Lawrence W. Rosenblatt, Partner
Lawrence W. Rosenblatt is a graduate of Brooklyn Law School. Prior to entering law school, Lawrence worked for several Fortune 500 retailers in both management and operations.
As a member of Aaronson Rappaport, Lawrence manages a varied range of complex medical malpractice and civil litigation matters with multi-million dollar exposures from inception through trial, focusing on achieving excellent results in a cost-effective manner. Lawrence has obtained numerous defense and directed verdicts, as well as dismissals on summary judgment and Frye motions, for his clients throughout New York. He is also a member of the firm’s Executive and Marketing Committees.
Admitted to all New York State courts and the federal courts of New York, Eastern and Southern Districts, Lawrence also manages complex litigation matters in New Jersey.
Separate and apart from his Aaronson Rappaport obligations, Lawrence is an invited member of the prestigious Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM). Selected attorneys and law firms are extended membership by invitation only based on nominations from CLM Fellows. Lawrence has served as CLM’s Chair of its National Medical Malpractice Sub-Committee, and has also been a presenter at CLM’s national and regional conferences on the subjects of defense strategies in high exposure medical malpractice matters as well as Frye and Daubert motion practice. Lawrence is also a former member of the New York City Bar Association’s Medical Malpractice Committee and has achieved a peer-reviewed AV-rating by Martindale-Hubbell. He has also been selected and listed for several years by New York -Metro Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers In America, and Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators in multiple practice areas.
Specialties: civil litigation, including professional negligence, general liability, premises, construction, auto, products and employment law, with an emphasis on high-exposure medical malpractice, catastrophic injury and general liability matters in the greater New York and New Jersey areas.
- Dutchess County – Defense Verdict for a health network and cardio-vascular practice in a medical malpractice action, wherein it was claimed that the patient, a middle-aged male who had recently underwent left rotator cuff repair surgery, was caused to suffer a new tendon tear to the same shoulder as a result of the defendants’ failure to properly observe him during a nuclear stress test. It was alleged that this led to the need for two additional rotator cuff surgeries and, ultimately, a reverse left shoulder replacement surgery, leaving the patient with permanent limitations of the upper left extremity.
- Kings County – Directed Verdict for a urologist in a medical malpractice/wrongful death action, wherein it was claimed that the patient, a diabetic, deteriorated and died from the effects of septic shock five days after a prostate biopsy. It was claimed the patient’s death was as a result of the failure to properly place the patient on antibiotics following the procedure and a failure to appreciate the significance of the patient’s fever after the biopsy. After the plaintiffs rested, having only elicited a sole hypothetical departure from their expert, a motion was made to dismiss. It was argued that the factual predicates raised by the hypothetical departure were proven false during the cross examination of the plaintiffs, and that proper proximate cause was not established. After oral argument, the Court reviewed the trial transcripts, and shortly thereafter dismissed the case, agreeing with every argument made by the defendant.
- Queens County – Defense Verdict for an emergency medicine physician and hospital in a medical malpractice/wrongful death action, wherein it was claimed that the 53 year-old patient deteriorated and died as a result of the defendants failure to timely diagnose and treat pulmonary emboli over the course of several hours while the patient was in the emergency room. Notably, the jury found 6-0 for the defendants on all six departure questions that the Court allowed the jury to consider.
- Kings County – Directed Verdict for a defendant hospital in a medical malpractice/wrongful death action, wherein it was claimed that the patient deteriorated and died as a result of a foreign body being left in the patient for several hours after surgical closure, but thereafter recognized and removed by re-operation. Affirmed on appeal.
- Kings County – Defense Verdict in medical malpractice/wrongful death action, wherein it was claimed that a defendant endoscopist failed to properly monitor and appreciate worsening vital signs, leading to the arrest and death of a middle-aged patient during an elective colonoscopy.
- Kings County – Defense Verdict in a medical malpractice action, wherein it was claimed that a defendant vascular surgical consult failed to appreciate an injured artery immediately following a knee replacement revision surgery, leading to ischemic neuropathy and permanent foot drop the following morning. Of note, the jury returned it’s verdict in under 15 minutes.
- Richmond County – Defense Verdict for a defendant infectious disease consult in a medical malpractice action, wherein it was claimed there was a failure to adequately treat an alleged deep knee infection following a total knee replacement, allowing the patient to be prematurely discharged on inadequate antibiotics. It was claimed that this resulted in systemic infection and localized infection to the knee, requiring staged surgical revision of the prior knee replacement and leading to permanent ambulation difficulties.
- Dutchess County – Directed Verdict for a defendant hospital in a medical malpractice action, wherein it was claimed that the hospital was vicariously liable for the actions of the co-defendant general surgeon under a theory of apparent agency. It was also claimed that the co-defendant surgeon caused multiple bowel enterotomies during the course of two surgeries. It was successfully argued at close of evidence that plaintiff did not elicit sufficient evidence during trial that the patient reasonably relied on representations made by hospital staff in making her decision to undergo surgery with surgeon, so as to allow an apparent agency theory to be considered by the jury.
- 23 ARFD attorneys recognized as 2020 NY-Metro Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Learn more →
- Lawrence W. Rosenblatt and trial team obtain defense verdict in Dutchess County Learn more →
- 10 ARFD Partners recognized by Best Lawyers in America 2020, including Jay A. Rappaport, named Lawyer of the Year Learn more →
- Directed verdict in Kings County for Lawrence Rosenblatt and his trial team Learn more →
- 19 ARFD Attorneys named as 2019 NY-Metro Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Learn more →
- Lawrence W. Rosenblatt obtains a medical malpractice defense verdict in Queens County Learn more →
- 10 ARFD partners recognized by The Best Lawyers in America© 2019 Learn more →
- 11 ARFD partners recognized by NY-Metro Super Lawyers for 2018 Learn more →
- Two more successful summary judgment motion outcomes for ARFD clients Learn more →
- Lawrence Rosenblatt obtains a directed verdict in Dutchess County after two-week trial Learn more →
- Aaronson Rappaport Partners Were Selected to the 2017 New York Super Lawyers List Learn more →
- Aaronson Rappaport Partners Were Selected to the 2016 New York Super Lawyers List Learn more →
- Aaronson Rappaport Partner Lawrence Rosenblatt Presented at CLM Conference Learn more →
- Three Defense Verdicts Obtained in One Month for Aaronson Rappaport Clients Learn more →
- New York’s Highest State Court Tells NYC To Improve Roadway Safety Learn more →
- Forces of Labor Defense in Erb’s Palsy cases…to be continued? Learn more →
- No fiduciary breach without respondeat superior Learn more →
- Beginning of the End for Medicaid Liens? Learn more →
- Wrongful Death Suit Tossed for Staten Island Man Killed by Pit Bulls Learn more →
- FDA considering expanding role of pharmacists and reducing role of physicians…really? Learn more →
- Clients stressed by lawsuits? Communicate! Learn more →
- Against Medical Advice – Remember CPLR Article 14. Learn more →