(732) 741-4448 | Info@WolfLawNJ.com
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.
Personal Injury Practice Areas
Representing drivers and passengers injured in crashes caused by negligence, distracted driving, or commercial vehicle incidents
Pursuing claims against healthcare providers for surgical errors, misdiagnoses, and other preventable medical mistakes
Fighting for motorcyclists seriously injured in collisions due to careless drivers or unsafe road conditions
Advocating for individuals struck by vehicles while walking, often suffering serious or life-threatening injuries
Holding manufacturers accountable for injuries caused by defective or dangerous products
Helping clients recover damages for falls caused by unsafe property conditions like wet floors or uneven surfaces
Personal Injury Jury Verdicts & Settlements
Case results of Wolf Law, P.C. reported in New Jersey Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
The attorneys of Wolf Law have obtained millions of dollars in jury verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured clients and their families. The results below were reported in New Jersey Jury Verdict Review & Analysis, an independent publication that reports significant verdicts and settlements throughout the State of New Jersey.
The write-ups that follow are the full case summaries as published and are re-printed with the permission of the Jury Verdict Review.
Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances. The results reported here do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
$1,100,000 Recovery – Motor Vehicle Collision – Spinal Fusion Surgery
Motor vehicle negligence – Left-turn collision – Herniated lumbar discs – Aggravation of degenerative disc disease – Fusion surgery – Insertion of dorsal column stimulator – Inability to continue working as diesel mechanic – Closed head injury – Alleged cognitive deficits – PTSD. Recovery included a $110,000 settlement with the co-defendant property owner. Monmouth County, NJ The plaintiff driver, in his 50s, contended that the defendant driver traveled forward and made a left turn from the driveway on the defendant’s property without making observations, colliding with the plaintiff. The plaintiff maintained that as a result, he suffered herniations at L4-L5 and L5-S1 that required fusion surgery. The plaintiff contended that because of severe continuing pain, the plaintiff also required the surgical insertion of a dorsal column stimulator that provides limited relief only. The plaintiff further maintained that he suffered a concussion and post concussion syndrome which will permanently cause intermittent headaches. Finally, the plaintiff also maintained that one of the consequences of the impact, that caused severe damage to both cars, was PTSD that was causing anxiety, nightmares, and flashbacks of the event. The defendant homeowners’ large parcel of property contained two driveways which had entrances approximately 200 yards apart. The defendant driver had entered through the other driveway, which the plaintiff maintained, would provide a better view of the roadway when exiting. The plaintiff contended that the trees and shrubbery next to the driveway from which the defendant turned left was higher than that permitted by the municipal ordinance and substantially contributed to the incident. The defendants maintained that roadway was improperly designed in such a manner that it would be virtually impossible for a driver turning from the driveway to have a sufficient view of the roadway. The public entity was entitled to design immunity under the Torts Claims Act. The plaintiff contended that since the defendant driver could not see down the road, she should not have turned. The plaintiff maintained that the nearby second driveway from which the defendant driver entered afforded a better view, and once the defendant driver realized that she could not make adequate observations, she should have decided to use the other driveway. It was undisputed that the plaintiff had preexisting degenerative disc disease, but the plaintiff maintained that prior to the accident, he was essentially asymptomatic, having made complaints of localized lower back pain to a physician several weeks earlier. The plaintiff had not, however, required more than very brief conservative treatment. The plaintiff maintained that he developed severe radiating pain in the lumbar area shortly after the accident and the plaintiff’s orthopedist contended that herniations at L4-L5 and L5-S1 were confirmed by MRI. After a course of conservative treatment proved to be inadequate, the plaintiff underwent fusion surgery. The plaintiff contended that despite this surgery and the subsequent insertion of a dorsal column stimulator, he will permanently suffer significant pain and limitations. The automobiles suffered extensive property damage. The plaintiff contended that he developed PTSD after the accident which was causing anxiety, depression and flashbacks of the event. The plaintiff underwent psychotherapy for a period and the plaintiff’s examining psychiatrist maintained that the plaintiff reached the pinnacle of his recovery. The physician contended that the plaintiff will probably suffer the lingering effects of the condition for the foreseeable future. The plaintiff also contended that the closed head injury caused a cognitive deficit involving memory and concentration that was confirmed by a battery of neuropsychological testing, and which is permanent in nature. The defendant’s neuropsychologist denied that the plaintiff suffered any prolonged psychological reaction or cognitive deficits. The plaintiff had worked as a diesel mechanic/instructor at a school of diesel mechanics and also worked part-time in the diesel repair business. The plaintiff maintained that he attempted to return, but was unsuccessful, both because of the physical limitations and difficulties concentrating. The plaintiff would have presented several co-workers who would have offered “before” and “after” testimony. The plaintiff maintained that he will be permanently precluded from returning as a diesel mechanic. The plaintiff would have introduced evidence of future lost wages and the costs of a life care plan that exceeded $1,250,000. The case settled prior to trial for $1,100,000, including $990,000 from the defendant driver and the homeowners’ $110,000. REFERENCE Plaintiff’s vocational expert: Richard Schuster. