Preston J Douglas Avoid His Services Transcript Part 3

Following is a transcript of part 3 of the video Avoid the Services of Preston J. Douglas Attorney – Legal Arguments in Press v. Hollin. It has been modified slightly in order to make it more readable.

I’m not going to go into too much detail here about how the lawsuit got moved between various law firms. You can read about it on the link below at the link. In any event Fuchsberg and Fuchsberg originally had the case and then it was moved out by my personal attorney to the law firm of Friedman and Eisenstein. Ted Friedman was a well-known medical malpractice attorney at the time and the case was being handled by his associate Jethro Eisenstein.

On August 2, 1985 Mr. Eisenstein filed a lawsuit against Dr. Hollin’s estate for medical malpractice and wrongful death. As it turned out, Ted Friedman ran into some legal problems of his own so he and Mr. Eisenstein split up and the case went with Ted Friedman. Apparently his legal problems were insurmountable and after two years he essentially had done nothing to further the case. I then called up Fuchsberg & Fuchsberg and asked them if they would take the case back. I spoke to Mr. Douglas and he told me that if I agreed to pay $2,000 for an expert witnesses opinion they would take the case back which I agreed to do.

I met with Mr. Douglas I believe in December of 1988, signed the retainer agreement and gave him a check for $2,000 payable to Fuchsberg and Fuchsberg. Mr. Douglas started working on the case in January 1989. Now when he took over the case I sat down with him and explained to him the major facts that were known at that time. And we had also obtained, you know, the medical records and  had them in my possession and was able to review them and they indicated pretty much what Dr. Hollin was up to here.

Now Phyllis didn’t see Dr. Hollin within the two and a half year statutory period. As I mentioned her last appoint was two years and ten months past the deadline. So naturally the attorney for Dr. Hollin’s estate, Kathleen M. Beck who was working for the law firm of Martin Clearwater and Bell, made a motion for summary dismissal saying that the statute of limitations had expired. You know it expired four months prior. Preston J. Douglas then filed his response to her motion for summary dismissal and these are basically his legal arguments in the case. I am going to read them from start to finish because they are not really very long and then we can dissect his legal arguments the same way he apparently dissected frogs in order to get his biology degree.

Preston J. Douglas an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the state of New York affirms under penalty of perjury. This affirmation is submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment based on the defendant’s allegation that the statute of limitations had expired at the time of the commencement of the within action. The within action arises out of surgery performed by the late defendant in 1975 and follow up care which continued through and beyond the last visit of June 10, 1981. It is conceded that the last time Phyllis press saw defendant Sidney Hollin was June 10, 1981. At that time she was 6 years post surgery in which Dr. Hollin had repaired two aneurysms in Mrs. Press’ brain. By 1981 Mrs. Press was married and Dr. Hollin gave her a clean bill of health. He directed her to return for routine follow up in one year.

It is clear that at the time of the June 10 visit the patient and the doctor contemplated a continuing and continuous relationship. It is plaintiffs claim that part of this continuing continuous relationship mandated that Dr. Hollin use modern techniques to ascertain the status of the surgical repairs he performed back in 1975. In fact, the repairs were due to slip and open. When the repairs failed on April 5, 1984 Phyllis press died. Defendant suggests that we should stop the running of the statute of limitations clock on June 10, 1981. However, intervening events in which Dr. Hollin gave advice and continued to act as the continuing treatment physician carry the continuous treatment forward until at least January 20, 1983.

Phyllis Press gave birth to a child on November, 1982. This full term baby was conceived on or about February, 1982. Prior to conception, Phyllis Press and her husband Ralph Press the plaintiff herein,  consulted with Philip Bresnick, MD an obstetrician. This was in early 1982. During the pregnancy Dr. Bresnick consulted the late defendant Hollin about the wisdom of continuing the pregnancy and was told that Phyllis didn’t require further treatment for the old aneurysms. After the delivery. once again, Dr. Bresnick consulted with Dr. Hollin and was told Phyllis Press did not need follow up. Thereafter in January, 1982, Mrs. Press began exhibiting some bizarre symptoms which we believe may have been related to the beginnings of the reactivation of the aneurysms. She complained of severe neck and shoulder pain to her general practitioner David Papier MD. After consultation with Dr. Hollin, Dr. Papier prescribed anti rheumatoid medication clinoril (to which we have the prescription copy annexed as Exhibit A).

