Attorney Profiles: Partners

Timothy J. Sheehan is a senior trial partner at the firm. Before joining DeCorato Sheehan Merolesi & Federico, Mr. Sheehan was a senior trial partner in a large national defense firm. An experienced trial attorney, he focuses on the defense of high-exposure medical malpractice claims. Mr. Sheehan has successfully litigated hundreds of these claims in federal and state courts utilizing his understanding of the underlying medicine, adroitly cross-examining experts and witnesses, and persuading jurors in carefully constructed opening and closing statements.

For 30 years, Mr. Sheehan has represented hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, podiatrists, nurse practitioners, dentists, chiropractors and other medical professionals in a myriad of claims arising out of the delivery of medical care across all areas of specialty. Given his extensive experience investigating complex claims and cross-examining medical experts, he has also tried general liability cases that allege serious personal injuries.

As a measure of Mr. Sheehan’s experience and reputation in the field, he was certified by the Supreme Court of the State of New York as a medical malpractice panelist and served in that capacity in Westchester, New York and Kings Counties while the panel system was in effect. He is a member of the State and Westchester County Bar Associations as well as the New York State Medical Defense Bar Association.

Mr. Sheehan lectures before attorney groups as well as attending physicians, residents and nurses at major teaching hospitals and smaller community hospitals on medical malpractice and risk management topics.

• University of Buffalo, B.A. 1981, magna cum laude
• University of Buffalo Law School, J.D., 1984

• New York
• United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York

• AV® Preeminent™ Rated by Martindale-Hubbell
• Selected for inclusion in New York Super Lawyers in the Personal Injury Defense: Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Defense: General categories, 2007-2014, 2016-2019
• Selected for inclusion in the 2013 edition of the Irish Legal 100
• Recipient of Award for Excellence in Trial Advocacy, University at Buffalo Law School

Defense Verdict for Orthopedic Surgeon

The case involved a then 48-year old woman who claimed that her orthopedic surgeon failed to properly treat a serious lumbar spine injury that she sustained at work nearly two years before she first visited him. Plaintiff claimed that the orthopedic surgeon operated on the “wrong” (L4/L5) level in performing a spinal fusion, which did not alleviate the patient’s symptoms and which failed to fuse, which necessitated the removal and reinstallation of hardware at the L4/L5 level and the fusion of adjacent level (L3/L4) which plaintiff claimed should have been addressed before (or during) the first surgery. Unfortunately, the second procedure – which successfully fused both levels – did not alleviate the patient’s neuropathic pain and she was never able to return to work. Mr. Sheehan argued that the correct lumbar level (L4/L5) was operated on during the first procedure, that a certain percentage of lumbar fusions do not “take” despite proper technique and that the adjacent level (L3/L4) did not require surgery at the time of the first procedure, and clearly worsened only after the patient left his client’s care. Despite the obvious sympathy that the jury felt for the plaintiff – given her current pain levels and no available operative option – and her counsel’s request for $8 million during his summation, the jury returned a defense verdict for Mr. Sheehan’s client.

Defense Verdict, Supreme Court, Richmond County

This case involved a then 69-year old woman who claimed that her obstetrician failed to diagnose an early stage, curable ovarian cancer tumor, which when later found had progressed to an incurable Stage IV cancer. Plaintiff claimed that a CA-125 blood test and a CT scan should have been ordered when the patient appeared for her annual physical exam with complaints of abdominal pain. Because of the alleged delay in diagnosis, the plaintiff underwent a debulking surgery to remove nearly her entire large intestine and cancerous tumors that had spread and grown throughout the abdominal cavity, endured grueling chemotherapy regimens and has little chance to survive. Mr. Sheehan argued that the CA-125 blood test is not generally used to diagnose cancer, but rather is mostly used to monitor already diagnosed cancerous conditions. Furthermore, he argued that his client utilized a transvaginal sonogram to investigate the patient’s adnexal region – which all witnesses conceded was the “gold standard” test – which was negative and that a CT scan was therefore not indicated. Despite the obvious sympathy that the jury felt for the plaintiff, and her counsel’s request for $3.5 million during his summation, the jury returned a defense verdict for Mr. Sheehan’s client.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, New York County

This case involved a then 42-year old woman who underwent surgery to remove the rest of a previously found colon polyp. Mr. Sheehan's client was called in to assist the general surgeon because of intraoperative difficulties encountered in identifying and removing the polyp. Four days later, the patient returned to the operating room and a hole in her small bowel was found and repaired. However, the patient continued to deteriorate and died three days later. Plaintiff claimed that during the initial operation, Mr. Sheehan's client caused the small bowel injury, should have examined the small bowel before the conclusion of the surgery, and should have continued to follow the patient in the post-operative period. Mr. Sheehan argued that as an assistant surgeon, his client minimally used a cutting instrument nowhere near the area where the small bowel was injured, that he left the procedure before the general surgeon examined the small bowel and that his purely assistive role ended upon his exit from the operating room. Notwithstanding the riveting and tearful testimony of the patient's surviving husband and her three young children, the jury returned a defense verdict for Mr. Sheehan's client.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, Richmond County

