November 30, 2009
Bogoroch & Associates represented Giuseppe Vito Marchese in a medical malpractice case. At issue was the refusal of the defendant doctor to reattend on his discovery to answer questions which he refused to answer.
Re: Giuseppe Vito Marchese, Plaintiff and Dr. Ali Otman Fiture, Defendant
Before: Master Sproat
Counsel: Bogoroch & Associates, Counsel for the plaintiff M. Leon, Counsel for the defendant
Heard: November 6, 2009
On February 18, 2010, Master Sproat of the Superior Court of Justice released her reasons in Marchese v Fiture, a medical malpractice case. Bogoroch & Associates represents the plaintiff, Mr Giuseppe Marchese.
Medical malpractice cases are difficult and complex and once Bogoroch & Associates takes on a case our clients can be certain that we will vigorously pursue their interests in our determination to obtain justice.
At issue was the refusal of the defendant doctor to reattend on his discovery to answer questions which he refused to answer. Before the court motion, the defendant doctor agreed to answer the questions but wanted to do so in writing and not by personal attendance. This was unacceptable to us, so we brought a motion to compel the doctor to attend personally and answer those questions which he initially refused but later agreed to answer. We felt it very important to the case so we pursued that issue.
Kate Cahill, a member of our medical malpractice litigation team, successfully argued the motion.
For the full decision, click to download: Giuseppe Vito Marchese v. Dr. Ali Otman Fiture – Reasons for Decision