surgery. Her orthopedist testified that her decision was reasonable and without the surgery she would have permanent lifting restrictions. The plaintiff contended that she would have worked until age 70 if it had not been for the accident and that she was not able to continue beyond age 65 because she was not able to lift children to transport them as required by her job. The plaintiff’s economist testified as to net past lost wages after deductions for payments received and the present value of future lost wages. The plaintiff’s claim for past and future income loss was approximately $450,000. The plaintiff’s economist also maintained that the loss of household services was approximately $250,000. Medical bills of $103,171 were stipulated. The Court instructed the jury over Plaintiff’s objection that they could consider that the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by refusing to undergo the recommended second surgery. The jury found that the defendant acted in a palpably unreasonable manner, was 100% liable for the injuries, and awarded $863,480, including $103,171 for medical bills, $125,000 for past loss of earnings, $110,309 for future loss of earnings, $175,000 for loss of household services, and $350,000 for pain and suffering. The jury specifically found that the plaintiff was not comparatively negligent and did not fail to mitigate her damages. REFERENCE Plaintiff’s economist expert: Stan Smith, PhD from Chicago, IL. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert: Ramil Bhatnagar, M.D. from Red Bank, NJ. Defendant’s orthopedic surgeon expert: Kevin Egan, M.D. from Roseland. Nedrick vs. County of Monmouth, et al. Docket no. MON-L-1966-15; Judge Marc Lemieux, 06-25-18. Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf and Amanda F. Wolf of Law Office of Randolph H Wolf in Red Bank, NJ.

$500,000 Settlement for Widow of Pedestrian Struck & Killed by Vehicle 70-YEAR-OLD RETIRED DECEDENT/PEDESTRIAN STRUCK AND KILLED BY DEFENDANT DRIVER TURNING RIGHT ON RED WITHOUT MAKING SUFFICIENT OBSERVATIONS AT INTERSECTION WHERE SUCH TURNS ARE OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE. Monmouth County In this action, the plaintiff contended that the defendant driver negligently failed to make observations before making a right turn on a red light at an intersection in which such turns would otherwise be permissible. The plaintiff contended that as a result, the 70-year-old pedestrian was struck, sustaining a closed head trauma, subdural hematoma and subarachnoid hemorrhage which took his life several hours later. The decedent was retired. He left a wife who was rendered a paraplegic some ten years earlier in an accident, was suffering suffered a long term psychiatric depression that was related to the physical disability , and the plaintiff contended that the loss of services, guidance and advice that was occasioned by the death, was very significant. The plaintiff contended that after taking a few steps from the curb with a green light, the defendant turned right on red and struck him. The plaintiff elicited testimony from the defendant during discovery that after looking to his left and right one time, and then looking to his left again, the he proceeded to turn right without making additional observations. The accident occurred on Rt. 35, the defendant pointed out that no crosswalk was present and maintained that in view of the busy nature of the highway, the decedent should have walked to a nearby intersection that contained a crosswalk where he could cross more safely. The decedent was knocked to the ground and struck his head. The plaintiff contended that although the decedent initially appeared to avoid severe injuries, a Cat Scan taken at the hospital revealed a subdural hematoma and subarachnoid hemorrhage. The decedent died a short time later and the hospital records did not reflect severe pain and suffering. The plaintiff maintained that although the decedent was retired, the death occasioned very significant economic losses. The evidence disclosed that approximately 10 years earlier, the widow had been rendered a paraplegic in an accident. The plaintiff also maintained that the widow had also suffered a severe psychiatric depression that was related to her physical disability and which necessitated psychiatric treatment . The plaintiff contended that the decedent provided extensive services, as well as guidance and advice to the widow. The plaintiff contended that the decedent cooked meals for his wife, regularly bathed her and kept care of the home. The plaintiff also contended that in addition to the household services that the plaintiff contended were analogous to the services provided by a home health aide, the decedent also provided the services of an LPN in administering medication to his wife on a daily basis. The plaintiff’s economist would have testified that the replacement value of the home health aide services was $931,000 and the replacement value of an LPN was $251,000. The defendant would have pointed out that the widow’s niece has been providing such help since the time of the death and the plaintiff would have countered that the niece is under no obligation to do so, and even though she was caring enough to help during the pendency of the litigation, such care might well cease after the completion of the case, especially since the niece has her own family. The case settled prior to trial for $500,000. COMMENTARY : The plaintiff obtained a very substantial recovery in this death action in light of the fact that the 70-year-old decedent was retired and in view of fact that the evidence reflected relatively minimal pain and suffering until the decedent died several hours after the accident. The plaintiff, who emphasized that the decedent had been the primary care giver to his wife who was a paraplegic and who suffered a very significant psychiatric depression, would have presented, through his expert economist, evidence of the cost of replacement value of services to this widow which exceeded $1.1 mil. In this regard, it is felt that although it is often advantageous for a plaintiff to permit the jury to use its common knowledge and experience to evaluate such Green/Bitner type damages which are presented in addition to losses stemming from lost income and evidence of conscious pain and suffering, the ability of the plaintiff’s expert to quantify specific elements of such losses in this type of case provided very strong leverage to the plaintiff during negotiations.

