malpractice action against defendant, their motion to set aside the settlement was denied by the Supreme Court, this Court affirmed the Supreme Court, and plaintiffs now have brought a new action seeking to declare void one of the key provisions of the settlement agreement?
FACTS
Plaintiffs,
husband (a psychiatrist) and wife, brought an action in medical malpractice for
the alleged pain and suffering and wrongful death of their son while an
inpatient at defendant’s hospital. Their son had been living at home, was
unmarried and unemployed. He died of a pulmonary embolism in his sixth day of
hospitalization.
Plaintiffs sued as administrators of their son’s
estate and in their individual capacities. On July 8, 1999, after numerous
settlement conferences attended by both plaintiffs before Justice Heitler, and
on the eve of trial, plaintiffs and defendant agreed to resolve the case. The
settlement agreement was reduced to writing in a general release that laid out
the terms, which were: the case would be discontinued; all parties waived all
claims they might have against each other; plaintiffs would receive $500,000;
the settlement would be confidential; and there would be no publicity about the
case itself. The last of these terms specifically provided that plaintiffs would
shut down a website
Click for Previous Page
Click for Next Page (8/23)
Click for Appeal - "Contracts for Silence"