Lawrence Rosenblatt and Daniel Milstein successfully argue that Plaintiff proffered to the Court an altered ‘expert’ letter, leading to the dismissal of 14-yer-old malpractice case.

This was an over 14-year-old medical malpractice action with a convoluted procedural history, marked by extended delays, multiple changes in counsel, and lengthy periods during which Plaintiff proceeded pro se. The motion resulting in dismissal did not turn on the merits of the underlying malpractice allegations; rather they arose from ARFD’s contention that Plaintiff, while pro se, proffered to the Court a purported ‘expert’ letter (requested by the Court) attributed to the Plaintiff’s then long-standing treating colorectal surgeon.  It was contended that the letter had an obvious alteration – containing  a sentence that had grammatical and syntax errors and was inserted between two existing paragraphs.  Further, it was contended that such letter was in direct contravention of what Plaintiff’s treating physician had advised Plaintiff on multiple occasions, to wit that she would not act as her expert.

Daniel Milstein authored the motion revolving around claims of perpetuating a fraud upon the Court;, triggering a hearing.  Lawrence Rosenblatt examined and cross-examined the physician, Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s friend. Evidence was entered into the record and the Court requested closing arguments.

The Court determined that the former treating physician was highly credible, whereas the Plaintiff and her friend were not. In doing so, the Court further concluded that the Defendants had proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Plaintiff knowingly put before the Court an obviously altered document, finding that such conduct warranted dismissal of the matter.