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert (fusion): Nasser Ani from Hazlet, NJ. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert (dorsal column stimulator): Bruce Rosenblum from Tinton Falls, NJ. Plaintiff’s examining psychiatrist expert: Gregory Rasin from Union, NJ. Plaintiff’s neuropsychologist expert: Brett Prince from Brick, NJ. Plaintiff’s neuropsychologist expert: David Mahalick from Maplewood, NJ. Plaintiff’s radiologist expert: Natalie Damien from East Brunswick, NJ. Defendant’s neuroradiologist expert: Douglas Noble from Oradell, NJ. Defendant’s orthopedist expert: Robert Warren from Pt. Pleasant, NJ. Gorman vs. Blundell, et al. 9-08. Attorneys for plaintiff: Raymond A. Gill, Jr. of Gill & Chamas in Woodbridge, NJ and Randolph H. Wolf of Red Bank, NJ. COMMENTARY FROM NEW JERSEY JURY VERDICT REVIEW & ANALYSIS The defendants had maintained that the cause of the accident was improper design of the roadway, creating the blind spot for which the public entity would be immune. The plaintiff would have stressed that irrespective of the configuration of the roadway, the defendant driver simply should not have turned left from the driveway when she could not see down the roadway in the direction from which the defendant proceeded. In this regard, it is felt that the evidence that a short time earlier, the defendant driver had entered the property on a second nearby driveway that did not have the same sight line issues, was particularly significant and would have enabled the plaintiff to argue that once the defendant driver reached the end of the driveway from which she traveled, she should have realized that the other driveway would be safer to use. Regarding damages, although it was undisputed that the plaintiff had longstanding degenerative disc disease, the plaintiff stressed that any prior difficulties were short term and involved localized pain only. Additionally, it is thought that the evidence of very severe impact damage could well have had a significant effect on the jury if the case had been tried. Finally, the plaintiff would have made effective use of lay testimony in the form of co-workers who would have described the manner in which the plaintiff had difficulties with memory and concentration and with doing the physical aspect of the diesel mechanic’s job after the accident occurred.
$1,000,000 Settlement – Product Liability – Severe Burn Injuries
Ignition while cleaning electrostatic spray painter – Severe burns to arms, chest, back and legs – Third-degree burns over 39% of body – One-month hospitalization – Permanent scarring. Monmouth County, NJ The plaintiff, a man in his 50s, was standing next to a coworker who was cleaning an industrial electrostatic spray painter by flushing solvent through a hose into a sink bucket. The plaintiff contended that the device was defective because it lacked an interlock that would prevent operation of the sprayer while it was being cleaned. The plaintiff maintained that when the high voltage was activated, an electrical potential built up, creating a spark that ignited the solvent vapors. The defendant manufacturer denied that the product was defective or that an interlock was necessary, and maintained that the warnings provided were adequate. The defendant also emphasized that it had offered a safety training program to the plaintiff's employer, contended that the employer failed to enroll the plaintiff and his coworker in the program, and argued that persons who had not been certified should not have been using the machine. The plaintiff's expert engineer would have testified regarding the necessity of an interlock and the dangers of electrical charge buildup when solvent is used. The plaintiff also pursued claims against the manufacturer of the solvent, contending that it was mislabeled as “combustible” rather than “flammable,” and against the company that rented uniforms to the plaintiff's employer, contending that the cotton-polyester blend of which the uniform was made was susceptible to melting as it burned, and that cotton pants, which do not melt when burning, would have been safer. The plaintiff sustained third-degree burns over 39% of his body, including the arms, chest, back and legs. He required a one-month hospitalization during which he underwent regular debridements, and suffered significant post-traumatic depression. The plaintiff missed approximately one year from work and was left with severe permanent scarring with a mottled and puckered appearance. The case settled for a total of $1,000,000, with the paint sprayer manufacturer contributing $700,000, the solvent manufacturer contributing $150,000, and the uniform rental company contributing $150,000. REFERENCE Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf of Red Bank, NJ.
