Thomas A Moore

December 05, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Thomas A. Moore, a senior partner of Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, and Matthew Gaier, a partner at the firm, explore the liability of treating physicians who testify against their patients. While the bringing of a medical malpractice action effects a waiver of privilege that precludes a claim for breach of confidentiality, treating doctors may still be held liable for breaching their fiduciary duty if they testify untruthfully against their patients.

By Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier

12 minute read

February 07, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Thomas A. Moore, senior partner at Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, and Matthew Gaier, a partner at the firm, write that decision-making by entire segments of the medical profession is susceptible to external financial influences which are not necessarily in the best interests of the patient. When this happens, that which may be considered to fall within "generally accepted medical practice" may nevertheless be negligent.

By Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier

12 minute read

October 06, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Thomas A. Moore, senior partner at Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, and Matthew Gaier, a partner at the firm, write that in an apparent effort to gain bipartisan support for health care reform legislation, President Barack Obama has been espousing the view that changes should be made to curtail medical malpractice litigation. While he has disavowed "caps" on damages, they say, he has expressed support for imposing other measures that may, even if unintentionally, have the effect of harming malpractice victims.

By Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier

12 minute read

March 07, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By Thomas A. Moore And Matthew Gaier

11 minute read

April 07, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Thomas A. Moore, senior partner of Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, and Matthew Gaier, a partner at the firm, write that cases involving a doctor who, when examining an individual on behalf of a third party, commits an affirmatively negligent act that causes direct injury to the person being examined are fairly straightforward. Determining the liability of a doctor who makes an affirmative representation regarding medical findings or gives affirmative advice for treatment to the person being examined, which the person then relies upon, is more complicated, and warrants an examination of those cases in which such claims have been recognized and those that have been rejected.

By Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier

15 minute read

June 01, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In their Medical Malpractice column, Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier, partners at Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, write: We have heard attorneys and judges express an understanding that plaintiffs asserting informed consent causes of action are required to adduce expert testimony to the effect that a reasonably prudent person would not have undergone the procedure if fully informed of the risks and alternatives. However, recent decisions demonstrate that this is not the case.

By Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier

11 minute read

October 04, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In their Medical Malpractice column, Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier of Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore discuss a Second Circuit decision that addressed the accrual date and equitable tolling for malpractice suits against federally funded centers, which are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

By Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier

13 minute read

August 02, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Thomas A. Moore, senior partner at Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, and Matthew Gaier, a partner at the firm, write that for nearly two full decades, attorneys representing plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions have been frustrated during depositions of defendant doctors by defense counsel directing defendants not to answer questions based upon the rule of Carvalho v. New Rochelle Hosp.

By Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier

12 minute read