$405,000 Recovery for Anethesiological Malpractice NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO TIMELY DEAL WITH EXCESSIVELY HIGH FEVER FOLLOWING OTHERWISE SUCCESSFUL SURGERY TO CORRECT CONGENITAL SPINAL ABNORMALITY – PATIENT ALLEGEDLY DEVELOPS RARE CONDITION OF MALIGNANT HYPERTHERMIA WHICH IS GENERALLY FATAL UNLESS TIMELY TREATED WITH BOTH DANTROLENE AND ACTIVE COOLING AGENTS – DEATH OF 62-YEAR-OLD DIALYSIS PATIENT WITH PRIOR FAILED KIDNEY TRANSPLANT Monmouth County, NJ ​This was a medical malpractice action involving a 62-year-old patient who several hours after surgery to correct a congenital spinal defect developed a rapid increase in temperature from 99 º to 103.8.º . The plaintiff contended that the defendant anesthesiologist negligently failed to take any action, despite the fact this rise took place in a half hour, and negligently failed to monitor the high temperature, not checking it again for approximately one hour, by which time the fever had risen to 107 º Critical care physicians summoned to help suspected malignant hyperthermia, a condition caused by a reaction to anesthesia, which unless timely treated with the medication Dantrolene, is generally fatal. The critical care physicians administered Dantrolene and instituted active cooling measures. The temperature quickly dropped to 105º after reaching a high of 108.5º . Although the temperature quickly dropped to 105º and continued to decrease, the patient suffered multi-organ failure and cardiac arrest, dying the day following surgery. ​The plaintiff’s expert anesthesiologist maintained that although rare, the most likely cause of the extremely high fever was malignant hyperthermia. The plaintiff’s expert would have related that factors such as a rapid increase in temperature, respiratory acidosis involving the pH factor in the blood , elevated carbon dioxide, tacytenia, or rapid respiration and a precipitous drop in temperature upon the administration of Dantrolene reflected that the decedent probably had this condition and that the timely administration of Dantrolene, together with active cooling measures such as the use of a cooling blanket and an ice lavage, would have saved the patient’s life. ​The defendants asserted that malignant hyperthermia is exceedingly rare, is not seen by most anesthesiologists in the course of their careers. The defendants maintained that it was likely that the high temperature and death were caused by septic shock, a bacterial infection, which occurred in the absence of negligence and that the earlier administration of Dantrolene would not have had any effect on the patient. The defendant further pointed out that post mortem blood cultures reflected bacterial counts that were consistent with septic shock. The plaintiff ‘s infectious disease expert countered that postmortem cultures are frequently contaminated and that it was likely that a false positive occurred. The plaintiff further contended that the cultures conducted before the death were negative eliminating septic shock as a likely cause of the fever. The defendant’s infectious disease experts asserted that the administration of antibiotics resulted in a false negative of these blood cultures. ​The plaintiff would have argued at trial that irrespective of the cause of the high fever of over 103.8º, 1/2 hour after it was 99º, the defendant’s failure to immediately institute active cooling measures and the failure to monitor the patient’s temperature until an hour after this temperature was recorded (at which time the fever had risen to 107º), were clearly egregious. The plaintiff contended that the patient had been doing well on dialysis and that if he successfully received a new kidney, would have had an approximate 10-year life expectancy. The decedent was a part time college instructor. He left a wife and one adult child. The plaintiff’s economist would have projected economic damages of approximately $100,000 per year, including lost income and Green/Bitner damages. ​The defendant contended that the decedent’s co-morbidity factors would have prevented him from obtaining a new kidney and contended that he would have had a two-year life expectancy. The case settled prior to trial for $405,000.00. REFERENCE Ciani vs. Andreas Xagoraris, M.D.. Docket No. MON-L-1667-13 Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf Plaintiff’s Expert Anesthesiologist: Albert Ferrari, M.D., West Berlin, NJ Plaintiff’s Expert Infectious Disease Specialist: Louis Weiss, M.D., Albert Einstein Medical School, Bronx, NY Plaintiff’s Expert Economist: Stan V. Smith, Ph.D., Chicago, IL

