LAW OFFICE OF LEONARD P.

BUSCEMI
Serving VA-DC-MD
5531 LEE HIGHWAY, SUITE 204
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22207

(703) 528-8477 (office)

(703) 309-2192 (cell)
(703) 528-8474 (fax)

BUSCEMILAW@AOL.COM (email)
=================================
WASHINGTONMETROLAW.COM
==========================

HOME: SERVICES/OVERVIEW

QUALIFICATIONS
Commissioner in Chancery
Peer Review Rating
Education & Training
Court Admissions
Reported Cases
Appeals & Opinions
Personal Background

NOTABLE CASES & THE STORY OF BEAR

LOCATION

1
 LAW OFFICE OF LEONARD P. BUSCEMI
5531 LEE HIGHWAY, SUITE 204
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22207

(703) 528-8477 (office)

(703) 309-2192 (cell)
(703) 528-8474 (fax)

BUSCEMILAW@AOL.COM (email)
=================================
WASHINGTONMETROLAW.COM
==========================

Every client deserves to have their case in the hands of competent counsel. Since first stepping into a courtroom
to practice law more than 40 years ago, I have represented over 1,200 clients and accumulated the full set of
legal skills gained from litigating and negotiating accident, civil, criminal, traffic and administrative cases and
providing legal services on a variety of general law practice matters. I pride myself on being available to my
clients. I attend all court appearances, review and compose all documents, perform all legal research and
analysis, and personally respond to all inquiries. In doing so, I remain fully engaged in the case and am able to
keep track of and attend to every important detail.

Here are the services I offer and an overview of this website.

SERVICES

Legal Representation for persons:

- injured in an accident or by malpractice;

- in civil disputes such as property, contract, business, wills, trust, and fiduciary matters;

- charged with criminal and traffic offenses

such as, driving under the influence of alcohol, possession of a controlled substance,
assault & battery, disorderly, speeding, reckless, or improper driving and other traffic infractions.

Legal Consultation - to review documents and/or address issue(s) of concern.

Legal Document Preparation - i.e., agreement, releases, wills, trusts, deeds, etc.
2
 OVERVIEW

In the Notable Cases section of this website, I summarize some of the cases I have handled in order to give you
a better idea of the areas of law in which I have practiced and the nature and extent of my experience.

If you are interested learning what keeps me fully committed to the practice of law after all these years, I invite
you to please read and enjoy The Story of "Bear" the Dog (at the end of the Notable Cases section of this
website).
I serve as Commissioner in Chancery for Arlington County and the City of Falls Church; appointed 2013 to the
position by the Chief Judge of Virginia's 17th Judicial Circuit (see Qualifications: Commissioner in
Chancery and Courts: Arlington County and City of Falls Church section of this website).
My experience, skill, integrity, and professional excellence are rated at the highest level, 5 of 5,
AV®Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, the nation's premier peer review rating service which evaluates
lawyers and law firms in the United States. (See Qualifications: Peer Rating section of this website)
I am licensed to practice law in the courts and agencies of Virginia, the District of Columbia, Maryland, the
United States District Courts for those jurisdictions, as well as, the United States Court of Appeals for both the
D.C. and 4th Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court. (See Qualifications: Courts, Reported Cases,
Appeals and Opinions section of this website)
I was born and raised in Niagara Falls, New York. I came to live in the Washington D.C. area in 1974 while
attending Georgetown University. See under Qualifications: Personal Background. I am a 1976 graduate of
Georgetown's School of Foreign Service and I received my Doctor of Jurisprudence from the Antioch School of
Law in 1980. (See under Qualifications: Education and Training section of this website)
My office is located at 5531 Lee Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22207 (See Contact and Location).
My cell phone number is (703) 309-2192. I welcome the opportunity to serve you.

3
 QUALIFICATIONS

==============================================================================

Commissioner in Chancery for Arlington County and the City of Falls Church

Leonard P. Buscemi serves as Commissioner in Chancery for Virginia's 17th Judicial Circuit, comprised
of Arlington County and the City of Falls Church, appointed to the position by the Chief Judge in 2013. The
17th Judicial Circuit is one of thirty-one circuits in the state's unified court system. The circuit courts are trial
courts of general jurisdiction that have the broadest judicial powers in the state.

A Commissioner in Chancery's role is to aid the circuit court judges in judicial matters such as taking
evidence and settling accounts and other matters "necessary for the convenient dispatch of the business of such
court" Virginia Code § 8.01 – 607. A Commissioner has the authority under Rule 3:23 of Virginia Supreme
Court Rules to compel the production of documents call witnesses to testify, and rule upon the admissibility of
evidence.

The cases referred to a Commissioner usually involve equity matters such as divorce, business
dissolution, accounting, partition, sale of land, debtor's interrogatories, and mechanic liens, etc. Cases are
referred to a Commissioner either by agreement of parties, or by motion of a party or the court on its own for
good cause. In most cases, an "Order of Reference" provides specific instructions to the Commissioner from the
circuit court judge as to the findings of fact or conclusions of law, or both, to be reported to the judge.

Upon conclusion of the evidence, the Commissioner prepares and files a report with circuit court and
the parties may "take exception" to the findings of fact or conclusions of law in the report and the presiding
circuit court judge may either accept or reject the Commissioner's findings and conclusions in whole or in part.

4
 Since his appointment in 2013, Mr. Buscemi has served in a number of cases as Commissioner. He was
appointed by the court Special Commissioner pursuant to Virginia Code §8.01 – 96 to preside over sale of real
property which included marketing the property for sale, entering standard real estate sales contract (contingent
upon court's approval), taking reasonable measures to protect the property from trespass vandalism or other
forms of destruction and ascertaining all delinquent taxes.

Mr. Buscemi presided as Commissioner in Chancery in a partition case involving a single family
property owned in equal shares by four parties as tenants in common. One of the three tenants in common
petitioned the court under Virginia Code § 8.01-81 to partition the property and sell it for fair market value and
distribute the shares accordingly. The parties subsequently agreed to have the case referred to a Commissioner
in Chancery and a Decree of Reference was issued by the circuit court which directed the Commissioner to
report and find the person(s) responsible for payment and maintenance of the home, certain encumbrances, and
property improvements and establish the 1/4 share value of the real property and a time frame for the parties
have to pay that value to the party who wanted to sell her share of the property to other three tenants in
common.

Mr. Buscemi has served as Commissioner in Chancery for a number of debtor’s interrogatories,
sometimes called a deposition or discovery in aid of enforcement. It is basically a legal proceeding to learn
about the debtor’s assets. The Commissioner in Chancery puts the debtor under oath and a judgment creditor
requests from judgment debtor information about bank accounts, vehicles, accounts receivable and other assets.
The judgment creditor will contact the Commissioner, make an appointment and then serve the judgment debtor
with a subpoena to appear at that time and place. The judgment creditor has the option of arranging for a court
reporter to record all of the questioning. If the judgment debtor fails to appear at the time and place noted on the
subpoena, the Commissioner will issue a Rule to Show Cause why judgment debtor should not be held in
contempt of Court for failure to appear and to comply with the requirements of the Summons to Answer
Interrogatories/Subpoena. In the event judgment debtor complies with the subpoena, the Commissioner issues a
report that the defendant appeared and completed answers to debtor interrogatories propounded by counsel for
the plaintiff and produced documents listed and attached to the Summons to Answer Interrogatories and reports
to the court that the matter is ended.

5
 Courts of Arlington County and the City of Falls Church

The 17th Judicial District includes Arlington County and the City of Falls Church. The circuit court bench is
comprised of three judges, Chief Judge Newman, Judge Daniel S. Fiore, II and Judge Louise M. DiMatteo.
General District Court judges are Judge Thomas J. Kelley Jr., Judge Richard J. McCue, and Judge R. Frances
O'Brien. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations judges are Judge George D. Varoutsos, and Judge Robin L.
Robb.

General District Court and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court matters originating in Arlington County or
City of Falls Church are held in the respective courthouse for each jurisdiction. All proceedings for Circuit
Court cases in the 17th Judicial Circuit are held at the Arlington County Courthouse only.

Arlington County Courthouse Court: City of Falls Church, City Hall

1425 North Courthouse Road 300 Park Avenue, Room 107E
Arlington, Virginia 22201 Falls Church, Virginia 22046

Peer Rating

Leonard P. Buscemi possesses the highest rating (5/5.0 -AV®Preeminent) from Martindale-Hubbell, the
nation's premier peer review him rating service for the evaluation of lawyers and law firms in the United States.

Martindale-Hubbell's rating system is considered an objective indicator of a lawyer's high ethical standards and
professional ability. Attorneys receive a rating based on evaluations by other members of the bar and the
judiciary. The first review to establish a lawyer's rating usually occurs three years after his/her first admission to
the bar and surveys lawyers across multiple jurisdictions and geographic locations, and in similar areas of
practice as the lawyer being rated. Reviewers are asked to assess their colleagues' general ethical standards and
legal ability in a specific area of practice.
6
The General Ethical Standards rating means the attorney adheres to professional standards of conduct and
ethics, reliability, diligence and other criteria relevant to practicing law. Those lawyers who are judged to have
"Very High" General Ethical Standards can proceed to the next step in the ratings process - Legal Ability.

Legal Ability ratings are based on performance in five key areas, rated on a scale of one to five (with one being
the lowest and five being the highest). These areas are:

o Legal Knowledge - Lawyer's familiarity with the laws in his or her specific area of practice(s)
o Analytical Capabilities - Lawyer's creativity in analyzing legal issues and applying technical
knowledge
o Judgment - Lawyer's demonstration of the salient factors that drive the outcome of a given case or issue
o Communication Ability - Lawyer's capability to communicate persuasively and credibly
o Legal Experience - Lawyer's degree of experience in his or her specific area of practice(s)

After lawyers have been evaluated on their legal ability, they will receive one of three ratings:
o AV Preeminent (4.5-5.0) - AV Preeminent is a significant rating accomplishment- a testament to the
fact that a lawyer's peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence.
o BV Distinguished (3.0-4.4) - BV Distinguished is an excellent rating for a lawyer with some
experience. A widely respected mark of achievement, it differentiates a lawyer from his or her
competition.
o Rated (1.0-2.9) - The Peer Review Rated designation demonstrates the lawyer has met the Very High
criteria of General Ethical Standing.

