New Jersey Medical and Nursing Home Malpractice Attorneys | Find Medical and Nursing Home Malpractice Lawyers in New Jersey


In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) found in a widely accepted study that 98,000 people were dying every year form preventable errors in hospitals. Frighteningly, a more recent study published by the Journal of Patient Safety has shown the true number needless preventable hospital deaths has reached as many as 440,000 per year. (yes you read that correctly.),_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.aspx

Just as disturbing is the recent study of the Office of Inspector General that 86% of patient harm events were not reported by hospital staff as they either did not perceive the event as reportable or did not report an event that was commonly reported. These stunning revelations show that medical errors are now the third leading cause of death, only behind heart disease and cancer.

Robert Hicks, shareholder at Javerbaum Wurgaft, has seen an increase of needless hospital deaths involving a pulmonary embolism (PE). Mr. Hicks explains “ A pulmonary embolism is a sudden blockage of a major blood vessel caused by a thrombus, in other words a blood clot. If a large portion or all of the blood clot breaks off resulting in blockage of the major blood vessels leading to the lungs, it will most often result in sudden death.” The key to reducing this leading cause of preventable hospital death is to identify those patients at risk as there are highly effective therapies to treat this condition.

The number of preventable deaths have become staggering; the recent studies show that our hospitals are killing off the equivalent of multiple cities. These deaths are not stemming from the illness that caused the patient to seek treatment from the hospital, rather from needless mishaps that are quite often hidden from the patient’s family. Although it may be hard for hospitals to be error free due to their complex structure of caring for people who are very sick, it is time that society put a priority on safety and demand reform. If you have a loved one who was injured or killed during a hospital stay, call the lawyers at Javerbaum Wurgaft, we are here to help.

New Jersey Employment Discrimination and Litigation Attorneys | Find Employment Discrimination and Litigation Lawyers in New Jersey


In the present competitive job market, many employers seek to improperly limit competition by their former employees by offering jobs that are conditioned upon the employee signing an agreement that contains post-employment restrictive covenants. These covenants can have a disastrous impact on the employee’s ability to obtain subsequent employment in his or her chosen field.

The courts in New Jersey have held that non-compete clauses may be upheld only if (a) the restrictions are designed to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests and (b) the restrictions do not unduly limit the employee from earning a living.

Just last week, a client consulted with Gary E. Roth, head of Javerbaum Wurgaft’s employment law department, regarding a provision in his employment contract that set forth post-employment restrictions. The restrictions included a “non-compete “clause that sought to bar the client from working for any competitor of his employer for 12 months after the client left that employer, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. The client, a 25-year-old who at the time that he signed the agreement was out of work and would have signed anything offered by the employer, now desired to accept a better offer from a competitor. The client was faced with the excruciating choice of rejecting the competitor’s offer or accepting and possibly being sued by his current employer for violating the non-compete. Although this client had a satisfactory resolution of the issue, the moral of the story is that, despite being anxious to accept a job offer, one must be very careful about signing contracts that have unduly burdensome restrictions.

If you have any employment issue – – pre-employment or post-employment contract review, wrongful discharge, harassment in the workplace, etc. – – call the Employment Department at Javerbaum Wurgaft; they are here to help.

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorneys | Find Criminal Defense Lawyers in New Jersey


Many recall the case of Tyler Clementi, a Rutgers student whose roommate spied on him and another man by remotely accessing his computer’s camera. Ravi and fellow classmate Molly Wei were charged with invasion of privacy, and Ravi was further charged with bias crimes. Successfully representing Molly Wei, JW attorneys Rubin Sinins and Eric Kahn were able to obtain dismissal of the charges against her.

Ravi proceeded to trial and was convicted. A jury found he had invaded Clementi’s privacy and that he was also guilty of bias crimes. The jury found that Ravi was guilty because, among other things, Clementi reasonably felt that Ravi’s conduct was motivated by bias toward Clementi’s sexual orientation. The major issue became whether the victim’s state of mind can be a basis for conviction.

The Appellate Division said no and reversed Ravi’s convictions. In the intervening period between Ravi’s conviction and his appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court invalidated a portion of New Jersey’s criminal Bias-Intimidation statute. That law permitted conviction based not on the state of mind of the defendant, but rather on the victim’s perception that he was subjected to misconduct due to bias. In that case, JW attorneys Rubin Sinins and Annabelle Steinhacker filed “friend of the court” briefs urging the Supreme Court to strike down the law. While most attorneys are satisfied to handle their cases, the attorneys at JW help to shape the law.

That was precisely what happened when the Court adopted the JW attorneys’ position. The New Jersey Supreme Court declared that the statute was a due process violation and therefore unconstitutional, thereby agreeing with the JW attorneys’ argument. JW Partner Rubin Sinins has stated, “Once we begin to rely upon the state of mind of a victim – and not the accused – to prove a crime, we are trampling on due process and the Constitution”.



The Ravi matter has now been returned for trial on the true merits of the case, what had Ravi done and what were his intentions. This is the basis of our criminal justice system. Once we begin to reduce these rights and due process protections, all Americans are at risk.