$300,000 Recovery for Monmouth County Car Accident Injury Plaintiff passenger in mother’s car which is struck in rear and propelled into vehicle in front – Thoracic fracture – Kyphoplasty involving insertion of balloon – Lumbar herniation – Anterior Lumber Fusion Monmouth County, NJ – This action was brought by a plaintiff in her late 20’s who was a passenger in her mother’s car that was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front. The plaintiff contended that she suffered a T11 thoracic compression fracture without retropulsion that required a kyphoplasty (an arthroscopic procedure with the insertion of a balloon and cementing of the spine). The surgery provided significant relief and the plaintiff admitted to making a full recovery from this injury. The plaintiff also contended that the she subsequently developed radiating lumbar pain and approximately a year after the accident a lumbar MRI showed evidence of an annular tear at L5-S1 and evidence of asymmetric disc bulging to the left, also at L5-S1. The plaintiff maintained that when less invasive measures were inadequate, she underwent an anterior lumbar discectomy, implantation of intervertebral prosthesis, and anterior lumbar fusion followed by same day staged minimally invasive posterior instrumentation and fusion at the level of L5-S1. The plaintiff contended that although she obtained significant relief, she still has pain and will nonetheless suffer permanent symptoms. The evidence disclosed that approximately a year prior to this accident the plaintiff had undergone an anterior cervical corpectomy and instrumented fusion of the cervical spine as a result of a motorcycle accident. The plaintiff, who made short term cervical complaints after the subject accident, did not contend that she suffered a permanent aggravation. Plaintiff did receive PIP income continuation but also claimed an excess income loss totaling $5,679.75 and out of pocket medical expenses of $4,488.39. The defendant had a $500,000 single limit policy for which there were other claimants both for property damage and personal injuries as a result of this multi-vehicle collision. The case settled prior to trial for $300,000 in a mediation before the Hon. Robert Feldman, JSC Retired. REFERENCE Pettit vs. Neebe., MON-L-2501-12 Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf of theWolf Law in Red Bank, NJ. Plaintiff’s treating Orthopedist: Ramil Bhatnagar, M.D. Toms River, NJ

*While all of these results were actually obtained by Wolf Law in the Municipal Courts and Superior Courts of the State of New Jersey, the success in these cases does not guarantee a similar success in any future case. Client names have been removed to protect their privacy.

Wolf Law PC Red Bank NJ

 50+ Years of Accumulated Practice

How Wolf Law Can Help

At Wolf Law PC, we provide aggressive and compassionate representation for individuals injured due to someone else’s negligence. Whether you were involved in an accident on the road, hurt by a defective product, or injured on someone’s property, we’re here to help you seek the compensation you deserve.

Our personal injury services include:

  • Car & truck accidents

  • Motorcycle accidents

  • Pedestrian accidents 

  • Medical malpractice 

  • Products liability 

  • Slip and fall accidents 

DISCLAIMER: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.

© 2025 by Mb Marketing Coach. All rights reserved.

214 Broad Street, P.O. Box 8938

Red Bank, NJ 07701-8938

214 Broad Street, P.O. Box 8938

Red Bank, NJ 07701-8938

214 Broad Street, P.O. Box 8938

Red Bank, NJ 07701-8938

Tel: (732) 741-4448

Fax: (732) 741-1785

CALL FOR A FREE CONSULTATION

  • Wolf Law TV Youtube
  • Wolf Law Facebook
  • Randolph Wolf LinkedIn
  • Amanda Wolf LinkedIn
bottom of page