This then 35 year old woman claimed that her obstetrician failed to properly treat her primary post-partum hemorrhage, which commenced just minutes after the delivery of her first child.   Plaintiff claimed that the defendant did not timely administer blood products and thereafter should have utilized various methods – including administration of more uterotonics, uterine artery embolization, and a hypogastric artery ligation – to stem the unrelenting bleeding that led to DIC and the need for massive blood transfusions, an immediate hysterectomy, a dropped bladder and the eventual loss of both her ovaries due to scar tissue formation. The defense maintained that bleeding was promptly recognized and treated with a number of modalities, including uterine massage, uterotonics, D & C, uterine artery ligation and hysterotomy, to no avail, and that a hysterectomy was necessary to save the mother’s life. The defense further argued that a later diagnosed placental abnormality explained why all bleeding countermeasures failed and why a hysterectomy was the only treatment that could have worked. While the plaintiff and her husband movingly testified regarding a myriad of further surgeries, the effects of entering early menopause and the devastating loss of being unable to have further children, the jury returned a defense verdict for the obstetrician.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, Westchester County

This then 43 year old woman claimed that a radiologist failed to diagnose an early stage, curable breast cancer tumor, which when found 18 months later had progressed to an incurable Stage IV cancer. The patient underwent a left mastectomy and the cancer later metastasized to her right breast, her ovaries and her spine, requiring another mastectomy, a spinal fusion and ovary removal. During trial, the jury was shocked to learn that yet another recurrence – this time to the patient’s pelvis – had occurred. Plaintiff claimed that the radiologist failed to properly compare her left breast sonogram with mammogram films interpreted by a codefendant radiologist just two weeks before, and “missed” the tumor. Mr. Sheehan called a breast imaging expert who testified that nothing was “missed” on the sonogram and that the numerous cysts seen on the sonogram were both innocuous and were properly correlated with the codefendant’s mammography films. Despite the obvious sympathy that the jury felt for the plaintiff, and her counsel’s request for nearly $7 million during his summation, the jury returned a defense verdict for both the radiologist who interpreted the mammogram and Mr. Sheehan’s client, the radiologist that performed and interpreted the sonogram.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, Westchester County

This then 33 year old woman claimed that her obstetrician failed to properly treat her secondary post-partum hemorrhage (PPH) two weeks after delivery, which led to further bleeding episodes and the eventual need for a hysterectomy. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant should have utilized various methods – including uterine tamponade, use of a Bakri balloon, uterine artery ligation or uterine artery embolization – to permanently stop the bleeding from returning. The defense maintained that since active bleeding had stopped in the ER, only resuscitation, antibiotics administration and monitoring was warranted. While plaintiff’s expert argued that the lull in between bleeding episodes was the “perfect time” to utilize more invasive steps to prevent future bleeds, the defense countered that such an approach violated the fundamental premise that a physician must “do no harm” when intervening on a stable patient, and since many secondary PPH are idiopathic, there was no reason to think that the patient would begin to bleed again. Despite the fact that two further bleeds did occur, a hysterectomy was ultimately required and the plaintiff poignantly testified regarding the devastating loss of being unable to have further children, the jury returned a defense verdict for the obstetrician.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, Queens County

This 32 year old woman claimed that her obstetrician improperly treated a post-delivery laceration, which caused a recto-vaginal fistula (feces leaking into the vagina), abdominal hernias, recurrent small bowel obstructions, and multiple corrective surgeries.  Plaintiff claimed that the defendant mistakenly observed a third degree laceration – instead of a more serious fourth degree laceration – and the inadequate repair caused the fistula and all subsequent and future operations. The defense maintained that the obstetrician properly diagnosed and repaired a third degree laceration and that the fistula developed because of an underlying condition that predisposed the patient to heal poorly. Despite the plaintiff’s devastating multi-year ordeal, Mr. Sheehan – through the use of medical illustrations and expert testimony – convinced the jury that the fistula developed through no fault of the obstetrician, and a defense verdict ensued.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, New York County

This 60 year old woman claimed that her surgeon did not timely diagnose and treat abdominal compartment syndrome following an abdominoplasty (tummy tuck) procedure, after which she remained intubated and sedated in the ICU for 4 days before the abdominoplasty was reversed.  Plaintiff claimed that delaying the reversal surgery caused hypoxic brain damage and a lost opportunity to fully close the wound for a better cosmetic result. Mr. Sheehan argued that no brain damage ever occurred and that the patient’s husband supported a “watch and wait” approach to preserve his wife’s improved appearance and to ascertain if the compartment syndrome would spontaneously resolve.   However, when the abdominoplasty was reversed, the wound had to be left open to avoid causing another life threatening compartment syndrome. The jury rendered a defense verdict for the surgeon.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, Richmond County

