April 4, 2012 by csealy
A Williamsburg woman claims in a lawsuit that Sentara Medical Group barred her from most outpatient treatment after she filed a complaint to the state alleging inappropriate sexual contact by her doctor.
The woman, known as Jane Doe in a complaint filed in Norfolk, says in the suit that a Sentara employee told her that members of the medical group would not see her at any ambulatory practice, although she would receive treatment in the emergency room after her complaint against Dr. John Hamrick.
The move to bar a patient from nonemergency treatment could violate a state law that forbids hospitals from retaliating against people who cooperate with government agencies protecting patient rights, the complaint says.
Several veteran malpractice lawyers said last week that restricting treatment is unusual in a whistle-blower case.
Read the full article here.
All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.
Category Legal Updates | Tags: | No Comments
March 19, 2012 by csealy
The presiding judge wondered what would drive a promising young man from a good neighborhood to join a violent street gang and participate in the beating death of an innocent person.
“I don’t understand why I made the decisions I made. All of us made mistakes. I just can’t take mine back.”
The Judge sentenced the Defendant to 35 years in federal prison for a July 2007 mob beating death of a 19-year-old from Georgia who wandered into Ocean View to meet some girls. Two of the victim’s friends were beaten badly but survived.
In a deal that averted trial, the Defendant pleaded guilty to murder and assault charges. Had he gone to trial and lost, he would have faced an automatic life prison term.
Read the full article here.
All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.
Category Legal Updates | Tags: | No Comments
February 28, 2012 by csealy
Our client was stopped by Virginia Beach Police under the guise of an illegal vehicle window tint violation. The police had no means to test our client’s windows and asked to search our client’s vehicle. Upon his refusal, the Police stated they had a tip that our client distributed cocaine and, they were calling the drug dog.
The drug dog allegedly alerted to the vehicle but no narcotics were recovered within the vehicle. However, a firearm was recovered in the vehicle. The police then searched the passenger’s purse and discovered a large sum of cocaine. The passenger claimed the cocaine belonged to the driver, our client. Virginia Beach police then obtained a warrant to search our client’s home claiming he was a drug dealer and drug dealers keep materials and records associated with drug distribution in their homes. Within our client’s home the police discovered more cocaine and another firearm.
Our client was subsequently charged with two counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-248(C) and two counts of Possession of a Firearm while in possession of a controlled substance in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-308.4. Considering the mandatory minimums and the weight of the narcotics, our client was facing up to 15 years in prison. However, we successfully negotiated a plea deal whereby our client pled guilty to only one count of Possession with Intent to Distribute.
We initially filed a motion to suppress all evidence recovered by the Police arguing that the Police had insufficient probable cause to initiate the traffic stop. We also argued that the discovery of the cocaine and the firearm at the scene of the traffic stop did not create a sufficient nexus between the contraband and the client’s home to support the issuance of the search warrant. Prior to conducting the hearing on our motion to suppress, the Commonwealth Attorney agreed to dismiss three charges if our client pled guilty to one Count of Possession with Intent to Distribute.
All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.
Category Legal Updates | Tags: | No Comments
December 13, 2011 by csealy
On December 13, 2011, via bench briefs, Attorney Andrew A. Protogyrou successfully defended a rear end collision case. At first, liability appeared to be against the Defendant; however, after interviewing witnesses and research, it was determined that weather and road conditions played a significant factor.
Protogyrou successfully filed a bench brief and argued, based on Supreme Court of Virginia principles, that his client was not negligent because he operated his vehicle within the standard of care required given the hazardous road conditions of snow and ice. Defendant testified he was driving 5 miles per hour and had his lights and windshield wipers on.
Plaintiff’s counsel argued in his brief that his client was not affected by the inclement weather conditions because the vehicle he was in did not skid. Therefore, our client was at fault.
In his reply brief, Protogyrou reiterated the objective standard used by the Court and the fact that the principal inquiry in skidding cases was the operator’s actions prior to the accident. Based on this argument, the Court found our client not negligent. Plaintiff’s medical specials totaled over $30,000.00.
All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.
Category Legal Updates | Tags: | No Comments
December 7, 2011 by csealy
Our firm was retained to defend on a civil matter in which the Plaintiff rear-ended our client. Our client retained personal injury counsel and filed a cross-claim against the Plaintiff. At trial on October 17, 2011, the Court found for the Defendant in her own personal injury case and awarded her damages. However, the judgment entered did not reflect a special finding of negligence against the other driver.
Our case ultimately went to trial on December 7, 2011. Attorneys Andrew A. Protogyrou and Stricker C. Sanford, IV submitted a brief citing the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which precludes parties to a prior action from litigating in a subsequent action on any factual issue that was actually litigated and essential to a valid, final judgment in the prior action.
As the judgment did not reflect a specific finding of negligence against the opposing party, the Court denied our Motion to Dismiss. At the conclusion of the matter, the Court reopened and reconsidered same, specifically citing a “retraxit.” A judgment in retraxit is usually based upon and follows a settlement out of court. Where the parties to an action have settled their dispute and agreed to a dismissal such dismissal is a retraxit and amounts to a decision upon the merits.
Our firm successfully argued in a supplemental brief that the Judgment entered on October 17, 2011 was “dismissed agreed,” and second, that because it was “dismissed agreed,” retraxit should apply therefore barring Plaintiff from re-litigating a case already decided on the merits, specifically, negligence. The Court agreed, dismissing plaintiff’s case in advance of a trial on the merits.
All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.