When you are charged with a crime, regardless of guilt, you must retain competent lawyers to protect your rights. The Constitution was written in a way that all accused are entitled to due process and many other rights designed to ensure a fair trial. Do not try to handle things on your own. Call the lawyers of the criminal defense department of Javerbaum Wurgaft, who are here to help.


During this annual campaign, women everywhere are educated about the disease and are reminded to schedule their yearly mammogram (x-ray image of breast) which enables doctors to detect breast cancer in its earliest stage. Unquestionably, the key to survival is early diagnosis, as the earlier the breast cancer is diagnosed the better the patients chance are for long term survival.


In patients with average breast cancer risk, the American Cancer Society recommends that:

  • Women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening between the ages of 40 and 44 years.
  • Women should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45 years.
  • Women aged 45 to 54 years should be screened annually.
  • Women 55 years and older should transition to biennial screening or have the opportunity to continue screening annually.
  • Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and they have a life expectancy of 10 years or longer.

All women should discuss their options with their physician, and select a mammography schedule that is appropriate based upon their family and personal health history and preference.

In addition to annual screening, here are a few other actions that patients can take to protect their breast health:

  • Have your mammogram at a facility where experienced, board certified radiologists, with a specialty in breast imaging, are interpreting the films;
  • Choose a facility at which the latest technology, including 3-D mammography, is available;
  • Keep in mind that the Mammography Quality Standards Act requires that “a summary of the written report shall be sent directly to patients in terms easily understood by a lay person.”
  • If you do not receive your mammography results, DO NOT assume that the results are normal;
  • If you DO NOT receive your mammography results within a reasonable time period (10-14 days, call to ask for your results and continue to follow-up until the results are in your possession;
  • Always make sure that your results are sent to you in writing;
  • Ask that a copy of your results be sent to your gynecologist;
  • If you have any questions about your mammography results, or if there something on the report which you receive which you don’t understand, call your gynecologist or ordering physician to get your questions answered;
  • Make sure to have all recommended follow up testing.

Although all patients expect to receive good quality care, there are occasions when errors are made, causing a delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Some common mistakes include:

  • The failure by the radiology facility to transmit the results to the patient’s ordering physician
  • or to the patient as is required under the law;
  • The failure of the radiology facility and/or the gynecologist to follow up with the patient to explain that additional testing is required;
  • The failure by the radiologist to detect an abnormality that is visible on the images and which should be diagnosed;
  • Poor quality and outdated imaging leading to the inability to detect small cancers.

Medical mistakes can delay a breast cancer diagnosis and can delay the start of appropriate treatment. Such a delay can mean the difference between life and death. If you, or your loved one, have experienced a delay in diagnosis, or have been misdiagnosed, call the Medical Malpractice team at Javerbaum Wurgaft, they are here to help you.

New Jersey Personal Injury Attorneys | Find Personal Injury Lawyers in New Jersey


Yesterday morning a little boy, age 11, was needlessly killed on his way to school.  He was struck by a jitney bus at the intersection of JFK Blvd and Neptune Avenue in Jersey City while he was crossing the street in a crosswalk.  The area where this accident occurred is within a school zone.  According to witnesses, the bus was attempting to pass a delivery truck at a high rate of speed when the impact occurred.

Our congested roadways are littered with delivery trucks either improperly or double parked, buses and jitneys crisscrossing through busy intersections, while children attempt to navigate their way through the chaos to safely reach their schools.

“What happened to this little boy is a tragedy.   This accident could have been avoided had the driver of the bus been traveling cautiously through the busy intersection, knowing that children frequent the area and recognizing that the delivery truck may have been blocking his view.” According to Diane Cardoso, partner in the Javerbaum Wurgaft Jersey City office.

This is not a new phenomenon, rather a common occurrence.   At the law firm of Javerbaum Wurgaft we see cases like these all the time.  We help families that have been devastated and strive to be the voice of the victims and hold accountable those who are responsible. If you have a problem, we are here to help




Stryker issued a hazard alert for LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 hips in conjunction with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia’s equivalent of the U.S. FDA. At the time of this writing, no such action has been taken by the FDA.

The product, manufactured by Stryker Orthopaedics, is actually the femoral head, a part used in total hip replacements. The heads are surgically attached to the top of the femur (the longest bone in the leg) and fit into an acetabular shell, which then fits into the patients’ hip sockets. The hazard alert was issued when Stryker became aware that some of the LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 femoral heads were more likely to have taper lock failures. The taper lock connects the heads to the femoral neck. The neck is the section connecting the head to the femur.

If the taper lock fails, patients could find themselves, literally, in a world of hurt. The possible results of taper lock failure include:

    – loss of mobility

    – pain

    – inflammation

    – adverse local tissue reaction

    – dislocation

    – joint instability

    – broken bones around the components

    – leg length discrepancy

    – need for revision surgery

Currently, Stryker has determined that there are four products with this issue, but included three others that are similar in design just to be safe. The item numbers, head diameters and offsets are listed below:

Specifics to watch for include:

    – disassociation of the femoral head from the hip stem

    – fractured hip stem trunnion

    – increased metallic debris

    – insufficient range of movement

    – insufficient soft tissue tension

    – noise

    – loss of implant

    – bone fixation strength

    – increased wear debris (polymetric)

    – implant construct with a shortened neck length.