$863,480 Jury Verdict – Slip and Fall at County Jail – Tort Claims Act
Tort Claims Act – County jail acts in palpably unreasonable manner in failing to properly clean spill – Plaintiff employee of the State Division of Child Protective Services, present to serve papers on an 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 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, Ph.D. 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, NJ. Nedrick vs. County of Monmouth, et al.; Judge Marc Lemieux, 06-25-18. MON-L-1966-15 Attorneys for plaintiff : Randolph H. Wolf and Amanda F. Wolf of Law Office of Randolph H. Wolf in Red Bank, NJ. COMMENTARY FROM NEW JERSEY JURY VERDICT REVIEW & ANALYSIS The defendant had denied that the incident occurred, pointing to the absence of an incident report to the county jail on the day of the incident by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who nonetheless prevailed, argued that her training reflected that she report any incident to her employer, the State of NJ and did not know she had to file a report with the jail. The plaintiff testified that since the incident occurred at approximately 6:45 p.m., she had to wait until the following day to report it to her employer, stressing that such a report was filled out at that time. Additionally, the plaintiff was able to establish that the defendant's actions constituted palpably unreasonable conduct. In this regard, the plaintiff elicited testimony from a Corrections Department Lieutenant regarding the jail's policy of having an officer stand next to a spill until cleaned and dry, and placing appropriate warning signs, emphasizing that the defendant failed to follow its own policies. Plaintiff further established that the zone supervisor on duty that day, who was responsible for implementing the policy, was unaware of it. Finally, it is interesting that in this case that involved a plaintiff state worker who sued the county, the past medical bills, which were stipulated, are not subject to a Workers' Compensation lien, but are considered a collateral source to be deducted from the plaintiff's award. The plaintiff's expert economist had taken into account retirement benefits received and to be received when discussing lost wages and benefits and these awards are not subject to reduction as a collateral source.
$550,000 Recovery – Bicyclist Struck by Automobile
Auto/Bicyclist - Defendant automobile driver making left turn after stopping at stop sign - Collision occurs at night and plaintiff stresses bike well lit with strobe lights and reflectors - Pilon fracture - Medial malleolus fracture - Surgery - Shoulder separation - Arthroscopic surgery - No income claims. Monmouth County, NJ The 49-year-old plaintiff bicyclist contended that the defendant driver failed to make adequate observations when turning left at an intersection controlled by a stop sign, striking the plaintiff. The accident occurred at approximately 10:30 PM. The defendant's accident reconstruction expert maintained that the reflection of lights from an adjacent lake would tend to render the ability of the defendant to see more difficult. The plaintiff countered that his bike was equipped with strobe lights on both the front and back and reflectors on both wheels, arguing that the defendant's position should clearly be rejected. The defendant's expert further contended that the plaintiff was riding in the middle of the lane, rather than as far as possible to the right as is required and that this factor contributed to the incident. The plaintiff would have maintained that the defendant should have seen him and avoid the accident. The plaintiff suffered a Grade 2 pilon fracture and a fracture of the medial malleolus. The plaintiff required surgery and the installation of hardware. The plaintiff maintained that he will suffer significant permanent pain and difficulties ambulating. The plaintiff contended that future arthritis is likely and that the plaintiff may well require an ankle fusion. The plaintiff also suffered a shoulder separation that was treated with arthroscopic surgery and which the plaintiff maintained will cause permanent symptoms. The defendant countered that the shoulder was healing well from the surgery and that the plaintiff suffered another shoulder separation in an MVA that occurred approximately five weeks post-surgery, arguing that this injury was an independent intervening cause and accounted for any continuing shoulder complaints. The plaintiff was not working at the time of the accident and made no income claims. The case settled prior to trial for $550,000. REFERENCE Plaintiff's consulting orthopedist (future ankle fusion) expert: David Levine, MD from Hosp for Special Surgery. Plaintiff's examining orthopedic expert: David Weiss, D.O from North Brunswick, NJ. Plaintiff's orthopedic surgical (ankle) expert: Dominick Menkowitz, MD. Plaintiff's orthopedic surgical (shoulder) expert: David Dickerson, MD. Defendant's accident reconstruction expert: John Deutch from Abington, PA. Hartung vs. Mahaney. Docket no. MON-L-2862-13; Judge Med bef ret J John Keefe, 08-21-14. Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf of Law Office of Randolph H Wolf in Red Bank, NJ.