Interestingly enough Dr. Hollin’s notes for his last visit on January 10, 1981 do not include the words advise CT scan in our copy of the records. We do not know when the alteration took place but in point of fact Dr. Hollin should advised the CT scan before during and after that 1982 pregnancy. He should have told doctors Bresnick and Papier, when they asked, that Mrs. Press needed a CT to assure the stability of aneurysm repairs. Plaintiff considers that these consultations and advice by Dr. Hollin were part of his continuing treatment and his recognition of continuing responsibility for the patient’s neurosurgical care. Plaintiff also considers that the alteration which Dr. Hollin made to his records was his recognition of a failure to advise the patient needed a modern test to check his work which test was not available back in 1975. The alteration was made out of guilt and it was made long after June, 1981. The unaltered and altered copy of the records are annexed for comparison by the court as Exhibit A.

Plaintiff suggests that this Court might consider the late alteration of the record in and of itself to be an admission that Dr. Hollin considered himself continuously treating Phyllis Press. The original unaltered record was obtained by Mr. Press (see his affidavit) on or about March 14, 1984, when Phyllis Press was hospitalized dying of the recurring aneurysm. Oddly enough Dr. Hollin died on March 13, 1984. However, on December 20, 1982, after the baby was born, Dr. Hollin sent an altered photostat of his records to IDS Life Insurance apparently recognizing his error in follow up. In any case the defendant’s dependent on the CT suggestion note in the moving papers is obviously misguided in view of the real facts.

Since Phyllis Press died on April 5, 1984 and since her pregnancy was less than two and one half years prior to the date of death, the consultations before and after her pregnancy were well within the statute of limitations of two and a half years. Therefore, Phyllis Press died possessed of a cause of action for conscious pain and suffering if she had survived. The wrongful death action brought much less than two years after her death would therefore be timely. She died on April 5, 1984 and the summons and complaint was served on August 21, 1985 by admission of the defendant. Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that the within motion be denied in its entirety.

That is the entire legal argument that was submitted by Preston J. Douglas. As far as the falsified CT scan document is concerned, what Preston J Douglas is referring to is the fact that Kathleen M. Beck when she filed her motion, pretended that the falsified document was real. In other words she made believe that Dr. Hollin actually did advise a CT scan and that it was Phyllis’ fault for not having it done. So that’s what he was referring to in terms of that.

Now, the first thing we notice when we review Preston J. Douglas’ legal arguments is it’s difficult to believe that he’s even talking about the same doctor and patient whose medical records we just reviewed. The second thing we notice is that he has explained absolutely nothing about what happened to Phyllis. You don’t have a clue as to what her specific diagnosis is. You don’t have a clue as to what Dr. Hollin did during the surgery. You don’t even know what the official cause of death is because Preston J. Douglas didn’t even submit an autopsy report as evidence. Failure to submit an autopsy report as evidence in a wrongful death case is suicide for the case and for obvious reasons.

In order to prove wrongful death you have to prove the doctor caused the patient’s death in the manner outlined in an official autopsy. Without an autopsy you don’t know what the cause of death is. Just because the patient has a history of cerebral aneurysms and was operated on and then dies years later of a cerebral hemorrhage doesn’t mean it was necessarily caused by the original surgery or  that it was even on the original artery. They could have had a cerebral hemorrhage on another artery in a completely different part of the brain. That’s why this type of general explanation is completely useless. It’s basically just an opinion of what Preston J.  Douglas thinks happened.