Category Legal Updates | Tags: | No Comments
October 24, 2011 by csealy
On October 6, 2011 attorneys Andrew A. Protogyrou and Stricker C. Sanford won a wrongful death case. Protogyrou and Sanford represented the defendant, John Doe (a legal entity who stands in the place of an unidentified motorist). The plaintiff, who was acting as the administrator of a family member’s estate, sued for $1,000,000. The insurance company offered $25,000. If the plaintiff had obtained a verdict against John Doe, the insurance carrier for the deceased would have been required to pay a benefit under the uninsured motorist (UM) coverage of the deceased’s automobile insurance policy.
The plaintiff’s decedent died following a tragic automobile accident. During the accident, the decedent’s vehicle struck a wooden pallet that was lying on the interstate. The plaintiff argued at trial that the pallet must have been improperly secured to a vehicle driven by the unidentified motorist and fallen from that vehicle into the road.
Protogyrou and Sanford successfully defended the case by establishing that the plaintiff could not produce evidence sufficient to prove that the pallet had in fact come from a motor vehicle driven by John Doe or that John Doe had been negligent. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s case against John Doe could not succeed. The trial court fuled in favor of the defendant John Doe and struck the plaintiff’s case before it was submitted to the jury for deliberation. The Protogyrou and Sanford expect that the plaintiff will appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.
Category Legal Updates | Tags: | No Comments
by csealy
Our firm was retained post conviction to determine if there were any grounds for an appeal. Another firm handled the trial of the case. The evidence presented at a jury trial against our client was strong and the jury convicted him of three drug related crimes, importing marijuana into the Commonwealth of Virginia, possession of more than five pounds of marijuana, and conspiracy to distribute. In Virginia, the jury recommends a sentence and almost 100% of the time a judge sentences to the jury’s recommendation. The jury recommended a total sentence of fifteen years, five years on each conviction. However, Virginia Sentencing Guidelines called for a 3 year active time of incarceration.
In reviewing the trial transcript, Lindsey A. Flaherty of our firm discovered that the trial judge had made some comments about the “strong smell of marijuana” coming from the boxes that were not tested for marijuana residue. Further, the comment was made just after defense counsel had objected to the classification of the plant material in the boxes as being marijuana. Lastly, this comment was made within earshot of the jury.
Based on this comment, Lindsey and Andrew A. Protogyrou filed a Motion for Mistrial arguing that the trial judge’s comment amounted to testimony confirming that the plant material in the boxes was marijuana. We anticipated arguing this motion prior to the sentencing hearing. Instead of arguing the motion in open court, we asked to meet in chambers with the Court and explain our position. This was done in an effort to avoid embarrassment for the trial judge and discuss our ultimate goal – getting the lowest possible sentence for our client.
Ultimately, we withdrew our motion and the judge sentenced our client to three years, which was the minimum mandatory sentence by statute. The judge noted that they could and that the jury fined our client only $1. Therefore, the judge was comfortable in sentencing our client to the three years recommended in the guidelines.
All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.
Category Legal Updates | Tags: | No Comments
September 22, 2011 by csealy
Andrew A. Protogyrou was recently listed in the 2011 Business Edition of Super Lawyers Magazine for Personal Injury Defense: General. He was only one of three attorneys in the City of Norfolk in that category and twelve from across the Commonwealth of Virginia. The annual list compiles the nation’s top attorneys in business practice areas from the 2010 Super Lawyers List. The publisher considered the attorneys listed as the go-to attorneys in litigation.
 |
Andrew A. Protogyrou, Personal Injury Defense |
 |
| Business Edition 2011 |
Page 348
Category Legal Updates | Tags: | No Comments
by csealy
Edward Hugh Okun, 60, was convicted of 23 counts, including fraud and money laundering. He owned companies that held money from clients seeking to defer capital gains on property sales. Instead of safeguarding their money, however, he spent it to finance a lavish lifestyle and purchase a jet, luxury cars, expensive jewelry and a 131-foot yacht that the named after a woman he married in a $200,000 ceremony in 2005. His lawyer Andrew A. Protogyrou, told a federal appeals court Wednesday Okun was improperly denied a hearing to challenge authorities’ raid on his Richmond businesses about $126 million was improperly denied a hearing to challenge authorities’ raid on his Richmond businesses.
Protogyrou also said the 100-year sentence was unreasonably harsh considering Okun’s age, his history of heart trouble and his lack of a previous criminal record. At sentencing, Okun’s previous attorneys had argued for a term of 10-15 years, while prosecutors had sought the maximum of 400 years.
Along with challenging the denial of a hearing on the search warrant, Okun claims the indictment insufficiently stated the elements of the wire fraud and mail fraud counts. He also alleges he was unfairly denied a two-week continuance of his trial.
All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.
Category Legal Updates | Tags: | No Comments
by csealy
Andrew A. Protogyrou, argued his client’s case before a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on September 21, 2011.
Attorney Protogyrou argued that Edward Hugh Okun’s sentence was greater than necessary and that appropriate consideration was not given to his age, health and lack of a prior criminal record. Protogyrou argued about the propriety of the April 27, 2007, search warrant of Okun’s Midlothian offices and that his indictment was flawed. Mr. Okun is accused of stealing $126 million dollars.
Protogyrou also argued that the sentence was excessive in light of Okun’s age, health problems, which include triple coronary bypass surgery in 1990, and his small prior criminal record – a driving under the influence charge in 1980.
Read the full article at: Richmond Times-Dispatch website
All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.
Category Legal Updates | Tags: | No Comments