$500,000 Recovery – Pedestrian Struck and Killed – Wrongful Death
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 – Lack of evidence of significant pain and suffering – Decedent left disabled widow suffering paraplegia and severe related psychiatric depression. Monmouth County, NJ 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, 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, then 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 other services 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. REFERENCE Plaintiff's economist: Richard Ruth Yan vs. Marszalek, et al. Docket no L-5502-99 Judge Robert Feldman Attorney for Plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf of Red Bank. COMMENTARY FROM NEW JERSEY JURY VERDICT REVIEW & ANALYSIS 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.
$450,000 Recovery – Premises Liability – Knee Replacement
Plaintiff crane mechanic steps in hole next to sewer drain that is obscured by grass in commercial parking area and leg enters up to knee - Meniscal tear - Knee replacement ultimately needed - Monmouth County, NJ The plaintiff crane mechanic in his 40s contended that as he visited the area to service a crane owned by one of the defendants, he stepped into a hole that was directly next to a sewer drain and which the plaintiff maintained was obscured by grass. The property was owned by the defendant commercial landlord, and leased by the abutting the defendant commercial tenant. The plaintiff also maintained that the crane owner owed a duty to the plaintiff who was asked to visit to service its crane. The plaintiff contended that he sustained a tear of the medial meniscus and that the condition continued to deteriorate despite arthroscopic surgery. The plaintiff maintained that ultimately, he needed partial knee replacement surgery. The operation was performed approximately three years after the incident. The plaintiff missed several months from work after the accident and after the surgery, but eventually returned to full time work. The defendants denied that the need for the knee replacement was related to the incident. The case settled prior to trial for $450,000. Complicating factors in the case included indemnification agreements among the three defendants and insurance coverage issues. REFERENCE De Los Santos vs. MD–1, LLC, et als. Docket no. MON-L-2809-12, 06-5-15. Attorney for plaintiff : Randolph H. Wolf of the Law Office of Randolph H Wolf in Red Bank, NJ.
$405,000 Recovery – Medical Malpractice – Wrongful Death
Anesthesiological 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, tachypnea, 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 anesthesiologist's 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 post mortem 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. Hackensack University Med Center and 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
$325,000 Recovery – Fall on Unlit Exterior Stairs – Ankle Fracture
Absence of lighting on outside stairs leading from building containing adult home for disabled residents - Fall - Tri-malleolar fracture - Surgery - Favoring of leg allegedly causes tear of medial meniscus on other leg, necessitating arthroscopic surgery - Plaintiff aide misses approximately 1 1/2 years from work. Monmouth County, NJ The plaintiff in her 30s, who was an aide at a group home for disabled adult residents, contended that as she was leaving work, the lighting near the exterior steps, which was activated by a sensor, did not function and that as she walked down, she lost her footing and fell 6-7 steps. The plaintiff's engineer asserted that under the applicable code, continuous lighting instead of sensor activated lighting was required for this area. The defendant's engineer maintained that the facility that had fewer than five full time residents was not required by the code to have continuous lighting. The plaintiff would have countered that the municipality's classification of the facility was such that the code provision would apply. The plaintiff would have also produced co-workers who would have testified that there had been intermittent difficulties with the sensor system not functioning properly and that it had made complaints to management. The defendant denied receiving complaints. The defendant also moved for Summary Judgment on the Workers' Compensation bar, contending that the plaintiff was an employee. The plaintiff countered that she was employed by a separate related corporation and denied that the bar applied. The Court denied the defendant's motion. The plaintiff's orthopedist would have related that the plaintiff suffered a tri-malleolar fracture that was treated with surgery and the insertion of hardware. The plaintiff also maintained that the extra stress placed on the other leg resulted in a tear of the medial meniscus that required arthroscopic surgery. The plaintiff asserted that she will suffer permanent pain and difficulties ambulating. The plaintiff missed approximately 1 1/2 years from work, The defendant denied that the knee condition was causally related. The case settled prior to trial for $325,000. REFERENCE Plaintiff's engineer expert: Michael Natoli, PE from Totowa, NJ. Plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon expert: Gregg S. Berkowitz, MD from Freehold, NJ. Simms vs. A.W.S. Foundation, Inc.. Docket no. MON-L-3442-15. Attorney for plaintiff : Randolph H. Wolf of Law Office of Randolph H Wolf in Red Bank, NJ.