What happened to all the other evidence you may be wondering? So, according to Preston J Douglas, Dr. Hollin repaired two aneurysms and in the statement he had me sign it says using two different methods. So according to Preston J Douglas the operation is legitimate neurosurgery and therefore the entire malpractice was Dr. Hollin’s failure to advise a CT scan at Phyllis’ last appointment on June 10, 1981. You may be wondering, how is it possible that an attorney could possibly think the operation is legitimate when there is a consultant’s report in the file that indicates Dr. Hollin lied to the consultant telling him he just clipped the aneurysm indicating that Dr. Hollin intentionally surgically mistreated the smaller aneurysm by wrapping it in order to preserve it and delay its growth on the artery?

Well, let me explain it to you this way. It turns out that Preston J. Douglas, for two whole years that he had to prepare this case, didn’t even bother to read the Mount Sinai Medical Records. The very first thing an attorney is supposed to do when he takes over a case is read every medical record in the file. That is the minimum mandatory required amount of work that needs to be done and Preston J. Douglas didn’t do it in this case because at the time the case was pending and he made his legal arguments, that document was not known to exist. I discovered it in 2007. I had the medical records in a file folder in my closet and as I was cleaning out my closet, just for the heck of it, I decided to read them.

About halfway through the file, the Mount Sinai file, was the consultant’s report. It only took me maybe 10 minutes to locate it. It was sitting there for all these years waiting to be discovered. To read the entire Mount Sinai file I don’t think took me 30 minutes if even that long. So that means for the entire time that Preston J Douglas had to prepare the case he didn’t spend any time reading the Mount Sinai Medical records and that’s why his legal arguments read the way they do. But the fact of the matter is, we don’t need the consultant’s report to see what Dr. Hollin was up to.

It’s still totally obvious as to what he was up to. I mean, Preston J. Douglas was fully aware of all the other medical records that Dr. Hollin filed and that he told us Phyllis had one aneurysm, that Dr. Haroupian said the operation was a time bomb, that Dr. Klein filed two falsified records, that Dr. Hollin ran to the xerox machine 7 years after the operaiton. I mean, the other evidence was overwhelming not to mention other witnesses that were available. And you’ll notice Preston J. Douglas didn’t provide a deposition from a single person.

First of all, we have Dr. Haroupian who obviously should have been deposed to get a statement regarding the time bomb effect of the operation. Based upon his explanation there’s no way this could be a legitimate operation, that Dr. Hollin repaired two aneurisms. An operation that makes the condition worse by promoting the growth of one of the aneurysms so it eventually ruptures and causes the death of the patient cannot possibly be legitimate surgery for sure. The purpose of the surgery is to cure the patient and not cause them to drop dead on the spot years later. It is incomprehensible as to how Preston J. Douglas did not depose Dr. Haroupian  to get his statement in writing, but then again, it’s incomprehensible as to how he didn’t even bother to read the medical records.

Then we have the other two surgeons. Obviously they knew that the smaller aneurysm was supposed to be clipped and Preston J. Douglas was fully aware that Dr. Klein filed a falsified discharge sheet and falsified the hospital report. Again, it’s incomprehensible as to how he didn’t depose him and ask him why the smaller aneurysm wasn’t clipped and confront him with his falsified medical records. Because that’s what real attorneys do. They depose adversarial witnesses and confront them with their falsified records. Unfortunately the only real attorney that worked on this case worked for Dr. Hollin’s estate.

Then we have Dr. Wancier, the third surgeon who was an intern. He also had to have known the smaller aneurysm was supposed to be clipped. After all, they were using a microscope and the aneurysm was as big as daylight. He didn’t file any reports but he kept his mouth shut. The fact of the matter is on proper questioning both of these doctors would have been forced to admit that the smaller aneurysm had to be clipped.

And then of course we have Dr. Antin the radiologist. He also knew the smaller aneurysm was supposed to be clipped. He’d seen enough aneurysms on angiograms to know which can be clipped and which cannot. Also, standard procedure is to re-angiogram the patient four  days after the operation to make sure that the aneurysms had been obliterated. That was not done in this case but it had to have been discussed with Dr. Hollen. In all likelihood Dr. Hollin told Dr. Antin  that since he used the operating microscope there was no need to put the patient through any more tests or procedures because he was certain that he had clipped the necks of both aneurisms. Of course Dr. Hollin couldn’t afford to have another angiogram done because  Dr. Antin would have seen that he didn’t clip the aneurysm.