Education & Training

Leonard Buscemi is a 1976 graduate of Georgetown University where he received a Bachelor of Science in
Foreign Service. In 1980, he received his doctor of jurisprudence degree from Antioch School of Law in
Washington, D.C., where the training he received was the first of its kind in the nation.
Antioch was founded in 1972 by Yale law graduates, Edgar S. and Jean Camper Cahn who created a unique
academic and clinical program committed to training lawyers in a comprehensive clinical legal education model
adopted in nearly every law school in America. This tradition is carried on today by its successor, the University
of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law.

7
As an Antioch law student, Mr. Buscemi represented indigent clients in juvenile, family, immigration, and
disability law cases under the auspices of the D.C. Law Student in Court Program. He served as legal intern to
Judge Leonard Braman of the District of Columbia Superior Court in a Felony II rotation and as a criminal
investigator under the Criminal Justice Act investigating assault, armed robbery and arson cases for defense
counsel Richard Stern. In his third-year of law school, Mr. Buscemi was appointed to serve as Special Assistant
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia (under the auspices of the D.C. Law Student in Court
Program). There he enjoyed great success prosecuting 40 misdemeanor cases and appearing on behalf of the
United States in 30 substantive hearings and 5 trials where in all he obtained 30 court rulings and five verdicts,
all in favor of the Government.

In his final semester of law school, Mr. Buscemi was selected by Judge Braman to serve as his legal intern in a
"Civil I" rotation, the D.C. Superior Court’s most complex and specially designated civil litigation. There he
helped manage the cases, and research, write and participate in all court and chamber proceedings. Those who
know Judge Braman, a distinguished jurist of great intellect and exacting standards, can appreciate the value of
this legal experience.

By the time Mr. Buscemi graduated from law school in 1980, he had already gained over 2,000 hours of
courtroom experience and he was immediately hired by the law firm of Koonz, McKenney & Johnson in
Washington, D.C. as a law clerk for the senior partner. He became an associate of the firm when admitted to
the District of Columbia on June 19, 1981 and for the next 4 years he litigated several hundred injury,
malpractice, product liability and disability law cases.

On July 2, 1985, Mr. Buscemi opened his own law practice where he has accumulated a depth of experience as
lead counsel in accident, malpractice, civil, criminal, traffic and administrative cases and providing legal
services on general law practice matters.

8
 Courts: Admissions

United States Supreme Court

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Supreme Court of Virginia
Maryland Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
United States District Court of the District of Columbia
United States District Courts of Virginia: Eastern & Western Divisions
United States District Courts of Maryland: Northern & Southern Divisions
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Courts: Appearances as Lead Counsel in the following courts:

Trial Courts

District of Colombia Superior Court

Virginia
Arlington County Circuit Court
City of Alexandria Circuit Court
City of Richmond Circuit Court
Essex County Circuit Court
Fairfax County Circuit Court
Fauquier County Circuit Court
King George County Circuit Court
Loudon County Circuit Court
Northumberland County Circuit Court
Prince William County Circuit Court
Rockingham County Circuit Court
Williamsburg-James City County Circuit Court

Maryland
Anne Arundel County Circuit Court
Baltimore City Circuit Court
Montgomery County Circuit Court
Prince George’s County Circuit Court
9
 Washington County Circuit Court

United States District Courts

Alexandria, Virginia
Baltimore, Maryland
District of Columbia
Greenbelt, Maryland
Roanoke, Virginia

Appellate Courts:

Virginia Supreme Court

U.S. Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit
District of Colombia Court of Appeals
United States Supreme Court

Reported Cases:

WUSA Channel 9, April 24, 1987, Television interview - Metro bus door - defective safety device

The Washington Times, July 31, 1987, David Beats Goliath Third Time.

D.C. Legal Times, August 3, 1987, Ups and Downs

D.C. Legal Times, October 15,1990, Million-Dollar Verdict

The Washington Times, May 1,1992, Dental Suit Yields $4 Million

The Montgomery Express, May 5, 1993, Chevy Chase Dentist to Pay $3.2 Million Suit

Virginia Lawyers Weekly, October 12, 1994, Will Contest - Limitations - Unsound Mind

Daily Washington Law Reporter, April 19, 1996, Negative Evidence

The Hagerstown Herald-Mail, November 15, 1997, Dentist Sued Over Alleged Nerve Damage

Virginia Lawyers Weekly, June 2, 2003, Medical Trust - Fiduciary Duty -Disabled Adult

10
Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume 5, No. 8, p. 289, Dental Malpractice - Injection - Loss of Speech

Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume 4, No.7, p. 243, Dental Malpractice - Injection - Nerve Damage

Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume 6, No. 1, p. 3 , Elevator - Sudden Acceleration & Stop Maintenance
Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume 2, No. 2, p. 41, Premises Liability – Office Plaza - Detached Door

Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume 2, No. 4, p. 163, Auto/Truck Accident -Rear-End - Stopped at Light

Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume 2, No. 12, p. 470, Worksite Accident - Maintenance Workers - Burns

Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume 4, No 6, p. 204, Assault & Battery – Health Spa - Altercation

The Virginia Verdict Reporter, Vol. 6, Issue 2, p. 5-6; Vol. 23 Issue 7, p.26, Ice Cube - Sidewalk - Caterer

The Virginia Verdict Reporter, Volume 22, Issue 11, pg 23, Driver Exiting Parking Lot

Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume 27, Issue 7, p. 12, Husband and Wife Minor Crash Defense

Appeals & Opinions

Otis Elevator Company vs. Robinson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 86-701

Grayson vs. D.C. Dept. of Employment Services, 516 A.2d 909 (D.C.App. 1986)

Otis Elevator Company vs. Ellsbery, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 87-7210

Henderson vs. Charles E. Smith Management, 567 A.2d 462 (D.C.App.1988)

Baker & Botts, et al, vs. D.C. Dept. of Employment Serv., D. C. Court of App., No: 95-AA-460

Hummer vs. Levin, 673 A.2d 631 (D.C.App.1996)

D'Souza vs. Burns, and Burns vs. WMATA, 114 F.3rd 219 (D.C.Cir.1997)
11
Panizza vs. Funkhouser, Supreme Court of Virginia, Record No. 97-0371

Sines vs. The Price Company, Supreme Court of Virginia, Record No. 981596

Schafer vs. D.C. Dept. of Employment Services, D.C. Court of Appeals, Appeal No: 99-AA-376

Panizza vs. Funkhouser, et.al.,Virginia Lawyers Weekly, October 12, 1994 (094-8-336, 3 pp).
Will Contest - Limitations - Unsound Mind

Beek, et. al. vs. Speakman,57 VA. Cir. 501 (Fairfax County Circuit Court 2000)
Will Contest -Undue Influence - Testamentary Capacity

Suntrust Bank vs. Children’s Nat. Medical Ctr., et.al.,

Virginia Lawyers Weekly, June 2, 2003 (VLW 003-8-114-115).
Medical Trust - Fiduciary Duty -Disabled Adult - Medical vs. Custodial Care

Fain vs. Dasilva, et al, Virginia Suprmem Court No. 160190

(Intent to Revoke Will - Collateral Estoppel)

Personal Background

Leonard’s grandparents immigrated to the United States from Italy in the early 1900’s. His paternal
grandfather first worked as a Pennsylvania coal miner, then as a grocer and his maternal grandfather was a
bricklayer who first settled in Vermont. Both their families eventually settled in Niagara Falls, New York.

Born December 18, 1953, Leonard grew up with his parents, his paternal grandfather, and two sisters, as
well as, a very large extended family of 26 aunts and uncles, and over 60 cousins who all lived within the city
limits of Niagara Falls. Leonard's father, an amateur boxer in his youth, worked 39 years as a crane operator in
a Union Carbide factory. His mother, as well as raising three children, worked as a seamstress, election poll
worker, nursing home administrator. Both parents prided themselves on the fact that their three children were
the first of their generation to go to college.

Leonard has been married since 1978 to Francesca, a graduate of Niagara University and Pennsylvania
State University and former language teacher (Italian/Spanish/English). Since July 2, 1985, Francesca has been
the law office’s bookkeeper and its most valuable assistant. Leonard and Francesca live in their first home int he
Clarendon neighborhood of Arlington, Virginia, where they raised their two children

12
 NOTABLE CASES

Clients and attorneys have engaged Mr. Buscemi to act as lead counsel in the prosecution and defense of cases
involving accidents, malpractice, property, contract, business, will, estate and fiduciary disputes. Below is a
sampling of those cases which serve to illustrate the nature and extent of his law practice.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND IN READING THESE CASE SUMMARIES THAT THE

RESULTS IN EACH OF THESE CASES DEPENDED UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE
TO THAT CASE AND THE RESULTS OBTAINED IN THOSE ARE NOT GUARANTEED OR
PREDICTED TO RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE.

Malpractice: Dental -Anesthetic Injection -Needle Trauma

Dentist damaged cranial nerves during an anesthetic injection. Dentist inserted the needle into the gum near the
tempomandibular (jaw joint), causing the patient to feel an immediate, intense pain, electrical shock in the
tongue, and to involuntarily lunge forward from the chair into an upright position. With the syringe still in
patient's mouth, the dentist pushed the patient back in the chair and plunged in the entire carpule of anesthetic
fluid into the lower mandibular area. Nerve damage caused by needle trauma she sustained during this injection
left patient with oral pain, a loss of speech, touch, taste, sensation, and general motor function of the tongue.