$300,000 Recovery – Rear-End Collision – Spinal Fusion Surgery
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 20s 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 then 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 the Law Office of Randolph H. Wolf in Red Bank, NJ. Plaintiff's treating Orthopaedist: Ramil Bhatnagar, M.D. Toms River, NJ
$287,000 Recovery – Pedestrian Wrongful Death – Parking Lot Collision
Parking Lot Collision Truck traveling in reverse in parking lot strikes decedent, pinning him between defendant's truck and another vehicle - Several seconds of consciousness - Plaintiff contends that although brief, pain from exsanguination is severe - Plaintiff claims decedent sends $400 per month to wife and four children in India. Monmouth County, NJ In this action, the plaintiff contended that as the 53-year-old decedent was waiting in the parking lot for his cousin to finish his overnight shift at the defendant Dunkin Donuts, one of the defendant's truckers failed to make observations as he was traveling in reverse. The plaintiff contended that as a result, the decedent was struck and pinned between the rear of the defendant's truck and another vehicle. The plaintiff contended that an artery was severed in the decedent's leg and that he lost extensive blood, losing consciousness at the scene. The defendant maintained that the decedent was conscious for several seconds only and denied that he experienced significant pain and suffering. The plaintiff's trauma surgeon would have countered that although brief, the pain and suffering from the loss of extensive blood that caused the loss of consciousness was severe. The decedent left a wife and four adult children who resided in India. The plaintiff contended that the decedent regularly sent approximately $400 per month to his wife. The plaintiff also contended that the decedent spoke on the phone to members of his family frequently and that the loss of guidance and advice under Green vs. Bitner was very substantial. The defendant would have denied that the plaintiff could document either the earnings or the alleged contributions. The defendant argued that decedent had minimal contact with his family in India as he had been residing in the U.S. for over five years. The case settled prior to trial for $287,000. REFERENCE Plaintiff's Trauma Surgeon expert: Dr. Ivan Maldonado from Neptune, NJ. Plaintiff's Economist expert: Stan V. Smith, Ph.D. from Chicago, IL. Patel vs. Millville Donuts. Docket No. L-002241-07; Judge Louis Locascio, 8-08. Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf in Red Bank, NJ.
$165,000 Recovery – Defective Disability Ramp – Leg Fractures
Failure to place railings or other edge protection - Ramp begins at edge of theater and turns to left - Plaintiff in wheelchair travels straight and falls 8 in. to ground below - Tibia/Fibula fracture - Leg weakness allegedly causes reduced independence - Action against theater dismissed because of charitable immunity. Monmouth County, NJ The plaintiff, in his early 70s at the time, contended that the disability ramp leading from a side entrance/exit was dangerous and did not contain railings or other edge protections. The plaintiff, who was in his wheelchair, failed to remember that the ramp turned to the left as he exited the theater, continued straight, and fell from the edge of the ramp to the pavement 8 in. below. The plaintiff did not use the main entrance/exit which is level with the sidewalk and does not require a ramp and the defendants contended that the exit/entrance is for staff, only, was blocked by a velvet rope, and is not intended for the general public. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff disregarded a directive by one of its employees to refrain from using the side exit. The plaintiff denied that this testimony was accurate and contended that the employee actually opened the door for him to exit. The defendant also contended that under the applicable codes, the rise not the drop-off dictated whether railings were needed and maintained that since the rise was only 6 inches, the ramp met all codes. The plaintiff had named the theater and the contractor that had built the ramp. The plaintiff received discount tickets because of his disability and was also otherwise a beneficiary of a charitable purpose of the theater. The theater maintained that it was entitled to charitable immunity and its motion was granted. The plaintiff contended that that although the fractures to the tibia and fibula healed, the residual weakness will permanently prevent him from shifting his lower body into the disabled van he was using at the time and reduced his independence. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff could accomplish this task by using upper body muscles. The case settled prior to trial for $165,000. REFERENCE Plaintiff's engineering expert: George Widas. PE from Medford, NJ. Plaintiff's orthopedic surgical expert: David Weiss, MD from New Brunswick, NJ. Marzano vs. Two River Theater, et al.. Docket no. MON-L-5321-09; Judge Paul Kapalko, 01-00-14. Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf of Law Office of Randolph H Wolf in Red Bank, NJ.