So we don’t need the consultant’s report. And as you can see there were numerous witnesses that knew the smaller aneurysm was supposed to be clipped and Preston J. Douglas didn’t depose a single one of them. And these are all totally obvious witnesses. Mr. Douglas was fully aware that there was a serious question as to why the aneurysm hadn’t been clipped. You would think he would have deposed them all. Nope. He didn’t suppose anybody, period.

According to Preston J. Douglas, all those medical records that we reviewed, all those lies and blatant misrepresentations perpetrated by Dr. Hollin, it just adds up to another case of ordinary negligence. What’s so unusual about any of this? Apparently Preston J. Douglas must believe that this is standard procedure for doctors. You will notice that he doesn’t mention at all that Dr. Hollin  lied to Phyllis and told her that she had one aneurysm. As a matter of fact in the statement he had me sign he twisted that around into me finding out later on that she had two aneurysms repaired using two different methods. So in other words, according to Preston J. Douglas, that’s perfectly legitimate medical activity.

By failing to mention this critical point Mr. Douglas has legitimized Dr. Hollin’s actions in the matter. He has legitimized the fact that it is perfectly acceptable for a doctor to lie to a patient about a diagnosis and treatment. Remember, this happened back in 1975 when medical records weren’t available like they are today where you just sign on to your doctor’s website and obtain them or they even sometimes hand them to you as you’re walking out the door. Back then in many instances only attorneys could get medical records.

So Phyllis and her immediate family, her personal physicians and even hospital personnel completely relied upon Dr. Hollin’s fraudulent and malicious representation that he either had clipped a single aneurysm or he had clipped both aneurysms. Mr. Douglas makes no mention of this whatsoever. This type of activity to him is apparently perfectly legitimate. He has also legitimized the fact that the patient doesn’t have a right to know what their true diagnosis and treatment is. Phyllis died from the rupture of an aneurysm that was growing on her right internal carotid artery for eight and a half years that she had no idea whatsoever was diagnosed or treated.

Anytime Phyllis complained to about the symptoms, even directly to Dr. Hollin, he said it had nothing to do with the operation and she was perfectly fine. He even told her it was safe to become pregnant. Preston J. Douglas apparently sees absolutely nothing wrong with that scenario. Also, Preston J. Douglas has legitimized the fact that a surgeon has the right to insert foreign substances into the patient without their knowledge or consent and on a non-emergency basis. In this case the muslin that Dr. Hollin wrapped the smaller aneurysm with.  This wasn’t an emergency procedure as it was pre-meditated and planned out. Dr. Hollin had his diagnosis of the two aneurysms and he got a clip and a piece of muslin cloth ready to plant a time bomb on Phyllis’ artery.

Since Preston J. Douglas doesn’t mention this at all, and to him this is the equivalent of her husband finding out later on that she had two aneurysms, then obviously Preston J. Douglas believes that it is perfectly acceptable for a surgeon to lie to a patient for eight and a half years about a diagnosis and treatment and then deny the symptoms she’s exhibiting from his operation had anything to do with the surgery when in fact he’s in the process of making the condition worse. He also apparently believes that it is perfectly legitimate for the patient not to know what her true diagnosis and treatment is and be kept in the blind for eight and a half years.

Phyllis died from the rupture of an aneurysm that was growing on her artery due to the operation and that she had no idea existed. She never found out later on anything or what her ultimate cause of death was. Preston J. Douglas has legitimized the fact that the surgeon has the right to insert foreign substances into the patient on a non-emergency basis. Of course these propositions are totally idiotic and you couldn’t find another person in the world who would think that this is somehow legitimate medical procedure. You can also rest assured that if some doctor pulled a stunt like that on Preston J. Douglas or one of his relatives he’d be screaming bloody murder. But when it happens to the client’s wife, oh Dr. Hollin didn’t lie to her,  you found out later on.