The case, which lasted 7 years, involved two trials and an appeal. Over 40 witnesses participated in the case,
including multiple experts in anatomy, anesthesiology, neurology, oral medicine, oral surgery, speech
pathology, economics, vocational disabilities, and American Sign Language.

13
The defense based its strategy entirely on the credibility of the defendant dentist who testified he remembered
nothing about the injection and did not write any description of the injection in the patient's chart. The
defendant argued that the injection did not occur as described by the patient, because he and his employees
would have remembered such an extraordinary event. However, none of the dentist's employees could recall
being present or if they were in a position to observe the injection. The dentist also attempted to present
testimony of his past habit and custom of doing injections. At the first trial, the trial judge excluded the three
employees testimony, because defendant established no evidentiary foundation that these separate witnesses
remembered being present and in a position to observe this event. However, following trial, the dentist filed a
Motion for Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdict and the first trial judge incorrectly found his ruling that this
negative evidence lacked foundation, to be in error and ordered an entirely new trial. The District of Columbia
Court of Appeal, in a reported opinion, Hummer vs. Levin, et. Al., 673 A.2d 631 (DC 1996), ruled that the first
trial judge was initially correct in excluding this negative evidence that lacked foundation and subsequently
erred in granting a new trial.

The first trial ended with a $4 million verdict and the second trial ended with a $3.2 million verdict, which was
immediately paid. Patient then appealed the judgment for $3.2 million and two years later, the Court of Appeal
reversed the trial court’s order for a new trial and reinstated the original jury verdict of $4 million. The
defendant then paid an additional $1.2 million in judgment and interest for total payments of $4,400,000.00 in
judgment and interest

This case was also reported in the following publications:

Washington Times, May 1, 1992, Dental Suit Yields $4 Million
Montgomery Express, May 5, 1993, Chevy Chase Dentist to Pay $3.2 Million Suit
Daily Washington Law Reporter, April 19, 1996, Negative Evidence
Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume 4, Number 7, page 243, Dental Malpractice Injection Nerve Damage
Metro Verdicts Monthly Volume 5, Number 8, page 289, Dental Malpractice Injection Loss of Speech

Breach of Trust - Fiduciary Duty - Medical Care Trust

Represented trust beneficiary with profound mental retardation and quadriplegia in litigation with trustee,
SunTrust Bank, and trust grantor and remainderman, DC Children’s Hospital.
The trust was established in consideration of a 1982 settlement of a medical malpractice case against hospital
for misdiagnosis (meningitis) in 1978 when the beneficiary was 8 months old.
which resulted in her sustaining profound disabilities The trust provided for needs of child during her lifetime
which at the time of the malpractice settlement, Children’s Hospital expected to be minimal, no more than five
years.

The hospital funded trust expenses for daily home nursing services for over twelve years and then in 2001
contested and threatened to sue the trustee for paying these home nursing services, which were necessary for
survival, claiming it was custodial and not medical care under the terms of the trust. Fearing litigation in the
District of Columbia, the trustee filed a declaratory judgment action in Arlington County Circuit Court and
immediately thereafter, Children’s filed a breach of trust, fiduciary duty, accounting action against SunTrust in
D.C. Superior Court.

The case involved various equitable and legal issues, including fiduciary duty and trustee discretion; and it was
resolved in favor of the trustee and beneficiary by Decree entered in Arlington County Circuit Court and the
medical expenses for home nursing continued to be paid by the hospital for the next 8 years until the
beneficiary’s death at age 33.

14
The case required review and management of thousands of pages of trust bank and accounting documents, as
well as medical records spanning a period of over twenty years. Experts in trust administration, physical
medicine, internal medicine, developmental pediatrics testified.

The case was reported in Virginia Lawyers Weekly, June 2, 2003 (VLW 003-8-114 p. 15). SunTrust Bank vs.
Children’s Medical Ctr., et.al. Medical Trust Fiduciary Duty Disabled Adult Medical vs. Custodial Care.

Elevator Accidents - Sudden Stop - Product Liability - "David Beats Goliath Third Time"
Three cases against Otis Elevator Company, the world’s first and largest manufacturer and maintainer of
elevators, on behalf of three hospital workers who were injured on a hospital service elevator in three separate
accidents involving sudden, unexpected 4 mph stops caused by negligently designed, manufactured and
maintained elevator door safety edges. The unexpectedness of the stops caused significant injury to each worker
in each of the three accidents (1staccident - fracture to the transverse process of the first lumbar vertebra,
sensory neuropathy, depression, emotional stress and precipitation of diabetic condition; 2nd accident - complete
obliteration of the intervertebral disk between the 4thand 5th lumbar vertebra, a compression fracture of the T-12
(thoraic) vertebral body, clinical depression; and 3rd accident - chronic pain syndrome, rupture of the cervical
intervertebral disk between the 6th and 7th cervical vertebra).

Elevator experts testified on the issues of strict liability, negligent design, manufacture and maintenance of the
elevator. A mechanical engineer testified for Otis that a four mile per hour stop on an elevator could not have
caused injury. A rebuttal expert witness, a college professor, reputed author, and physicist, testified that
considering issues of time vs. speed, change, weight, dynamic behavior, biomechanics, and gravitational forces,
the medical physics of such an abrupt stop were sufficient to cause a intervertebral disk herniation.

Two of the cases involved appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concerning legal issues
regarding strict liability, negligent design, manufacture, evidence of prior similar accidents, and res ipsa
loquitur. In one of the cases, even though the plaintiff had been awarded a verdict he could not collect on the
judgment because the federal judge was taking an inordinate amount of time to rule on post-trial
motions. An extraordinary appellate procedure was employed when a writ of mandamus was filed on behalf of
the plaintiff seeking from the U.S. Court of Appeals an order that the federal judge rule on the post-trial
motions, The federal judge ruled shortly after the filing of the writ and the judgment was then paid by Otis. This
triple triumph was the subject of news articles in The Washington Times, July 31, 1987, “David Beats Goliath
Third Time” and D.C. Legal Times, August 3, 1987 article “Ups and Downs”.

It is important to note that Otis Elevator never offered fair settlements to any of the three hospital workers. Each
of these plaintiffs had to try their respective cases in federal court. Not surprisingly, the three juries returned
verdicts totaling $1.5 million, the amount demanded by these hospital workers to settle trial before trial and
which they collected after judgment with interest.

Oral Contract to Convey Land - Dead Man’s Statute - Real Property

Estate of a bother and uncle who left no will and was survived by five sisters, two nieces and nephews defended
against a claim for Specific Performance Of Oral Contract to Convey Land brought by the deceased’s domestic
partner who claimed a right of survivorship and 100% ownership of a townhouse property.
The surviving partner alleged in the complaint that he was unable to be present for closing on the property and
so Decedent purchased and titled it under his name only. The surviving partner alleged that they agreed to
jointly own the property. However, for the next thirty years until his death, the decedent made no will
bequeathing and no deed gifting his sole ownership and title. No written document was ever prepare or signed
and dated memorializing this alleged oral contract to convey land.

15
The complaint alleged the partners each would contributed toward the purchase and improvement of the
townhouse but whether payments to decedent by the surviving partner were rent or mortgage payment was
called into question. After decedent died, surviving partner vacated the townhouse that was set to be sold by the
estate and filed a memorandum of lis penden to stop the sale of the townhouse. The parties then agreed to allow
the sale to go forward and entered a Consent Order that property’s sale proceeds were held in escrow by the
Clerk of the Court pending resolution of the suit.

Virginia Code § 8.01-397 (commonly known as the “Dead Man’s Statute” proscribes that no judgment or
decree shall be rendered against and estate based only on uncorroborated testimony. (protecting an estate
against the hazard of spurious claims when the deceased is incapable of testifying. Virginia Supreme Court
in Virginia Home for Boys and Girls v. Phillips, 688 S.E.2d 284, 279 Va. 279 (2010) was determinative on the
issue. That case involved a nephew’s testimony that he had a kitchen table conference with his aunt and uncle
who promised him their farm when they both died, if he worked it for them during their lifetime. Even though
the nephew’s testimony was found to be credible, the Supreme Court held that no judgment or decree could be
rendered against the estate based only on uncorroborated testimony of the person asserting ownership.
Similarly, in this case, the testimony of the surviving partner that a conversation took place where he and the
decedent decided to jointly own this townhouse with right of survivorship was not enforceable where there was
no will, no deed, no writing and no corroboration of such an agreement by anyone other than the plaintiff.

Steam Boiler Explosion / Wrongful Death/Survival Action/ Emotional Distress

D.C. area’s largest real estate developer/manager sued for wrongful death and injury of two maintenance
workers (uncle and nephew). Building’s steam boiler exploded, causing 80% third degree burns and death three
weeks later to one worker. The other worker, the decedent’s nephew, suffered burns and witnessed his uncle
sustain massive, horrid injury.

Liability of defendant for this explosion was based on a testimony of an OSHA/steamfitter expert concerning
failure to inspect, follow proper cool down and manual procedures not done that are employed by qualified
steamfitters in that industry. The first trial judge granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. This
decision was appealed and successfully reversed in D.C. Court of Appeals, Henderson vs. Charles E. Smith
Management Co., 567 A.2d 462 (DC 1988). Appellate issues included employer/employee control and standard
of review for summary judgment.The case was then tried before a jury which awarded $1.1 million
verdict/judgment, which was promptly paid by the defendant. Among the first cases in the District of Columbia
to persuade a Superior Court jury to award damages based on the emotional distress of watching the serious
injuring of a close relative. Williams vs. Baker, 572 A.2d 1062 (DC 1990) a D.C. Court of Appeals case that
paved the way for the new tort. Reported in D.C. Legal Times, 10/15/90, Million Dollar Verdict; Metro
Verdicts Monthly, Volume 2, Number 12, page 470. Worksite Accident Maintenance Workers Burns.