$155,000 Recovery – Rear-End Collision – Lumbar Fusion Surgery
Plaintiff struck in rear after stopping to avoid defendant who was allegedly obstructing traffic at fork in roadway - Lumbar herniations necessitating fusion surgery. Monmouth County, NJ The male plaintiff driver, age 42, contended that as he approached the defendant driver, who was stopped in front of a fork in the road, the plaintiff, intending to bear right at the fork, slowed to 5 mph, whereupon the defendant turned his wheels to the right in apparent preparation to turning right. The plaintiff contended that he came to a complete stop because he was afraid the defendant was about to cut him off, whereupon he was struck in rear by the codefendant driver. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant driver in front of him violated a provision in the motor vehicle code which prohibits the obstructing of traffic, thereby substantially contributing to the accident. The defendant driver denied any fault and made a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff contended that he sustained herniations at L-4,5 and L-5,S-1. The plaintiff maintained that he required fusion surgery involving the placement of hardware as well as an allograft. The plaintiff contended that he will suffer significant, permanent pain and restriction and will be very limited in the work which he can perform into the future. The defendants both had $100,000 in coverage. The plaintiff settled before the hearing on the summary judgment motion for $155,000, with the rear striking driver contributing $95,000 and the stopped driver in front contributing $60,000. REFERENCE Ruddy vs. Perkins, et al. Docket no. L-3994-02; Judge Thomas Cavanaugh, III. Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf of Red Bank, NJ.
$150,000 Recovery – Premises Liability – Assault – Skull Fracture
Plaintiff assaulted by boyfriend who strikes him on head with metal object - Depressed skull fracture - Surgeries - Ligamental disruption in ankle area - Placement of screws in ankle area - residual pain and stiffness. Union County, NJ This action involved a plaintiff in his mid 30s who met the defendant homeowner through the non-party dating site. The plaintiff contended that after they went out a few times after meeting in Feb., they did not see each other again until the defendant homeowner called towards the end of the year. The plaintiff maintained that after going out with her, he went back to her house where the two were intimate. The plaintiff contended that when he looked out the window in the early morning hours, he observed a man outside the home. The plaintiff maintained that he asked the homeowner if she had a boyfriend. The plaintiff related that she answered in the negative and told him that the person was a stalker. The plaintiff suggested that the defendant homeowner call the police and that she refused to do so. The plaintiff related that he became frightened, was about to leave, but that the boyfriend apparently had a key and let himself into the foyer. The plaintiff maintained that when he attempted to leave, the boyfriend attacked him. The plaintiff contended under a premises liability theory, that the defendant had a duty to warn him of a known danger and that she should have told him about a boyfriend. The homeowner told the police that she had broken up with the assailant a significant time earlier. The plaintiff established that when the assailant was arrested a few days later, the defendant homeowner was with him and the plaintiff contended that it was clear that the defendant homeowner had lied to the police. The defendant homeowner moved for Summary Judgment, denying that she had a duty towards the plaintiff. The defendant homeowner would have also argued that the primary cause was the actions of the defendant assailant. The plaintiff maintained that the assailant struck him in the head with a metal object. The plaintiff contended that he suffered a right parietal depressed fracture with a brain bleed, underwent two brain surgeries, including an operation to remove fragments and "clean up" the area and a second to place a plate. The plaintiff contended that he will permanently suffer headaches and some difficulties with concentration. The plaintiff also contended that he suffered a tendon disruption in the ankle area and that the treatment included the insertion of several screws. The plaintiff contended that he will suffer permanent pain and stiffness. The plaintiff missed several months from his job as a maintenance worker. The case against the defendant homeowner settled during the pendency of her Summary Judgment motion for $150,000. REFERENCE Plaintiff's neurosurgical expert: Marvin Friedlander, MD from Union, NJ. Plaintiff's orthopedic surgical expert: Walter Pedowitz, MD from Linden, NJ. Plaintiff's Neuro-psychologist expert: Jay Gordon, Brick, NJ. Moulton vs. Santius, et al.. Docket no. UNN-L-4657-10; Judge Set after mediation before Retired Judge Eugene Cody, 07-00-13. Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf of Law Office of Randolph H. Wolf in Red Bank, NJ.