Now, Preston J. Douglas submitted exactly three pieces of evidence. He submitted Dr. Papier’s clinoril prescription, the second page of Dr. Hollin’s checkup sheet of the original that doesn’t say advise CT scan, and the one he sent to the life insurance company that does say advise CT scan. That’s all the evidence he provided in this entire case. You will notice in his legal arguments that he’s using consultations that Dr. Papier the family doctor and Dr. Bresnick had with Dr. Hollin.

Well, as we reviewed, Dr. Bresnick took detailed consultation notes when he spoke to Dr. Hollin yet Preston J. Douglas didn’t submit them as evidence. Now does that make any sense at all? He’s using a consultation that the obstetrician had with Dr. Hollin as a critical piece of his legal argument and he has detailed consultation notes by the obstetrician yet he doesn’t even mention that they exist. It doesn’t make any sense at all except in the context of Preston J. Douglas’ legal arguments. That’s because according to Preston J. Douglas, Dr. Bresnick’s notes don’t say what they say and we reviewed them. Dr. Hollin told him three lies and made three major omissions. But according to Preston J. Douglas, Dr. Hollin reassured Dr. Bresnick that the repairs were holding up. Yes, that’s what that represents to Preston J. Douglas.

You will notice that there is an ongoing pattern of Mr. Douglas rewriting every fraudulent and malicious act. If Dr. Bresnick’s notes supported that conclusion Mr. Douglas would have submitted them as evidence but it’s clear that they don’t and that’s why he didn’t. If he submitted them the judge would see there is something wrong and that there was no reassurance of repairs as he was told a single aneurysm had been resected. This is how Preston J. Douglas rewrote the entire case, twisted the whole thing around and single handedly butchered and destroyed it without any consideration whatsoever for the actual documented facts.

Obviously Drs. Bresnick and Dr. Papier should have been deposed and Mr. Douglas didn’t depose either one of them. Not only that, he used Dr. Papier’s  prescription to represent the consultation that he had with Dr. Hollin. This is just another example of how little work Mr. Douglas did on the case. If he’s going to use a consultation that these doctors had then they obviously should have been deposed and the judge would fully expect to see depositions. Instead, what does the judge see? He sees no evidence of a consultation from Dr. Bresnick. I mean, the judge doesn’t know that his notes exists. And all he sees is Dr. Papier’s prescription which is a joke. To submit a family doctor’s prescription which is supposed to represent a consultation he had with a neurosurgeon is a joke. It’s laughable at best.

But it’s obvious that Preston J. Douglas can’t depose either one of these doctors because if he does he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. What they’re going to tell him is, and it’s obvious from Dr. Bresnick’s notes, if Dr. Hollin told Dr. Resnick he resected a single aneurysm you can rest assured that’s exactly what he told Dr. Papier. And that’s not what Preston J. Douglas wants to hear because it doesn’t fit in with his reassurance of repairs nonsense and that this case somehow adds up to ordinary negligence.

Furthermore, using a prescription from the family doctor in a case against a neurosurgeon is a joke. I mean he didn’t even use Dr. Hollin’s falsified mysoline  prescription entry. I mentioned to Mr. Douglas that Dr. Hollin falsified his mysoline prescription entry and what Mr. Douglas did was to immediately change the subject as to whether I was aware of any further appointments Phyllis had with Dr. Hollin. In other words, no thought whatsoever went into as to why would Dr. Hollin be falsifying a prescription entry and all that matters are there any further appointments and the two and a half year statute of limitations.

What Preston J. Douglas did was instead of carefully reviewing the facts in this case, he superimposed his own methodology on the case. There is only one way to handle a medical malpractice case, namely read the medical records and depose witnesses. Preston J.  Douglas didn’t do either one of those functions. In other words, he didn’t perform any of the functions that an attorney needs to do to properly prepare a medical malpractice case. His methodology is based upon negligence, incompetence, ignorance of the law, laziness and his desire to nickel and dime the case to death.