Arrests—Constitutional & Civil Rights—Assault/Battery/False Arrest/Imprisonment

Suit against mall and department store on behalf of two friends, one white and the other non-white. The two
other were shopping at local mall department store when they noticed that surveillance cameras following the
non-white and deliberately profiling him as a potential shoplifter based solely on his minority race. The non-
white expressed dissatisfaction and exercised his right to free speech under the First Amendment of the
Constitution of United States by momentarily making a gesture with his middle finger directed at the
surveillance camera mounted on the ceiling.

The camera operator then came out onto the store floor and angrily confronted him and ordered “You, come
with me! We can do this the easy way or the hard way!” The two friends each paid for the merchandise they had
selected while and waited to talk to a manager they had demanded. No manager appeared and they decided to
leave the store and as they were leaving, were surrounded by an entire force of at least six department store and
mall security guards that blocked them from exiting the store. The camera operator grabbed the non-white
16
patron by the arm and handcuffed him. His friend took just one step forward and he asked “What is going on
here? What are you doing?” The friend was then violently and forcibly tackled to the floor and handcuffed.
Both friends were paraded in handcuffs through the store to a room where they were detained and then finally
released. Neither friend was taken into custody by police. Neither were charged with or convicted of a crime.
The guards had no reasonable and probable cause for believe a theft or any other crime had been committed.
The store and mall acted as if they had authority under color of law which they did not.

A complaint was filed behalf of these friends in the City of Alexandria Circuit Court against the mall security
and department store. The complaint included multiple counts i.e.: negligence; negligent hiring, training,
retention, and supervision of employees; defamation; assault and battery; false arrest; false imprisonment;
intentional infliction of emotional distress; violation of rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the
Constitution of United States to be secured in one’s person and effects against unreasonable search and seizure;
violations of rights under the 6th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusations; the deprivation of civil rights under 42 United States Code § 1981
through 1983 and 42 United States Code § 2000a; and Virginia Code § 8.01-1-42 (acts of intimidation,
harassment and direct violence motivated by racial and/or ethnic animosity). On the day of trial, with the
presiding judge acting as a mediator, and a jury already impaneled and waiting to be selected, the store and mall
offered lump-sum settlements to the two gentlemen which were accepted.

Malpractice Obstetric and Neonatal Care - Wrongful Death -

Controversial wrongful death case for neonatal negligence involving two Roman Catholic institutions,
Georgetown and Providence, and their respective hospitals and doctors and the non-consensual abortion of a 22-
week fetus. Mother's medical care for her pregnancy was delivered by a second year family practice resident,
despite the fact that qualified obstetricians, neonatal physicians and proper diagnostic equipments where readily
available that could have effectually monitored, examined, tested and treated the mother and baby. Pre-delivery,
doctors failed to classify and plan for an high risk pregnancy in a Level 3 facility for the eventuality of pre-
mature labor and other complications which the mother had experienced with previous pregnancies.

When she went into labor at 22-weeks, the obstetrician in charge, without the mother’s consent, purposely
ruptured the membrane to hasten birth. Obstetrician dropped the baby into a metal pan, then deprived the baby
of oxygen or any neonatal care for one hour. After being transferred (and only at the mother's insistence) to ICU
at Children’s Hospital, baby died six hours later.

The hospitals and doctors settled the case on the eve of trial based largely on testimony from experts in
obstetrics and neonatology who testified in deposition to their breaches in the standard of care in these
circumstances by failing to:

Perform adequate vaginal examination;

Monitor fetal heart rate;
Perform sonogram examination;
Prescribe bed rest;
Administer cortisone to mature lungs by stimulating production of surfactant; and
Administer tocholytic agents to prevent further dilation and effacement of the cervix
so as to maintain the fetus in utero, and extend gestation to a time closer to full term.

Negligent Supervision – Geriatric Care Agency - Embezzlement - Home Aide -

On behalf of a conservator, prosecuted suit against geriatric care agency for its negligent screening and
supervision of its employee, a home aide who stole over $492,000 from the checking account of the elderly,
mentally incapacitated ward she was caring for. Home aide used some of the money to pay mortgage,
maintenance and improvements on her own home. An expert in the field geriatric care management testified
17
that the writing these checks by the home aide and the lack of supervision of activities in the home were a
breach in the standard of care for the geriatric care management industry that the hires, trains, places and
supervises such aides. Parties reached a lump-sum-settlement in this case with the mediation assistance of the
presiding judge.

The home aide, indicted for grand larceny by a Grand Jury in the Arlington County Circuit Court, pled guilty to
these charges. In a suit against home aide in Arlington County Circuit Court, a Decree on Default was entered
and its was decreed, among other things, that monies converted to the benefit of her property created a
construction trust in her home in favor of the geriatric ward and directing her to execute forthwith a deed to
convey title The home aide had attempted to sell her home by entering into a purchase contract with a third-
party purchaser, however, conservator subsequently placed a lis penden on the property to stop the sale. The
buyer instituted suit in City of Alexandria Circuit Court to force a sale and also placed a lis penden on the
property to impede conservator from selling the property that had been deeded over to the conservator pursuant
to the Arlington Circuit Court’s decree. At a hearing on the motion for summary, the buyer and conservator
agreed to a price, the case was settled and the house sold and those monies returned to the ward’s estate.

These litigations involved a myriad of issues including legal issues of negligence, fraud, misrepresentation,
conversion, equitable principles such as bona fide purchaser, constructive trust, accounting, injunction, breach
of fiduciary duty and procedural issues such as lis penden, default and order to show cause why defendant
should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with decree.

Interior Demolition – Floor Collapse - OSHA Violations -– 25 ft Fall – Fractured Vertebrae

Settlement of demolition worker’s personal suit against developer and general contractor for multiple injuries he
sustained from an axial loading trauma when a structural beam and floor collapsed during the interior
demolition of seven turn of the century contiguous row houses in being gutted for construction of a 16 unit
condominium in Washington, D.C. The worker fell 25 feet and landed on the level below fracturing his coccyx,
and T-12 vertebra and accelerating degeneration of the thoracic, lumbar, sacral and coccyx areas of the spine.
An expert in construction and workplace accidents, safety standards and regulations and former Director of
Safety Standards, U.S. Department Of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration testified at
deposition as to industry standards for demolition. The Demolition Safety Manual from the National
Association of Demolition Contractors, The Manual of Accident Prevention in Construction, Associated
General Contractors, Chapter 14, Demolition; the ANSI code and OSHA standards required that before
commencing the demolition the general contractor should have and failed to perform a competent engineering
survey and inspection for the strength and/or structural integrity of the floors, structural beams, and fasteners,
including an assessment of dimensions of the wood involved; the age of the material; its physical condition;
structural problems; the presence of moisture inside the building; outside exposure; and fire damage. The
developer’s website contained text and revealed photos taken 5 days prior to the accident that corroborated the
unsafe, deteriorated, fire ravaged and structurally unsound condition of the floors and structural members. The
case was settled before trial by mediation provided by the court.

Malpractice - Hospital Negligence – Shock Trauma Care & Surgery - Wrongful Death
Wrongful death suit and settlement against D.C. Government on behalf of widow and two children of a
deceased gas station manager who was shot by an armed robber. During a exploratory laparotomy the surgeon
determined by palpation that there was a stellate (star like) laceration over the dome of the liver (2 in. long by 3
in. wide by 1.25 in. deep). The surgeon decided to place a drain and close the lap and monitor the bleeding and
decided not to gain access and visualize the wound to determine the full nature, extent, character, and track of
the wound or the method of tamponade. The liver wound continued to bleed. The medical records established
that for ten hours following surgery the liver was losing a high volume of blood and a high volume of blood
products were being infused to replace this loss. (5,450 ml of pack cells, fresh frozen plasma, whole blood and
platelets). Repeated post-surgical laboratory results (PH, PO2, PCO2, PT, PTT, Platelets, HGB, HCT, WBC,
18
RBC, NA Clorides, Carbon Dioxide, Potassium, Sodium, Bun, Glucose Calcium Creatinine, Fibrin, Split and
Fibrogen) showed a steady decline in the patient’s physiological condition as a result of the tremendous blood
loss and its replacement with inferior blood products. The hospital did attempt to repair the bleeding liver
laceration for the next 10 hours. When a second surgery to repair the laceration was finally attempted, the
patient was in much graver physiological condition from the tremendous blood loss and was unable to survive
the second surgery.

Will Contest - Undue Influence - Lack of Mental Capacity

An elderly male with late stage Alzheimer disease lacking mental capacity to execute documents was unduly
influenced by female real estate agent to execute a will, trust, power of attorney and deeds to parcels of lands
that had been in his family since the 1700’s and valued at over a million dollars.
An eleven day trial in Leesburg, Virginia, Loudon County Circuit Court involved many fact and expert
witnesses, including psychiatrists, psychologist, geriatric psychiatrist, cardiologist, and estates and trusts
lawyers. Issues involved the decedent’s mental and physical condition, and/or the pattern of manipulation,
influence, exploitation and the attempt to disinherit the family by this nonfamily member.
Chief Judge Thomas Horne ordered in a published opinion that all testamentary documents were overturned by
equitable decree returning the land to the family. Defendant’ appeal and certiorari was denied by Virginia
Supreme Court in Panizza vs. Funkhouser, et.al., Supreme Court of Virginia, Record No. 970371. The trial
court’s opinion is the subject of a digest opinion in the Virginia Lawyers Weekly, October 12,1994, Will
Contest Limitations Unsound Mind (VLW 094-8-336, P.3) and mentioned in the article "And to My Ungrateful
Son", Washingtonian Magazine, Nov. 1998 issue (p. 62).

