Published on:

Court Decides Assault Case

Suffolk Drug Crime 11

In this case of the People of the State of New York verses the defendants Smithtown General Hospital, L.S., D.L, H.M, L.S., and M.C., are charged with allowing a prosthetic devices salesman to participate in a meaningful way during a surgical procedure that was being performed at the Smithtown General Hospital without the knowledge or consent of the patient. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Criminal Term, of Suffolk County Part II.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the individual defendants are health care professionals, two are orthopedic surgeons, one is a registered nurse, and the other an anesthesiologist. The alleged incident took place on the third of July, 1975.

These defendants along with the Hospital were indicted in October of 1977. They were charged with acting in concert with each other in the commissioning of a crime of assault in the second degree, a felony charge that violates Section P.L.

Dr. D.L. and Nurse L.S. and the Hospital were charged in separate indictments for falsifying business records in the first degree. The charges allege that with the intent to defraud the defendants omitted true entries in the required reports as a way to conceal the crimes of Unauthorized Practice of Medicine and Assault.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said the defendants, other than the Hospital, have all moved to have the indictments against them dismissed on the basis that the evidence submitted against them to the Grand Jury was insufficient.

Grand Jury Evidence

The evidence that was submitted to the Grand Jury showed that on the morning of July 3rd, 1975, Dr. D.L. assisted by Dr. H.M. performed a total hip arthroplasty on a consenting patient. The surgery consisted of the right him of the patient being opened and the femur being removed. The trochanger was reset, the acetabulum cavity was reamed out and the methacrylate bone cement implant is placed in the acetabulum. A cup is placed in the cement the prosthesis is inserted into the cavity, the trochanter is reapproximated and the patient is sewn up.

Instrumentation for the surgery was provided by W.M., who is the general sales manager of the company that sold the prosthesis that is used for hip arthroplasty. W.M. was in the operating room during most of the operation that started at eight in the morning and ended at 11:30 a.m. Once the surgery was completed an x-ray was taken and it was discovered that the head of the femur had popped out of the acetabulum, in other words, the joint was dislocated.

Dr. L. requested that W.M. return to the hospital. W.M. came back to the hospital, scrubbed and entered the operating room. He observed that Dr. M. had reopened the hip and had tried to remove the prosthesis with a mallet. W.M. offered to and was allowed to use the same instrument on the patient.

Case Discussion and Decision

There are serious questions about whether or not an assault occurred in this case. When reviewing the facts, it is found that the crime does not meet the definition of an assault. The evidence does not support this charge and the motion for this charge to be dismissed is granted.

However, the charges of falsifying records will not be dismissed and a further proceeding in this matter will be scheduled. It is felt that there is enough evidence to warrant this action.

Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for any legal need, whether you have a case involving drug possession, theft or sex crimes. Our offices are located in New York City. Contact us today to set up a free consultation to discuss your matter with an experienced New York attorney.