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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

 The officer smelled alcohol from the passenger compartment. The driver was told to exit. She performed three field sobriety tests but the officer only testified as to the results of two of these. One was the HGN test. The other was the walk and turn.

The defendant never admitted to drinking any alcohol. The defendant was placed under arrest. The BAC was .13, measured by breathalyzer. On cross examination the officer admitted:

 a)   The defendant did not weave/cross any lanes while driving. b)   The HGN test was the weakest test to rely upon and the officer did not know the  defendant’s HGN findings in advance of the stop. c)   The defendant performed the walk and turn and never stepped off the imaginary line, but “missed” heal to toe. d)   The officer testified the defendant performed the one legged stand. He gave the instructions to the Court but never testified to the results.  e)    The defendant did not testify.

 Upon conclusion of evidence Mr. Protogyrou argued that the totality of circumstances did not manifest that the defendant was intoxicated while driving. The defendant’s driving was speeding but not reckless, she performed well on her field sobriety tests and the evidence was not beyond a reasonable doubt. The case was dismissed.

Police Vice and Narcotics were working an interdiction in a neighborhood by visual surveillance. A motor vehicle driven by defendant stopped in front of a home and an individual exited, approached and spoke to the vehicle’s passenger.

The vehicle was later stopped by Norfolk Police and the driver was removed from the car. The passenger remained in his seat. Upon arrest (defendant was pepper sprayed and cuffed) and without Miranda warnings being given, Norfolk Police interrogated the defendant on the possessory/ownership interest of the vehicle. Upon objection of Mr. Protogyrou, the statements of the defendant were suppressed.

 The police conducted a search of the vehicle and found cocaine between the driver’s seat and the center console. On cross examination the police could not account for the passenger’s presence in the vehicle while the defendant was being arrested.

 At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case, Mr. Protogyrou moved to strike their case because the passenger remained within the vehicle and there was no provable ownership interest in the vehicle. The matter was dismissed.

At trial plaintiff’s primary healthcare provider and pain management physician testified that as a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained a low back injury and sciatica. They testified to multiple epidural injections, diagnostic testing and to a brachial plexus block as a part of her treatment and care. They further testified that her condition was chronic and permanent.

The defense presented an orthopedic surgeon who performed a “peer review” of the plaintiff’s medical records. While the defense doctor agreed that the plaintiff had no prior injuries or complaints of back pain, his opinion was that her ongoing complaints were not related to the accident.

As negligence was admitted, the sole issue for the jury was the amount to award the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel argued the immediate and consistent complaint, lack of prior injury and chronic and permanent conditions. Defense counsel, A. Christopher Zaleski argued lack of pathology for the ongoing complaints and highlighted the lack of objective finding by the plaintiff’s healthcare providers. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury for almost $200,000. After a short deliberation, the Portsmouth jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000, without interest.

 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.

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.