Malpractice: Hospital Negligence - Ambulation of Post-Surgical Patient.

A hospital nurse and hospital occupational therapist attempted to have patient stand and walk for the first time
since her total knee replacement surgery several hours earlier and while patient was infused with the analgesics
and anesthetics, Fentyl and Bupivacaine. Before attempting to ambulate, patient warned the nurse and therapist
that her leg was “dead” and she could not feel anything in it. Patient even banged her leg several times to show
the therapist that she could not feel it due to the effects of the epidural and could not safely stand on her own.
The therapist responded “we do it all the time.” Then when therapist and assistant attempted to make the
patient stand, she was immediately dropped, her surgical incision was completely opened. As a reslut of the fall,
patient suffered severe damage at the original surgical site, disfigurement, pain and permanent loss of range of
motion and weight-bearing capacity and required two more surgeries, a reconstruction of the medial collateral
ligament by an orthopedic surgeon and plastic surgery for a muscle flap with skin graft.

The hospital settled shortly before trial based largely on the strength of the deposition testimony of the
plaintiff's nurse expert, board-certified in orthopedic nursing and emergency nursing with extensive experience
working with adult orthopedic surgical patients in a hospital setting and standards of nursing. The expert
testified to conduct which failed to conform to those standards and what reasonably prudent nurses,
occupational and physical therapists, in similar circumstances would do. She testified, for example, that the
standard requires that an adequate assessment of a patient’s fall risk be evaluated considering factors such as
age, size, weight, mental status, history, medications, impaired mobility, physical weakness, deformity,
impaired mobility, poor coordination, balance, sensation status of extremity, and the patient’s perception of
their current condition. The nurse expert testified these factors were not taken into account and even if it was
necessary to ambulate the patient, the hospital staff should have adequately planned the ambulation, and utilized
a safe method and equipment (i.e., strapping patient to hospital staff for stability) that could have prevented the
fall.

Motorcycle Accident - Rear End Collision - Driving under the Influence – Failure to Charge

19
Fairfax County Circuit Court suit against a major local publisher (net worth reported in excess of $100,000,000)
on behalf of a motorcyclist for permanent injuries (torn meniscus of both knees, acute L1 and L2 spinous
process fractures; disk protrusion at L3-4) he sustained in a four vehicular collision near Great Meadows on
Route 17 and Old Tavern Road in Fauquier County, VA. The driver/publisher violently crashed his Jeep vehicle
into the back of the Harley Davidson motorcycle that was slowing along with other vehicles ahead and threw
the motorcyclist from his motorcycle. The driver publisher lived near the scene of the accident. He was
returning to his estate. He denied he had been drinking at the Great Meadows Fourth of July party he sponsored
and where alcohol was served. The investigating officer testified that the first thing the driver said without
prompting when encountered by the officer was “I wasn’t drinking.” No officers at the scene performed
a sobriety test on the driver either at the scene or at any subsequent time. The investigating police officer’s
report found the driver had committed a “Failure to Maintain Proper Control” violation but did not charge the
driver. The deputy sheriff was asked in deposition why she did not charge the driver. She stated under oath that
the decision not to charge the driver was not made by her and the decision was made instead by her superiors.
The deputy sheriff testified that if it had been her decision she would have charged the driver and she testified
that the decision not to charge was influenced by the driver’s prominence in Fauquier County. Civil suit was
filed on behalf of motorcyclist for negligence against publisher motorist which settled on the eve of trial and
following depositions of the officer, the parties and plaintiff's medical expert

Rear End Collision - 60,000 lb. Dump Truck - Neck Flexion and Extension Injuries
Jury verdicts against trucking company and for plaintiff husband/driver and plaintiff wife/passenger. Plaintiffs
were seated in a 1964 Chevrolet and fully stopped at an intersection while waiting for siren activated fire trucks
to pass through the intersection. Inattentive truck driver of a fully loaded (60,000 lbs) Mack dump truck
violently crashed into the rear of the stopped Chevy. The treating orthopedic surgeons for each plaintiff and
medical experts for the insurance company gave medical testimony concerning the their flexion and extension
neck injuries involving strains, nerve root irritation, reversal of lordotic curve, trauma induced cervical
degeneration and bone spurring at the neural foramina. The case is reported in Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume
2, Number 4, Page 163, Auto/Truck Accident Rear-End Stopped at Light.

Negligent Design & Installation - Overhead Pneumatic Door Closer—Head Trauma - TMJ
At FEMA headquarters in Washington, D.C. employee struck in the head by overheard door closing device that
had dislodged from its mounting, sustaining head, neck, tempomandibular joint, and leg injuries. A federal jury
trial (verdict $100,000.00) against door installer and building owner for negligent design, installation,
inspection, and repair of door closing mechanism. The case was reported in Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume 2,
Number 2, page 41. Premises Liability Office Plaza Detached Door. Federal Center Plaza.

Breach of Contract - Long-Term Care Insurance Policy

Client developed a gradual and progressive brain disease that left him blind, with severe dementia leaving him
disoriented, prone to agitation, fright, and combativeness when suddenly moved or manhandled and as a result,
he required total and specialized care and assistance for his impairments and placed in a quiet environment at a
small alternative care facility better capable of meeting his needs that provided him with by consistent,
competent staff/care.

Ten years earlier, when client was healthy, a prominent national insurance company issued client a long-term
care insurance policy which provided for 24 hour-a-day care and services to support needs resulting from
inability to perform activities of daily living and/or cognitive impairment. However, the insurance company
now refused to pay for these long-term benefits claiming the alternate care facility where client was placed did
not meets all the requirements as an Alternate Care Facility pursuant to the policy and client's devoted wife was
forced to pay these expenses ($9,500.00 per month) out of their dwindling savings to keep him in the facility.

20
Suit was filed in Arlington County Circuit Court and removed to federal court, the United States District Court
for Eastern District of Virginia by motion of the insurance company. Medical evidence was developed through
medical physicians and geriatric care management personnel, addressing care and facility issues and discussion
of terms such as, nursing home care, hospice care etc. and other terms of art.

The case was eventually settled in favor of client whereby the insurance company paid client (reimbursed) for
all past benefits were paid in full and care for client at the alternative care facility continued until his passing,
relieving his devoted widow of these healthcare expenses.

Pedestrian - Crosswalk accident – Proximal Tibial Fracture

Suit and settlement for pedestrian walking in the crosswalk on his way to work when a vehicle from behind a
stop sign and lunged forward and slammed into his left leg causing a proximal tibial fracture resulting from the
lateral bending force. A surgical fixation of left proximal tibial fracture was performed involving a submeniscal
arthrotomy and the use of significant amounts of bone graft and K-wires, clamps, screws, and the affixing of an
anterolaterel plate. Pedestrian was a former Ethiopian pilot, who came to the United States to work as a butler
for an Alexandria hotel to supports his family in Ethiopia and his job required constant standing, walking,
running, climbing, kneeling, bending, squatting and all activities impacted by the injury.

Will Contest - Handwritten or "Holographic" Will

Represented the daughter of deceased airline mechanic who during his lifetime had received a multi-million
dollar structured annuity after sustaining a traumatic brain injury in an accident at work. Post-accident, the
mechanic executed in the presence of witnesses and a notary, a formal typewritten will, drafted by an attorney
in which he leaves 50% shares of his estate upon his death to his only daughter and his sister. Three years later,
he privately wrote, entirely in his own hand writing, on a single piece of paper, what is termed a holographic
will. In this handwritten will, he left 75% of his estate to his daughter and 25% to his sister.

When brother died, and the handwritten will was discovered, sister filed a lawsuit to impeach this holographic
will claiming that the handwriting was not her brother’s and that he lacked the testamentary capacity to execute
the will due to brain injury he sustained in accident. Following extensive discovery and litigation, sister's
handwriting expert, brought in to examine the holographic will, eventually conceded that the handwriting was
that of brother. In addition, sister could not produce any credible evidence that brother lack the testamentary
capacity when he wrote the will and the case ultimately settled with the daughter receiving her 75% of her
father’s estate.

Wrongful Death - Truck Accident - Interstate Collision - Loss of Control - Crossing Median
Trucker on Interstate 81 in Harrisonburg, Virginia reached for a soft drink, lost control of his tractor trailer,
crossed the center median and collided head-on into a Chevrolet Express Van occupied by a couple from
Western New York. The van was pushed through a guardrail and over an embankment. The driver of the van
was pronounced dead at the scene. His female companion died on arrival at the hospital. An adminstrator for the
estate of the van driver was appointed in Virginia and a wrongful death suit was instituted in Rockingham
County Circuit Court against the truck driver and trucking company. The deceased van driver had no children
and no relative by blood, marriage, or adoption residing with him at the time of his death. Settlement proceeds
were distributed to the deceased’s surviving mother, five brothers, and three sisters who comprised the entire
class of beneficiaries under Virginia intestate succession laws.

Malpractice: Fraudulent Rotator Cuff Surgery

Orthopedic surgeon committed fraudulent rotator cuff surgery on a 72-year old patient complaining of shoulder
pain for only three weeks and she was offered only surgery and no conservative treatment option, such as
cortisone injection. Before surgery, the MRI written report of the radiologist stated the film showed no rotator

21
cuff tear. The surgeon testified he never reviewed the MRI film of the shoulder he ordered. During the surgery,
the surgeon took no tissue sample to send to pathology for study.

After the first surgery, patients shoulder pain continued and another orthopedic surgeon found the source of her
pain to be a bone spur that needed shaving. During the second surgery, second orthopedic visualized and
inspected the area of the supposed first surgery where rotator cuff tear and repair would have occurred. In the
second surgeon's operative report testified this area, in his exact words, was "pristine" and the coracoacronial
ligament that was to have been repaired in the rotator cuff repair surgery was still intact and without any
evidence that a repair had ever taken place.