If you are concerned that you may have one of these implants, please contact Frank Rodriguez at (201) 876-8930 or


In a landmark decision in New Jersey, The Court stated there is sufficient testimony and evidence showing Lexapro caused heart defects and spina bifida in three children to allow a jury to decide their claims. Francisco Rodriguez, Javerbaum Wurgaft partner is the lead New Jersey lawyer handling these claims in Hudson County as well as throughout the entire State of New Jersey.

Lexapro, manufactured by Forest Laboratories, was prescribed to many pregnant women for depression during pregnancy, and can cause a range of serious birth defects to the infant, particularly if taken during the first trimester. After the drug was approved in 2002, it was widely marketed, without informing many potential patients of its side effects. Forest Pharmaceuticals has already paid over $313 million to the U.S. Department of Justice for marketing Lexapro for unapproved uses; but, they remain legally responsible for the damages inflicted on mothers and infants who have suffered because of the drug’s effects

Birth Defects caused by Lexapro can include:

Congenital heart defects and anomalies
Persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN)
Down’s syndrome
Undescended testes
Spina bifida
Cleft lip or cleft palate

Drug makers have a legal duty to warn about all potential side effects of their medications. Without this full disclosure, a pregnant mother cannot make an informed decision about the potential risk to her unborn child. When this information is kept from her and the baby is born with defects due to the drug, the company may be held liable.

The Court rulings in the Hudson County, New Jersey Lexapro cases against Forest Laboratories represents the first time that a court in the United States has ruled that the expert testimony against Lexapro is sufficient to be able to take a case to trial. Rulings in other jurisdictions unfortunately shielded Forest Laboratories from liability.

If you have taken Lexapro while pregnant or have any other questions, please contact the lawyer at Javerbaum Wurgaft, they are here to help


Bourbon bars, Craft breweries and Wine bars are all the rage for young and old in today’s society. In attempting to find the elusive aged scotch or perfect red wine, we forget the effect these alcoholic products have on our brain, ability to function and most importantly our ability to make smart and safe choices. More often than not, we are not even aware of how intoxicated we have become. This is particularly dangerous when we are out of the house and being served alcohol at a restaurant or bar. Once the drunk person is allowed to drive that car becomes a massive weapon leaving the possibility of destruction to all in its wake.

Imagine you are out with your 20 year old son and daughter and a drunk driver hits you, killing your child. You witness this senseless atrocity; lives are ruined and changed forever, including the life of the drunk driver. Unfortunately the lawyers at Javerbaum Wurgaft are representing a family dealing with this very issue.

There are so many simple solutions to this epidemic. When going out for “a drink” take a cab, have a person designated as a driver, or simply walk. Simple planning in the beginning of the evening can save a life, maybe yours. Eric Kahn, partner at Javerbaum Wurgaft has stated I have seen first hand the devastation that can be caused by someone who drives a car while impaired. I am currently representing a woman who was involved in a high speed, head-on collision with a drunk driver, whose life has been catastrophically altered as a result of the injuries she sustained in the accident. After spending over 3 months in the hospital following the accident, breaking too many bones to count and undergoing multiple surgical procedures, my client’s life and the life of her husband and children, will never be the same”

The law firm of Javerbaum Wurgaft has been helping victims of drunk driving crashes for decades. If you have any questions or concern, call the firm of Javerbaum Wurgaft, they are here to help.


One of the least complicated decisions we make in life is hailing a taxi, however in the age of immediate gratification and “apps” we have complicated this simple decision. Instead of a hand gesture towards the road, we now press a button on our phones and see a picture of our driver approaching our location. At first glance it seems like the perfect solution to transportation and protecting our safety, however who are these drivers and are their cars safe and properly insured, do you really know?

The answer is not clear, and will vary depending on your location. The proliferation of the “rideshare” companies has called into question their safety. In virtually every State taxi companies as well as limousines are regulated regarding safety, insurance, and background checks of the drivers. Another form of “ride share” is a pooled ride situation, meaning you will share the car with a stranger who is going in the same general direction in order to defray part of the cost. However there is no screening procedure for these additional passengers, increasing the potential danger during the ride. The question that each one of us must ask ourselves…Does the convenience outweigh the possible dangers of these shared rides?

Lawrence Simon, partner in the New York office of Javerbaum, Wurgaft, Hicks, Kahn, Wikstrom and Sinins has recently been appointed co-chair of the Ride Share Litigation Group of the American Association for Justice advises “Do not hesitate to reject the car when it arrives. If the vehicle is not clean or your gut tells you something is off with the Driver or shared Passenger, take the next one” Larry advises to always put your safety before convenience.

If you have suffered injuries while a passenger in a ride share vehicle, such as Uber or Lyft, call the law offices of Javerbaum, Wurgaft, Hicks, Kahn, Wikstrom and Sinins. With offices throughout New Jersey, New York City and Atlanta, we can help you any where in the Country.