This case involved a 62 year old woman who alleged that the hospital's Emergency Room doctor and her private internist failed to timely diagnose and properly treat a Myocardial Infarction (MI) resulting in permanent heart damage and a severe decrease in her ejection fraction. The case featured sharply conflicting medical histories imparted by the patient to both physicians, an unusually warm stretch of December weather (proven by official records) which spurred a return of allergy outbreaks and highlighted the more subtle signs of MI that are often seen in female patients. The first trial resulted in a mistrial. The retrial resulted in a defense verdict for both the emergency room doctor and the internist.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, New York County

This Manhattan case involved a highly successful New York businessman who alleged improper positioning and observation of his head and neck while in to the intensive care unit following emergent abdominal surgery. The allegedly improper positioning resulted in permanent right sided arm and leg paresis and caused the plaintiff to be dependent in nearly all activities of daily living. He was known to have a congenital deformity of his neck, which plaintiff claimed made him susceptible to suffering a spinal cord injury and therefore, required special positioning. The defense claimed that a stroke, unrelated to positioning, caused the devastating paresis. As a result of the paresis he claimed to be dependent in activities of daily living. The jury rendered a defense verdict for the hospital.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, Kings County

This case arose from an accident involving a four year old infant plaintiff who fell out of a window and tumbled four stories to the ground below. Miraculously, her fall was broken by a second floor air conditioner, but she suffered a shattered hip resulting in permanent leg shortening, and a contused heart requiring multiple surgeries. The claim against the building was that the super negligently fixed a loose child window guard. The steadfast demand was $8 Million and the client’s coverage was limited to $5 Million. Shortly before trial Mr. Sheehan found a witness who observed the child's parents remove the window guard to switch an air conditioner from one room to another. The jury rendered a defense verdict.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, Richmond County

This case involved a young father of two infant children who died following abdominal surgery. His surviving spouse claimed that the hospital, a gastroenterologist and a surgeon failed to heparinize the patient in the post-operative period, which resulted in a fatal pulmonary embolus. The defendants argued that the decedent’s preoperative history of ulcer prohibited the use of heparin, while plaintiff contested the accuracy of the ulcer history and in any event claimed that subcutaneous heparin should have been administered. The jury rendered a defense verdict for all three defendants.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, Queens County

This case involved a former boxer who was jailed on a domestic abuse claim. While in lock-up he claimed that prison guards ignored his complaints of dizziness and headache and upon his release on bail, he went to our hospital with similar complaints as well as facial drooping, which he claimed was misdiagnosed as Bell’s Palsy, and he was discharged. He was later diagnosed as suffering from a stroke and sustained significant motor and speech deficits. The defense argued that the plaintiff’s complaints were properly treated and that he had preexisting lacunar insults which explained many of his current complaints. The jury rendered a verdict on behalf of the municipality, his attending physician and our hospital.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, Richmond County

This case involved a severely brain damaged infant whose mother claimed that hospital staff and two attending neonatologists failed to diagnose a vertically transmitted viral infection in the NICU which caused viral encephalitis and permanent and devastating cognitive and motor deficits. The defense maintained that the child exhibited no signs or symptoms of a viral infection while in the NICU and that the presence of a specific virus that plaintiff claimed the child had was never diagnosed by subsequent medical providers. Despite convincing the jury that two hospital residents departed from accepted standards of care in their treatment of the child, the jury nonetheless rendered a defense verdict on causation.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, Westchester County

This case involved a middle aged woman who claimed that a general surgeon negligently removed her gallbladder by injuring her common bile duct and in leaving retained stones behind during the laparoscopic procedure. The plaintiff required complicated reparative surgery and an extended convalescence complicated by wound infections. The defense maintained that adjacent tissue or structure damage is a risk of any surgery and that retained stones were common occurrences in laparoscopic procedures that caused no injury to the patient. The jury rendered a defense verdict.

Defense Verdict – Supreme Court, New York County

This case involved a middle aged man who claimed that an ophthalmologist negligently administered an anesthetic via a retro-bulbar injection during an excision of excess conjunctival tissue, resulting in blindness. The defense argued that the retro- bulbar injection was an acceptable method of providing anesthesia and keeping the eye still during the procedure and that the doctor’s injection regimen was one that was specifically approved by plaintiff’s medical expert in prior trial testimony in another case. The jury rendered a defense verdict and the plaintiff’s attempts to overturn the verdict on appeal were successfully rebuffed.