The civil trial against the surgeon occurred after he was convicted on federal perjury and tax evasion charges.
During the civil trial, the court permitted the jury to hear cross-examination of the doctor explaining to the jury
why he could not attend the rest of the trial because he was being sent the next day to federal prison to serve his
prison for these criminal charges. The medical malpractice insurance company settled the case while the jury
was still deliberating on their verdict.

Will Contest - Disinherited Heir

Represented Executor of Estate against suit by disinherited daughter’s claim that undue influence was exerted
by her sister, the executor upon their father, at the time he executed the will and she claimed he lacked of
testamentary capacity. After discovery, interrogatories and responses to requests for production document
revealed no basis to these claims. The evidence showed the father when he executed this will had lent or given
this daughter more than her fair share of his estate during his lifetime and decided at his death he wanted to
bequeath the remainder of his estate to his other two daughters. The disinherited sister finally gave up on her
unsubstantiated claims and voluntarily dismissed her case with prejudice on the day before the trial was to
commence.

Worker's Compensation - Carpal Tunnel – Law Firm Typist - Invalid Settlement

Represented long-typing legal secretary for a partner of a large U.S. law firm who, after complaining of carpal
tunnel, entered into $5,000 settlement with the firm without the advice of counsel. Office of Worker’s
Compensation vacated invalid settlement agreement of injured worker when abuse of discretion and violation of
law was established. When the injured typist then pursued her worker’s compensation claim, the law firm’s
workers compensation insurance company filed suit in United States District Court for the District of Columbia
by against the injured typist for breach of contract. Five years of litigation involving multiple proceedings with
hearing examiners, Director of D.C. Dept. of Employment Services, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and
the DC federal court ensued. Finally, private mediation before a retired D.C. Superior Court Judge resulted in a
$275.000.00 lump sum settlement for the injured worker.

Construction Site Accident - Safety Zone –No Cover – Falling Debris

Suit and settlement by court provided mediation (after witness depositions) of claim of federal employee who
was walking back to work from lunch with a co-worker on a pedestrian walkway on 5th Street, NW in
Washington, DC when suddenly, a piece of hard concrete crashed down onto the top of her right foot from
the direction of a construction site, fracturing the 4th metatarsal and leaving her with arthritic changes and
residual symptoms.

The general contractor, in control of this construction site failed to adhere to safety work zone requirements and
provided no covered walkway to protect pedestrians from falling debris. In violation of Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) concerning construction standards, such as, detour signage, protective
barriers, walkways designed to provide sturdiness, adequate light for proper sight distance, adequate impact
resistant, longitudinal separation from vehicles, etc. The general contractor attempted to defend by arguing that
the city did not require overhead walkways, even though the circumstances and conditions obviously dictated an
22
overhead cover for pedestrians was necessary. The supervisor for a concrete subcontractor testified that a trailer
was situated next to the temporary pedestrian walkway where the accident occurred. He testified that well
before the accident, he witnessed falling debris on a repeated basis at the site, prompting his company to
construct an overhead cover for it trailer at the site. The project manager for the general contractor testified it
would have been feasible to also build a cover for the pedestrians much like the wood covered pedestrian
walkways the general contractor had been built on other projects. The contractor settled with the pedestrian just
before trial and following depositions of these witnesses.

Unauthorized Access to Bank Safety Deposit – Jewelry and Cash Lost

Claim against bank and spouse by the estate of a deceased wife whose husband forged a signature card and
gained unauthorized access and opened his wife’s bank safety deposit box, once just before her death and once
immediately after her death. Thereafter, the executor of the deceased wife’s estate lawfully opened the box and
found a large sum of cash and jewelry were missing.

Product Liability- Defective Manufacture - Weld- - Bicycle Frame - Metallurgy - Spleen Injury
Suit by Virginia Tech student/bicyclist against several major bicycle manufacturers the collapse of their bicycle
frame under normal riding conditions that resulting abdominal trauma and the loss of his spleen. Expert
testimony of Virginia Tech Professor of Metallurgy concerning negligent metallurgic design and improper
treatment of metallurgical compounds in the manufacturing process facilitated the settlement of the case in
private mediation agreed upon by all parties.

Commercial Lease Dispute - Real Property - Declaratory Judgment

Landlord suit against two owner medical clinic tenant for declaratory judgment and breach of commercial
lease/contract involving the interpretation terms involving time of the essence, notice to quit, and failure to pay
Consumer Price Index rental increases were at issue. At trial, the presiding judge found as a matter of law that
the lease was null and void ab initio (from the beginning) under Virginia Code § 13.1 -613 when it was
discovered that tenant medical clinic was not incorporated and an owner signed the lease representing it was
incorporated. The court’s ruling left the tenants in the position of having no valid lease. Facing eviction, the
tenants settled with the landlord, paying rental increases, the landlord’s attorney’s fees and costs and entering
another lease to include as tenants, the clinic’s newly formed corporation and the two owners as personal
guarantors of the new lease.

Legal Malpractice- Failure to Timely Re-file - Non-Suit Statute

Elderly motorist injured in a high-speed crash caused by fleeing motorist who ran a red light while attempting to
elude the police that were chasing him. The elderly motorist's attorney originally filed suit against fleeing
motorist and subsequently non-suited the case, Under Virginia Code § 8.01-380, a plaintiff may dismiss their
claim once as a matter of right with the right to re-file the claim in the same court within 6 months. Original
attorney failed to re-file the case within 6 months of taking the non-suit, and could not withstand a motion to
dismiss her personal injury case. Following this dismissal, original attorney was immediately amenable to
settlement and his professional liability insurance company paid elderly motorist a fair and reasonable
settlement of the legal malpractice claim.

Road Rage - Intentional Rear End Collision - Eyewitness Testimony

Driver in passenger vehicle traveling on highway had turn signal on while attempting to change traffic lanes,
however, the driver of a large pickup truck repeatedly accelerated and refused to let the driver move left and
over into his lane. Finally, driver safely changed lanes and was in front of the pick-up truck when its driver
then purposely collided into the rear bumper of his vehicle causing it to veer off the road, rolling before coming
to rest upside down in the median. The pickup truck driver who had been consuming alcohol fled the scene
running through a red light. This case settled in suit following the favorable deposition of a school teacher who
witnessed the collision and followed the fleeing pickup truck to obtain the license plate before calling the
23
authorities. This eyewitness testified that based on what she observed the pickup truck driver looked as though
he intentionally hit the other vehicle.

Petition to Construe Inter Vivos Trust - Trusts & Estates

Represented widow’s interest in husband’s trust, which was the subject of a petition to construe inter vivos
trust. An equitable action was filed and resolved with all interested parties by negotiation and the entry of a
consent decree.

Federal Tort Claims Act - United States Government Employee – Vehicular Accident –
Trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia involving a Federal Tort Claims Act under 28
U.S.C. § 2671 against U.S. Government involving a vehicular accident between their employee/driver and the
plaintiff who sustained an exacerbation of pre-existing spondylolisthesis and lumbar disc degeneration.

Suit for Partition and Sale of Property - Tenancy in Common

Three siblings inherited their deceased mother’s home (owned in fee simple) and thereby became tenants in
common of the property. Only one sibling, lived on the property and paid no rent. A physical division of the
property into three parcels was not legally possible. A suit for partition and sale property was instituted by one
of the siblings in Arlington County Circuit Court, seeking division of the property by sale for the common
benefit of all the siblings. Partition by sale of the property would have been the only equitable solution. On the
eve of such proceeding, the siblings reached an agreement that allowed the sibling residing there to obtain
financing, to purchase the other siblings shares of the property, own it solely, and remain living there.

Bus Accident- Passenger Injuries -Drunk Driver - Red Light Collision

Five court ordered substance abuse program enrollees were passengers on a Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority and returning to their residential program from an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting that they
had just attended when the driver of a large pick-up truck under the influence of alcohol (VA Code §18.2-266),
ran a red light and slammed into the bus causing each of these passengers to receive various orthopedic injuries.
Five lawsuits were filed on behalf of each passenger and each of the five cases were settled early in the
litigation.

Legal Malpractice: - Failure to Timely File Lawsuit - Statute of Limitations

Claim against personal injury law firm for failure to timely file a complaint for negligence on behalf of an
injured motorist (Virginia Code § 8.01-243 two-year limitation for filing a personal action for injury) settled
with law firm for the likely value of the underlying personal injury claim, if it had been timely filed and reached
a verdict or settlement.

Road Construction - Negligence - Un-Weighted Traffic Control Barrel - Motorcyclist

A traffic control barrel placed along a road construction work zone on New York Avenue in the District of
Columbia was sucked into the roadway by the vacuum effect of a passing tractor-trailer thereby rolling directly
into the path of and injuring a motorcyclist. Suit on behalf of motorcyclist against several road contractors for
negligence in failing to sufficiently weight (sandbag) the barrel, a negligence per se violation of federal
regulations, i.e., Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, Part 6F5 (1993)
resulted in settlement with road contractors with the assistance of a court provided mediator.

Intersection Collision - Red Light - Vertebral Injuries - 91 year old.

Suit and settlement on behalf of 91 year old male passenger against a driver of a vehicle that at high speed ran a
red light in violation of Virginia Code § 46.2-833 and crashed broadside into the passenger’s vehicle being
operated by his son. The elderly passenger sustained compression injuries to the 1stand 3rd lumbar vertebrae, and
a severe fracture of the 12th thoracic vertebral body. The 12th thoracic vertebral body required “kyphoplasty,” a
procedure where a needle is inserted into the broken vertebra and inflates a balloon to expand the bone to its
24
former height, and an acrylic cement is injected into the hollow created by the balloon to stabilize the vertebra
and correct the posture. Before the accident, passenger was walking outdoors as often as 30 minutes per day on
a regular basis. After the accident, he needed to utilize a wheelchair or mobile scooter and his walking was
limited to very short distances.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Joint Account Transfer - Estate Tax Apportionment

Suit between two sisters for return of the value of stock transferred from mother’s joint account with one
daughter to another the joint account with the other daughter.
The central document was a letter of instruction directing broker to transfer securities. The authenticity of
purported signatures of the parties in letter of instruction was disputed by nationally known handwriting experts.

