Accomplishments

On June 27, 2025, Christian Fumuso received a unanimous defense verdict after a 2 week trial in Rockland County before the Honorable Judge Greenwald.  It was alleged that the defendant oral surgeon negligently extracted the patients right lower wisdom tooth (#32) resulting in permanent facial nerve damage after injuring the inferior alveolar nerve.  Plaintiff claimed that the extraction of the partially impacted tooth was not indicated and the appropriate procedure should have been a coronectomy.  Throughout the trial plaintiff called an expert in oral and maxillofacial surgery who opined that the defendant failed to appreciate the overlap of tooth #32 on the IA canal which resulted in violation of the nerve during extraction resulting in permanent parasthesia.  In response the defense called an expert in oral and maxillofacial surgery who commented upon the post operative CT scan which revealed no evidence of a violated canal and opined that the post-operative parasthesia was the result of subclinical swelling from the surgical site and an assumed risk of the procedure.  The defense expert also opined that plaintiff’s theory regarding coronectomy was contraindicated whereas extraction was appropriate based upon the patients complaints and active infectious process.

Plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to return a verdict of $750,000 for past and future pain and suffering related to facial nerve damage.  The jury deliberated for 45 minutes and returned a unanimous defense verdict.          

On June 12, 2025, Christian Fumuso received a unanimous defense verdict after a 2 week trial in Queens County before Judge Catapano-Fox.  It was alleged that the defendant oral surgeon negligently extracted the lower 2^nd molars of a then 14-year-old infant plaintiff after she presented on an emergent basis with evidence of pain and bilateral pericorinitis.  Plaintiff claimed the extractions were not indicated and resulted in the need for additional extractions to make room for lower implants and supporting crowns.  Throughout the trial plaintiff called experts in the fields of oral surgery and orthodontics – both of whom testified that the infant-plaintiff was indicated for less invasive measures of her symptomatic teeth, including exposure and/or up-righting.  The defense called an expert in oral surgery who opined that extraction of infected symptomatic teeth was consistent with accepted practice and the patient was not a candidate for exposure and/or up-righting due to the anatomical shape and size of her jaw.  Defendant’s expert also opined that the  subsequent dental implants were contraindicated and unnecessary due to the patients functioning 1^st molar occlusion.

Plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to return a global award of $650,000 for past and future pain and suffering along with associated costs for implant management and replacement.  The jury deliberated for 1 hour and returned a unanimous defense verdict for the oral surgeon.          

On March 7, 2025, Anthony Marino obtained a unanimous defense verdict after a three week trial in Supreme Court, Queens County before the Honorable Timothy J. Dufficy.  It was alleged by the Estate of the plaintiff’s decedent that the defendant Radiologist misinterpreted a pancreas sonogram which purportedly showed an enlarged pancreatic tail.  Ten months after the sonogram reading, the decedent was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and passed away from the disease 18 months after diagnosis at the age of 38.  The decedent left behind her husband and two children ages 3 and 6.   The plaintiff sought damages for pain and suffering and wrongful death including loss of guidance for the children and loss of earnings.  The Defendant argued that the sonogram showed no abnormalities of the pancreas at all and no further testing was required based upon the findings.  Both plaintiff and defendant called Board Certified expert witnesses in Radiology and Oncology and plaintiff also called an Economist to establish damages. In summation, plaintiff asked for a total of $10.9 million dollars in damages.  The jury deliberated for three and a half hours and returned a unanimous defense verdict.