This is how Preston Douglas apparently prepared the case if you even want to call it that. He didn’t read the medical records so he didn’t know about the consultant. He didn’t depose any of the doctors  I mentioned that knew the smaller aneurysm was supposed to be clipped. So what does he do? He went ahead and contacted an expert witness, a neurosurgeon,  an unnecessary expert witness that I paid $2,000 for and he provided him with incomplete medical records because he didn’t get the consultant’s report. Based upon the medical records he did have. and I spoke to his expert witness, he couldn’t conclusively say that the smaller aneurysm was supposed to be clipped. Well, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t supposed to be clipped.

So what does Preston J Douglas do with this information? Well, he naturally assumes what’s best for Dr. Hollin and what’s worse for the client. He assumed that his experts witness’ uncertain opinion about the operation somehow legitimized the wrapping procedure and that Dr. Hollin repaired two aneurysms using two different methods. Now, you would think with all the other surrounding circumstantial evidence, such as lying to the patient, lying to the obstetrician and  falsifying medical records, that red flags would be flying, that obviously something is not right here. No, not as far as Preston J. Douglas is concerned. He sees nothing wrong with any of this and it is just another case of ordinary negligence.

Mr. Douglas is totally hung up on his two and a half year fixed statute of limitations nonsense and he can’t get past it no how. That’s the problem. What he did was superimpose his own incompetent methodology on the case. Obviously this attorney doesn’t want to do any actual work and what’s really unbelievable is that at the time this case was pending he thought he had it nailed. That’s right. This attorney actually thinks he can properly prepare a medical malpractice case without reading the medical records and without deposing a single witness. Well, you can read his legal arguments and compare them to the medical records and see that they are basically a sick joke. They’re just a product of his own negligent and incompetent legal mind.

Mr. Douglass’s methodology of writing bullshit stories and calling them legal arguments only works if you don’t have medical records to compare them to. And that’s the position the judge was in. The judge only has what the attorneys provide. Kathleen M. Beck, however, had the entire medical record due to discovery but Judge Lockman did not. So what is the judge looking at? He’s looking at Mr. Douglass’s distorted view of the facts, a prescription from the family doctor and the other two records I mentioned. That’s it. So what’s he going to do? He’s going to dismiss the case of course,

Mr. Douglas cited no case law. That’s another thing. An attorney who doesn’t cite case law is guaranteed to lose because the other attorney has tons of case law to back up their legal arguments. This is just another example of how grossly incompetent Mr. Douglass is. Mr. Douglas knew from day one that Phyllis didn’t see Dr. Hollin  in the last two and a half years and her last appointment was two years and 10 months prior. Simple common senses that if the patient hasn’t been to the doctor in the last two and a half years then pursuing the case based upon continuous treatment is a complete waste of time and is a guaranteed loser and the only way to get the case into the courtroom is to allege fraud.

How do you allege fraud? Well, let’s see. We have a concealed aneurysm, a time bomb operation at two surgeons falsifying medical records. That’s what you use. But that’s not what Preston J. Douglas did. Preston J. Douglas just pursued a losing course of action from day one. He has no common sense period and he’s incompetent. The fact of the matter is there was nothing whatsoever to lose by alleging fraud. If worse comes to worse the case gets dismissed anyway. And what did Preston J. Douglas wind up doing anyway.  He winds up writing a complete bullshit story that destroys the case and calls it a legal argument when all he had to do was present the evidence at face value.

If an attorney is going to invent a bullshit story and call it a legal argument, the least he could do is invent a bullshit story that benefits his client and Mr. Douglas could have just as easily alleged fraud and there was nothing to lose by doing so. If worse comes to worse the case gets dismissed anyway. But the fact of the matter is, once you claim that that smaller aneurysm has to be clipped it explains everything. It explains why they concealed the aneurysm, why the operation was a time bomb, why they falsified medical records, why they lied to the obstetrician, etc. etc,

But that’s not what Preston J. Douglas did. He just handled it like any other case. And as you can see, not only didn’t he read the medical records, he ignored them in their entirety e.g. Dr. Hollin  didn’t lie to the patient for eight and a half years, her husband found out later on, he didn’t lie to the obstetrician, he reassured him that the repairs were holding up,  his operation isn’t a timeline even though Dr. Haroupian says it is, he repaired two aneurysms using two different methods.