The case also included a claim for reimbursement of federal estate taxes incorrectly paid from mother’s
inheritance and estate tax expert testimony from law professor regarding correct apportionment of estate taxes.
There were a multitude of legal and equitable issues concerning, statute of limitation, laches, undue influence,
constructive trust, presumptive fraud, confidential/familial relationship, a financial institution’s duty to parties
of joint account, the principal/agent relationship, the transfer of a entitlement holder’s rights, Uniform
Commercial Code provisions, a power of attorney’s authority to make gifts, and interference with contract.

Bus Driver Negligence - Sudden Application of Brake - Passenger Fracture Injuries

Bus company was hired to transport a busload of Fairfax bar patrons on an excursion to a Baltimore Orioles
baseball game. By the time the game was over and the bus was departing Camden Yards a good number of the
passengers where inebriated and the bus driver became irritated with their rowdiness. Then, with no traffic
conditions warranting it, the bus driver suddenly and it appeared deliberately slammed on his brakes and
suddenly stopped the bus. Suit filed against bus company and case settled on behalf of three passengers standing
in the aisle of a bus who sustained fracture injuries.

Breach of Contract - Independent Contractor - IT Services

Contractor performed 2,452 hours of work for IT company but was compensated for only a fraction of the hours
of work he performed. IT company owed Contractor over $130,000 for services rendered. Defendant IT
company was evasive and uncooperative during initial negotiations for settlement. Defendant IT company
refused client’s proposed settlement of 90% in lieu of litigation. After filing suit, moved for default judgment
when defendant failed to answer complaint. Just prior to motion, defendant IT company settled for 90%
($124,000) of the total amount owed to Contractor.
Slip and Fall – Supermarket Customer – Employee Spill - Cleaning Fluid –Hamstring
Settlement of a slip and fall case of a 68 year old United States Department of Agriculture employee who
sustained a hamstring injury. on wet floor at a Safeway in the Cherrydale section of Arlington, VA where he had
been a customer for 40 years. The floor was covered in invisible cleaning fluid spilled by an employee who had
not dried it or marked the area with a sign.

Federal Tort Claim - U.S. Park Service - Broken Glass – Laceration- Nerve Injury
Federal Tort Claim against United States Park Service, Hains Point, Washington, DC where teenager student
sustained severe laceration from broken glass at Awakening statue, a well-known landmark and tourist
destination commonly known to be used by as a play slide. The Injuries involved:reconstructive plastic
microsurgery of median nerve, 3 flexor digitorum superficialis tendons; loss of thenar eminence due to atrophy,
narrowing web space or narosimian palm; and diminished fine motor manipulation, protective response and
grip.

Insurance Contract /Bad Faith /Failure to Defend – Uninsured Motorist Claim

25
Federal court case against State Farm Automobile Insurance Company for failure to defend its insured and pay
a $40,000 default judgment against uninsured motorist. Insurance company eventually settled for treble
damages, $120,000.

Elderly Financial Abuse - Power of Attorney - Fiduciary Duty

Defendant son took control of his father's assets and engage in massive self-dealing, withdrawing funds for
himself and to make extravagant purchases for himself while allowing his father to live only a meager
existence. The daughters retained a prominent local estate firm to represent their interests and Mr. Buscemi was
brought in as litigation counsel. The defendant, a former police officer, was very evasive and had to be taken
painstakingly through records and accounts during his deposition which lasted two full days. Shortly after the
deposition the defendant settled when it became apparent he made these withdrawals and expenditures for
himself without any justification and without his father's knowledge.

Landlord Negligence - Defective Furnace – Heat Exchanger Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

Settlement of tenant’s suit against landlord for injuries tenant sustained from carbon monoxide
poisoning. Evidence showed the landlord who knew or should have known the property’s furnace had a cracked
heat exchanger that posed the danger of emitting carbon monoxide and did not make the necessary repairs
despite this knowledge.

Worker's Compensation - Permanent Total Disability – Fall from Ladder – Spine Injury
Laborer, a Vietnamese refugee, was working for the Department of the Army when he fell off a ladder and
sustained lumbar spine injury, surgery, severe depression secondary to chronic pain, and total disability. The
United States Government disputed the compensation claim which involved numerous medical issues and
specialties (orthopedics, neurology, psychiatry, pain management, urology, etc.) His age, education, prior work
experience, and the degree of his impairment posed vocational restriction that were further compounded by
language, culture, and personal history. After 11 years of litigation, the Government was ordered by an
administrative law judge to pay permanent total disability benefits with cost-of-living increases, as well as, the
injured worker’s attorney’s fees and costs.

Will - Life Estate – Apartment Unit

Represented beneficiary in an action filed by executor of an estate seeking aid and direction from the court in
construing the will of an apartment building owner who bequeathed in her willa life estate in an apartment unit
to a longtime friend/tenant of the building. The primary issue was the valuation of the life estate (apartment)
and interpretation of VA Code §§55-269.2 et seq.

Head On Collision – Teenager – Future Hip Replacement - Osteoarthritis

Bodily injury suit and minor's settlement for teenage passenger who suffered a right hip dislocation and a
fracture of the femoral head in a head on vehicular collision caused by a vehicle that crossed the median line
into the path of the teenager’s vehicle. The treating orthopedic surgeon stated that arthritis, and a significant loss
of the articular cartilage could be expected and put the teenager at great risk to develop osteoarthritis in the hip
and made her a candidate for total hip replacement as she matured. I

Defense of Conversion of Property and Unjust Enrichment Claims

Defense of lawsuit for conversion of property and unjust enrichment arising from dispute over the ownership of
a used car co-owned and titled in the name of employer/liquor store owner and his employee. The employee
offered to sign over the title of the car and pay his former employer $2,000.00, if the employer would dismiss
the suit. Employer refused to settle and insisted the case go to trial. After a three day trial in Circuit Court, and
the employer spending thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, the jury awarded the employer the car title which
the employee was already willing to sign over, $83.00 for the towing charge and nothing for his unjust
enrichment claim.
26
Accident: Pedestrians - Minors
15 year old, crosswalk, Anne Arundel County, MD
9 year old, skate boarder, intersection, Springfield, Virginia
7 year old, shopping center parking lot, Alexandria, Virginia

Defense of Bodily Injury Suit – Expired Insurance Coverage

Defense of plumbing contractor in Alexandria General District Court personal injury trial brought by taxi cab
passenger (rear end collision between contractor’s truck and taxicab). Plumbing contractor’s insurance company
would not defend against the claim or insure against any losses based on its assertion that it gave notification of
cancellation of the policy before the accident was mailed to the policyholder pursuant to VA Code §38.2-2212.
The contractor had to retain his own counsel to defend the suit because the insurance company would not accept
coverage and defend.

Civil Suit - Breach of Contract - Heating and Air Conditioning Contractor

Suit and settlement of contract action by homeowner against contractor for faulty installation of heating and air
conditioning equipment that was improperly sized, providing inadequate temperature differential required by
terms of the contract and industry standards and codes.

Accident: Slip and Fall - High Rise Apartment – Parking Lot –Negligent Maintenance
Suit and settlement of claim against on behalf of international affairs expert, age 69, who suffered a transverse
fracture through the lower patella when he slipped on debris in his apartment complex parking lot. Surgery at
George Washington University Hospital for an open reduction and internal fixation of patella implant in the
knee joint was required. The evidence showed that apartment complex ownership and management knew the
debris was there (remnants of a car wreck several hours earlier in the same parking lot) and although this
wreckage posed a danger to anyone using the parking lot, they failed to clean it up.

Suit Against Caterer and Banquet Facility - Slip and Fall on Ice Cube
Slip and fall lawsuit against catering company and banquet facility by 62 year old deputy director of U.S.
government agency who sustained a displaced fracture of the shoulder acromiom and nondisplaced fracture
right fifth metatarsal walking on a sidewalk in Rosslyn Virginia near the entrance of a banquet facility when she
slipped on an ice cube that slid from a pile of ice cubes negligently dumped by a caterer in the adjacent sloped
grass area and onto the concrete sidewalk.

Will Contest - Undue Influence - Testamentary Capacity

Represented daughters in lawsuit against bank manager who inherited by will their elderly and demented
mother’s home. Case involved claims that the bank manager breached a fiduciary duty to the mother and
exercised undue influence on a person who lacked testamentary capacity when she signed while she was in
hospital intensive care. The case was settled by the parties at a Circuit Court hearing in the wake of court
rulings on dispositive motions.

Lead Paint Poisoning- Minor Child - Vacant Property - Squatter Tenants

Defense of estate/owner of vacant D.C. townhouse in multimillion dollar lead paint intoxication litigation
involving issues and experts in environmental safety, epidemiology, child development, education, and
neuropsychology.

Improper Design and Construction - Guardrail Hotel - Elevator Machine Room--

First civil jury trial, resulting in $120,000.00 verdict and judgment for plaintiff, an elevator mechanic, against
the defendant, Bellevue Hotel in Washington, D.C. based on negligence arising from an improper design and
construction of the hotel’s elevator machine room guardrail.
27
Carwash Attendant -Gear Shift -Left in Drive Position- Customer Pinned - Knees
Limousine driver’s claim against car wash company for vicarious liability, employee negligence. A car wash
attendant who departed the limousine with a gear shift engaged in the drive position caused the vehicle to pin
the limousine driver between two vehicles and injuring both his knees. The gear switching mechanism had
certain special electronic features that were not customary in most vehicles. Just before the accident, the
limousine driver, when departing his vehicle and relinquishing it to the attendant, specifically asked the
attendant whether he was familiar with this gear switching mechanism and the attendant said he was.

