A TRADITION OF LEGAL SERVICE IN THE COMMUNITY

I believe we have a duty to give back to the communities in which we live and work. And I am humbled by the extraordinary work that is being done to help people in need all around us. By witnessing our fellow members contribute within our communities, I know that personal background or social status isn’t what really matters. What natters is that we continue to recognize that others need our help – and that we continue to do our part.


BEING OF SERVICE TO THOSE AROUND US


We have set up this page to shared links to some of our favorite advocacy and prosocial organizations on this page. If there are other organizations that are important to you, please share them with us.


A JURY IS THE ULTIMATE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY

The DiPietro Law Firm was founded in January of 2003 to continues the fight on behalf of people and their families that have been harmed by medical negligence. Over the years, we have grown and have become a national law firm that now handles cases involving defective medical devices and recalled consumer products. I consider it a privilege to represent the public at large, and to bring about improvements in Patient Safety.

The laws of our country were set established to ensure that all people have equal and open access to the courts to have our disputes resolved fairly and consistently by fellow members of the community. I believe this is an extremely important right. Access to the courthouse should not be limited to those who have a tremendous amount of money or political power.

I would urge everyone to think about how important and precious it is to have our grievances resolved by a “Community” consensus (a jury of our peers). The government doesn’t get everything right, but the laws our forefather’s created which put the power to resolve important disputes in the hands of the Community – as a jury – may be the single most important right that we have. In the courthouse, a jury from the Community is the ultimate authority.


NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT BASED ADVOCATES FOR BREAST CANCER AWARENESS TAKE ON MEDICAL TRADE GROUPS


In order to protect the 50% of the women in this country who have dense breasts, patient advocates in New York and Connecticut are spearheading a campaign that is taking on, and beating, some of the most powerful lobbyists and special interests groups in the Country. “Are Your Dense Advocacy (AYDA)” is supporting legislation in several States to increase patient safety by requiring women be informed of their breast density in the letter received after a mammogram and insurance companies to cover the cost of additional testing. Their efforts are no doubt saving countless lives; a recent study indicates that as many as 45,000 American women annually receive mammogram results classified as “normal/negative” when, in fact, their dense breast tissue is actually hiding cancer.

“Are Your Dense Advocacy” has already passed improved “inform laws” in 24 States and is currently working on more in their effort to further increase Patient Safety. The goal of this legislation is to educate both the medical profession and the public that mammograms have been proven to miss over 50% of cancers in women with dense breasts – and that doctors should be offering these women additional screening such as breast-sonograms or breast-MRIs – in order to supplement mammograms and aide in the early detection of breast cancer.

The work of “Are You Dense” and “Are Your Dense Advocacy” is vital and ongoing. Please show them support by visiting their websites and learning more about what they do. And please make sure to educate yourself and the people you love about these issues. As a result of the “political” environment that we currently live in, we can’t always count on doctors to do the right thing to keep us safe. The information you learn could save someone’s life.

NEW YORK MALPRACTICE PATIENT WINS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DOCTOR

In one of only a handful of cases in New York medical malpractice jurisprudence, Anthony T. DiPietro, Esq., won a motion which held a doctor liable for negligently leaving a suturing needle inside a patient’s abdomen following an operative procedure. Ordinarily, in cases of medical malpractice a jury determines whether or not a doctor is negligent. However, Mr. DiPietro was vigilant in prosecuting this case on behalf of Mr. Faas, and filed a motion before trial requesting the judge to rule as a matter of law that the doctor was negligent. “This case was ripe for summary judgment. It is unfathomable to a reasonable person that the defendant was not negligent in losing that needle in my client,” states Mr. DiPietro.

After news of the judge’s decision made the front page of the New York Law Journal on July 20, 2005, other media became interested in this extraordinary case. The New York Daily News, New York Post, Associated Press, and Network Television all picked up on this story and the judge’s decision became published around the globe.

DOCTOR AT LINCOLN HOSPITAL PERFORMED AN UNAPPROVED EXPERIMENTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT SURGERY ON A PATIENT TO HELP PRODUCT MANUFACTURER ILLEGALLY GAIN FDA APPROVAL

In August 2004, the Law Office of Anthony T. DiPietro learned that a certain doctor at Lincoln Hospital in the Bronx was implanting non-FDA approved prosthetic knees into patients that were manufactured by a foreign corporation, which goes by the names Plus Orthopedics, Plus Endoprothetik AG, and Endoplus. An investigation is currently underway to determine how many other unsuspecting patients were enrolled in this “experiment” in the company’s cold-hearted attempt to gain US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) approval, without ever telling their patients about the experimental nature of this device.

HISTORIC RULING HOLDS PHARMACY LIABLE FOR DISPENSING STEROIDS TO AN INFANT

Anthony T. DiPietro, Esq., made a little bit of history in 2000 when a judge agreed that a pharmacy could be held liable for the injuries that an infant sustained after taking a prescription medication. Ordinarily, a pharmacy is shielded from liability when it dispenses a prescription medication pursuant to a doctor’s order. However, Mr. DiPietro was able to demonstrate to the court that even though the pharmacy dispensed the medication in accordance with the pediatrician’s prescription, the pharmacy “should have known” that this child should not have been given that particular drug for the duration prescribed. This was apparently the second reported case in the history of New York to hold a pharmacy liable in this circumstance. Alcides C. (infant) v. Fustero, et. al.