Another thing we notice is that Preston J. Douglas is a defendant biased plaintiff attorney. Any attorney is supposed to be wholly dedicated to his client’s position. Preston J. Douglas, however, is clearly dedicated to Dr. Hollin’s position and this makes him a disaster waiting to happen as Mr. Douglas doesn’t know who his client is. I mean, to rewrite critical facts that are easily proven such as lying to the patient and lying to the obstetrician and then twisting them around the way he did and then failing to produce the medical records is defendant biased. All Preston J. Douglas did was twist the facts around to benefit Dr. Hollin. He even went as far as claiming Dr. Hollin falsified the medical records that he sent to the life insurance company out of guilt.

I mean, the notion that a doctor is going to falsify a medical record out of guilt is absurd. We have two doctors falsifying medical records. Doctors falsify medical records for one reason, because they’re covering up something they did to the patient. The entire notion that he did it because he felt guilty is idiotic. Furthermore, plaintiff’s attorneys are not supposed to be making excuses and justifications for doctors falsifying records. Falsifying medical records is a fraudulent and malicious act that is a lot worse than falsifying financial records because the health and welfare of the patient and in this case the life of the patient hinges on it. But as you can see that is all Preston J. Douglas did in this case.

By doing this Mr. Douglas humanized Dr. Hollin. Also, the judge is not stupid and he knows that doctors don’t falsify documents because they feel guilty. The judge probably didn’t even know what the hell to make out of that document. But Phyllis was victimized by Dr. Hollin over an eight and a half year period in a highly deliberate and personal manner. He was able to see her at every single one of those appointments, look her in the eye and tell her she was perfectly fine when in fact he was making the condition worse in order to cause her death. And his only interest in the matter was to ultimately see her autopsied at Mount Sinai Hospital in order to see how large the aneurysm grew and how much blood splattered on her brain.

The plaintiff’s attorney humanized Dr. Hollin by claiming he did it out of guilt. I mean, this is pathetic. And you will notice Preston J. Douglas doesn’t mention Dr. Klein’s falsified documents as he obviously considers them to be completely irrelevant information. Well, if Preston J. Douglas thinks that Dr. Hollin falsified medical records out of guilt then he must think that all doctors falsify documents out of guilt because why would Dr. Hollin’s falsification be different than any other doctor’s falsification? So why would Dr. Klein be falsifying documents as he had nothing to feel guilty about. According to Preston J. Douglas Dr. Hollin repaired two aneurysms using two different methods and the operation was a complete success. So why is Dr. Klein falsifying medical records? That’s why Mr. Douglass’s claim is totally idiotic.

It boggles the mind that anybody, especially a plaintiff’s attorney, could even come up with a line like that. But read the legal arguments yourself. That’s exactly what Mr. Douglas says. His legal arguments are totally idiotic frankly. I could have gotten a better legal argument from a class of sixth graders to be perfectly honest. That’s because a class of sixth graders would have at least read the medical records, looked up any words they didn’t understand in a medical dictionary and written a report about it.

This case didn’t need a so called professional medical malpractice attorney to butcher and destroy the way Preston J. Douglas did. Why anybody can do that. A random person off the street could have handled this case more competently than Mr. Douglas. That’s because a random person off the street has simple common sense, would look at the evidence at face value, wants to win the case and doesn’t have all the underlying business motives that Mr. Douglas has floating around in the back of his mind. namely what do I have to do to nickel and dime this case to death and cut every conceivable corner that I can

Avoid the Services of Preston J Douglas Attorney - Legal Arguments in Press v. Hollin

When Preston J Douglas worked for the law firm of Fuchsberg and Fuchsberg he handled a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against the estate of Dr. Sidney A. Hollin, a neurosurgeon operating out of Mt. Sinai Hospital in NYC who caused the death of my wife Phyllis Based upon the grossly negligent and incompetent manner in which he handled the case I do not recommend the legal services of Mr. Douglas under any circumstances whatsoever. This video is part of a series of videos. The entire series can be viewed in the proper order at