Removal of Trustee –Vintage Photographs – Archival Procedures

Represented trustee in action brought by children/heirs of decedent regarding a trust consisting of 19th century
collection of vintage photographs - Civil War (Matthew Brady, etc.) and Western

Vendor’s Negligence - Commissary Customer -Permanent Hip Injury - 85 year old

Suit and settlement of retired admiral’s wife, age 85, struck in the back by a vendor’s cart while shopping for
groceries at Fort Belvoir, Virginia Commissary, causing her to fall to the floor and to sustain a left hip femoral
neck fracture, displaced, and fractured left hip requiring replacement surgery (hip bipolar hemiarthopasty). Post
operative complications ensued and Electromyography and Nerve Conduction Study showed sciatic nerve
neuropathy severely affecting the peroneal nerve division.

Hostess – Customer Knock Down – Aggravation of Pre-Existing Conditions

Suit and settlement of personal injury case for an elderly customer who rose from a restaurant booth to use the
restroom when a hostess, walking briskly, struck her in the back, knocking her back into the booth and
forcefully onto her coccyx bone thereby aggravating a pre-existing canal stenosis and multilevel degenerative
conditions and causing increased medical care (trigger point injections and physical therapy). According to the
statement of the manager on duty at the time of the accident, hostesses were instructed to walk and talk with the
guests to make them feel welcome however, they were expected to be aware of their surrounding and were
instructed to give right of way and step aside if a patron was in their path or vicinity.

Beautician Negligence - Application of Hair Relaxer- Scalp Injury -Chemical Burns

Negligence suit on behalf of customer who sustained hair loss, chemical burn, scalp injury (contact dermatitis
and relaxer alopecia) caused by beautician that failed to follow the product directions for a hair relaxer system
(by Soft Sheen) containing sodium hydroxide (lye).

Trial and Defense of Civil Assault and Battery – Health Club - Altercation
Retained by national health club chain to represent an off-duty employee (janitor), in civil suit brought by health
club patron (bank vice president) in federal court for assault and battery arising from a physical altercation
between the parties. Jury verdict in D.C. federal court returned in favor of defendant/employee/janitor. The case
was reported in Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume 4, Number 6, Page 204, Assault & Battery Altercation At
Health Spa.

Product Liability: Elevator - Defective Leveling, Rapid Acceleration, Abrupt Stop

National Labor Relations Board employee injured when elevator rapidly accelerated, then rapidly descended,
and then suddenly stopped. Defendant failed to replace and maintain leveling and controller devices. Case
reported in Metro Verdicts Monthly, Volume 6, Number 1, page 3, Elevator Sudden Acceleration & Stop
Maintenance.

Product Liability : Metro Bus - Defective Door Safety Device – Exiting Passenger
28
Suit against Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) on behalf of passenger injured due to
defective door interlock safety device. The case was the subject of WUSA Channel 9 television interview and
news report, April 24, 1987.

Worker's Compensation - Psychiatric Injury- Train Operator – Witness to Suicide

Represented WMATA subway train operator in suit for damages based on post-traumatic stress disorder with
depression caused when a passenger committed suicide by diving in front of the subway train. Case involved
expert psychiatric testimony regarding causal relationship of trauma and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders classifications.

29
 Criminal and Traffic Cases

In 1978, Mr. Buscemi was appointed Special Assistant United States Attorney, District of Columbia Superior
Court, Misdemeanor Division, pursuant to D.C. Law Student in Court Program, assigned to 40 criminal
misdemeanor cases, argued thirty substantive motions (all ruled in favor of the government), and tried five
cases (all returning guilty verdicts). In 1979, he served as full-time legal intern in a Felony II rotation in D. C.
Superior Court and was employed as a criminal investigator under the Criminal Justice Act investigating
assault, armed robbery and arson cases.

In his practice Mr. Buscemi represents clients facing criminal or traffic charges, such as:

Assault and battery;

Eluding police;
DWI (Driving While Intoxicated);
Disorderly Conduct;
Driver and Learner permit violations;
Possession of alcohol (under the age of 21) ;
Possession of a controlled substance;
Speeding over speed limit;
Speeding too fast for highway conditions;
Speeding at school crossing;
Reckless driving;
Improper driving;
Improper driving on controlled access highway;
Following too closely;
Failing to give proper signals; and/or
Failing to pay full time and attention to operation of motor vehicle.

30
 The Story of "Bear" The Dog
Justice comes in many shapes and sizes. Every case is not a "big" or a "federal" case, but surely
important to the affected parties like one Arlington, Virginia family that was put in the unenviable position of
having to hire an attorney to protect and defend their beloved dog "Bear" from an injustice that could have
resulted from a mail carrier's frivolous lawsuit.

Bear, age 5, a German Shepherd, had been raised by this family of five (father, mother and three teenage
children) since he was a pup and had grown into a sociable and passive pet who had never bitten or attacked any
person or animal.

On a late August afternoon, the family was loading the vehicle to take the oldest daughter back to
college. The father and daughter were making trips between the house and the car using the front door and Bear
was inside and unleashed. Arlington County Code § 2-6 does not require that a domestic dog be chained or on a
leash while on the owner’s property. The front door was open and the storm door unlatched.

At one point, the daughter was standing in the front door. The mailman, who had just delivered mail
next door, approached the house walking across the front lawn and towards the daughter standing near the
doorway and the house mailbox. The father was loading the vehicle with his back turned toward the house.
Suddenly, Bear pushed through the storm door, barking loudly at the mailman and stood his ground between the
mailman and daughter.

This barking caused the father to turn around and see that Bear was upset and perceiving the mailman's
approach towards daughter as a threat. At this crucial moment, the father shouted very loudly "stop!”. Bear
complied and stood his ground. Mailman only stopped momentarily, then without explanation, proceeded to
advance towards Bear and daughter causing Bear to snap at the mailman's front shin. It was readily apparent
that the mailman's "injury" consisted of one single shallow skin puncture which simply required a wipe with a
cotton pad of alcohol and a band aid. Mailman immediately continued on foot on his route delivering the mail.

A few weeks later, mailman sued the family for $25,000.00 alleging that the homeowners were liable for
his "injury" which he described as "a chunk of flesh" ripped from his leg and resulting in "severe and deep
lacerations". The family’s homeowner insurance company would only settle or defend the case and keep
insuring them upon the condition that they relinquish ownership of Bear or euthanized him. Understandably, the
31
family chose to defend the case and engaged attorney Buscemi to represent them in the Arlington General
District Court litigation.

The case was defended on both the facts and law. Under common law, all dogs, regardless of breed or
size, are presumed to be harmless domestic animals. An owner of a dog is not liable for bodily injuries inflicted
by it unless he or she knew of its dangerous propensities. The family defended contending that mailman
willfully ignored the father's warning to stop, ignored the barking of an obviously agitated dog, and failed to
follow USPS policies and procedures.

Per USPS Postal Employee’s Guide to Safety Handbook EL-814, Section IX (D)(1) a mail carrier is
required to not advance on an antagonized dog, and if the dog does rushes at the letter carrier, the carrier is
instructed to place mail satchel between himself and the dog and retreat slowly. Further, a mail carrier is "not
required to deliver mail when an animal threatens you.”

Mailman's suit alleged Bear had previously been deemed by the authorities prior to be a "dangerous
animal" under Virginia Code §3.2 – 6540 and that the owners were "fully aware of their dog's vicious nature",
thus strictly liable for mailman's "injury". The evidence proved otherwise. Arlington County Animal Control
Officer who visited the house and examined Bear and found that he was not a dangerous dog and mailman
presented no evidence that Bear was ever reported as a dangerous dog or listed in Virginia Dangerous Dog
Registry.

The mailman's factual allegations of injury were equally baseless. The "chunk of flesh" the mailman
alleged was ripped from his leg and "severe and deep lacerations" he described were fully repudiated by the
actual evidence. The damages claim consisted of one medical bill for $829.30 for an emergency room visit on
the day of the occurrence. Mailman testified in his direct examination conducted by his attorney that from the
minor puncture he bled for several months. On cross-examination it was noted that the medical record of the
emergency room doctors found that mailman had only a single puncture to the shin, no evidence of bleeding,
and required no stitches.

At the close of the mailman's case, Mr. Buscemi made a motion to strike the evidence (equivalent to a
motion to dismiss the case) which was granted by the court without any need to present a defense since the
court found that the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case of negligence or injury.

To say the least, the family was extremely delighted with Mr. Buscemi services stating in a note several
weeks after paying their invoice that it was "worth every penny" to obtain this outcome which they attributed
"in no small part" to his "thorough preparation and keen instincts in the courtroom".

Bear lived the rest of his life with his family before going to dog heaven. Bear’s story is one from which
Mr. Buscemi derives great professional satisfaction, having been able to utilize his craft to help good and
appreciative folks obtain justice.

32
 Contact - Location

LAW OFFICE OF LEONARD P. BUSCEMI

5531 LEE HIGHWAY, SUITE 204, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22207
(703) 528-8477 (office) (703) 309-2192 (cell) (703) 528-8474 (fax)
E-MAIL: BUSCEMILAW@AOL.COM

DRIVING DIRECTIONS
From points east, such as Georgetown, Rosslyn, Court House, Clarendon, going west towards Falls Church on
Lee Highway (U.S. Route 29) 5531 Lee Highway is just after Harrison Street on the right and just before Joe’s
Pizza and Pasta. (see map below)

From points west, such as Falls Church, Tyson Corner and Fairfax going east toward Arlington and DC on
Lee Highway (U.S. Route 29) the driveway for 5531 Lee Highway is on the left.

33
 5531 Lee Highway

Nottingham Square Free Parking

Nearest Metro Stop - East Falls Church Station

34