$150,000 Pre-Suit Recovery – Fall Down Unmarked Stairway – Foot Fracture
Failure to place sign delineating entrance to restaurant -Plaintiff walks into darkened area and falls 5 steps to wine cellar - Lis Franc fracture Ocean County, NJ The plaintiff in her late 30s contended that the defendant restaurant's door that actually led to the wine cellar was not marked and that because of the absence of warning signs, she believed that she was stepping into the restaurant itself. The plaintiff maintained that some five steps were immediately beyond the entrance and that as she walked into the darkened area, she fell down the flight of stairs. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant subsequently advised her that this door is supposed to be locked at all times. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent in mistaking the darkened area for the restaurant entrance and continuing to enter once she realized that the area was dark. The plaintiff maintained that she suffered a Lis Franc fracture to the foot and required an open reduction and the insertion of three screws. The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff suffered a complication in which one of the nails broke and the hardware remains inside of her foot, creating additional pain. The plaintiff has not yet agreed to additional surgery which she has been advised by her second orthopedist is available to remove the hardware. The plaintiff made no income claims. The case settled before suit for $150,000. REFERENCE Plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon expert: John A. Nitche, MD from Brielle, NJ. Plaintiff's 2nd orthopedic surgeon expert: Lom Weiner, MD from Middletown, NJ. DiCristo vs. The Shore House Bar and Grill., 09-00-12. Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf of Law Offices of Randolph H. Wolf in Red Bank, NJ.
$85,000 Recovery – Slip and Fall on Ice – Rotator Cuff Tear
Failure of commercial landlord to clear ice and snow - Employee of tenant electrical supply company slips and falls - Full thickness rotator cuff tear. Monmouth County, NJ The 39-year-old plaintiff employee of an electrical supply company contended that the defendant commercial landlord negligently failed to clear the parking lot of ice and snow. The plaintiff further contended that the driveway had been hazardous for some hours and that the defendant had constructive notice of the condition. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff failed to walk with sufficient care was comparatively negligent. The plaintiff contended that he sustained a full thickness tear to the dominant rotator cuff that required arthroscopic surgery and which will cause permanent pain and weakness and stiffness despite physical therapy. The plaintiff, who was able to return to work as an electrician, contended that he works despite pain and weakness that is accentuated when he works with his arm extended overhead. The case settled prior to trial for $85,000. REFERENCE Plaintiff's orthopedist: Steven Lisser from Middletown, NJ. Frick vs. BRW Realty Co., Docket no. L-5848-03, 10-05. Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf in Red Bank
$75,000 Recovery – Slip and Fall – Ankle Fracture
Plaintiff slips on apartment door sill made wet and slippery by power washing while she was at uncle's apartment - Plaintiff slips and falls as she is leaving building - Ankle fracture treated conservatively - No income claims. Monmouth County, NJ The 51-year old plaintiff, who was at her uncle's apartment, contended that the defendant, who was power washing the premises, negligently failed to place warning signs, resulting in her slipping and falling as she was leaving the premises. The plaintiff indicated in discovery that the power washing had yet to start when she entered approximately one hour before leaving but she heard the work start when she was at the apartment. The defendant maintained that the power washing had already begun when the plaintiff entered, that the plaintiff was aware that the door sill was wet, and that warnings were not necessary. A witness indicated in discovery that she entered the apartment after the plaintiff and that the plaintiff warned her to be careful when she left because the door sill was wet. The plaintiff denied that this testimony was accurate. The plaintiff suffered an ankle fracture that was treated with a soft cast. The plaintiff contended that she will suffer pain permanently that is heightened upon changes in weather. The plaintiff made no income claims. The case settled prior to trial for $75,000. REFERENCE Griffith vs. My Ben Assoc.. Docket no. MON-L-3150-12, 05-00-15. Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf of Law Offices of Randolph H. Wolf in Red Bank, NJ.
$75,000 Recovery – Improperly Loaded Truck – Lumbar Herniation
Improper loading of palettes onto truck - Palette begins to topple, prompting plaintiff to instinctively push palette upwards - Lumbar herniation - Plaintiff employed by company related to defendant, plaintiff's duties regularly involve making deliveries for sister company. Monmouth County, NJ The male plaintiff truck driver, 49, who was delivering palettes that were loaded onto the truck by the defendant's employees, contended that the defendant loaded the truck in an improper manner by placing the heavier palettes on the top. The plaintiff stated that as a result, a palette began to topple and that he instinctively grabbed hold of the falling palette to protect himself. The plaintiff maintained that the incident caused a lumbar herniation that necessitated a discectomy. The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff's employer and the defendant were sister companies. The defendant, who maintained that the case should be barred by Workers' Compensation under the special employee doctrine, noted that the plaintiff was regularly assigned to the sister company and made deliveries for it several days per week. The defendant also indicated that the plaintiff had, at different times, been employed by the defendant and several other sister companies. The plaintiff subsequently relocated to South Carolina and is able to work full time as a truck driver. The case settled shortly before the defendant's motion for summary judgment for $75,000. REFERENCE Plaintiff's transportation expert: Alfred Harmon from Rosylin, N.Y. Defendant's trucking consultant: Phillip Buttacavoli from Bloomfield, N.J. Luzzi vs. Fast Forward. Docket no. L-1212-01 2-04. Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf from Red Bank
$50,000 Recovery – Rear-End Collision – Aggravation of Prior Injuries
Rear-end collision - Alleged aggravation of lumbar and cervical herniations suffered in auto accident five years earlier - Series of epidural injections - Plaintiff contends injuries prevent her from continuing to pursue career in hospitality management for which she had returned to college and in pursuit of which she was working part time as a banquet waitress - Plaintiff returns to school to earn MSW. Monmouth County, NJ The plaintiff driver in her 40s contended that as a result of the negligence of the defendant driver, who struck her in the rear, she suffered aggravations of lumbar and cervical herniations initially sustained in an automobile accident approximately five years earlier. The plaintiff contended that the injuries sustained in the subject accident occasioned the need for several facet joint injections. The evidence reflected that the plaintiff had initially obtained a degree in hospitality management. She left that field to pursue career on Wall Street. She left Wall Street and was attempting to get back into hospitality field by working as a waitress in a banquet hall at the time accident happened. She was unable to continue doing this because of the new injuries and went back to school to pursue a social work career. The plaintiff sought the cost of that tuition. The defendant denied that the collision caused the claimed aggravations and contended that the more recent MRI showed no progression was compared with the MRI taken after the earlier collision. The case settled prior to trial for $50,000. REFERENCE Van Dyck vs. Harary. Docket no. MON-L- 0452-12, 05-00-15. Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf of Law Offices of Randolph H. Wolf in Red Bank, NJ.
$32,000 Pre-Suit Recovery – Trip and Fall Outside Restaurant
Slippery runner outside of defendant restaurant - bottom flips up resulting in plaintiff, already using cane because of arthritis and holding onto husband with other hand, to trip and fell - Prior falls - Prior lumbar surgery - Prior knee injections - Knee trauma prompts earlier knee replacement surgery than otherwise would have been the case. Morris County, NJ This case involved a 77 year old plaintiff who had pre-existing arthritis in both knees, had undergone prior lumbar surgeries, as well as knee injections, and who had a history of prior falls. The plaintiff contended that the runner outside of the door of the defendant restaurant did not have a backing that would keep it steady and that as a result, one end became raised. The plaintiff, who was exiting while holding a cane with one hand and holding onto her husband with the other hand, contended that she tripped and fell over the runner. The defendant maintained that the runner was in proper condition and that it had a witness who said it become raised because Plaintiff was walking with a shuffling motion and raised it up. The plaintiff contended that the trauma aggravated her knee condition and prompted knee replacement surgery earlier than would have otherwise been the case. The defendant maintained that any injuries were minor and would have contended that the jury should consider that although the plaintiff claimed to have injured one knee only, she underwent bilateral knee replacement surgery. The plaintiff maintained that although she would ultimately have had replacements even if the fall had not occurred, the trauma accelerated the need for the one surgery, and a determination was made to do the other one at this time as well. The case settled prior to the institution of suit for $32,000. REFERENCE Sergio vs. Nona's Restaurant., 12-00-13. Attorney for plaintiff: Randolph H. Wolf of Law Office of Randolph H Wolf in 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: