Datevjan Pidedjian

Intake Overview: The plaintiff is Datevjan Pidedjian (date of birth October 8, 1965; age approximately 59), a retired pediatric emergency room physician who formerly practiced at NYU Winthrop/NYU Long Island. Her employment status at the time of the incident is not stated in the intake, though she is identified as retired. Her marital status is not confirmed in the intake; a spouse named Jeanne Pidedjian is referenced, but the relationship and whether a loss of consortium claim is available has not been confirmed. No dependents are identified in the intake. The plaintiff resides at 90 Mill Spring Road, Manhasset, NY 11030 (Nassau County). The incident location, county, and date are not provided in the intake. The case is categorized as medical malpractice. The plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure of approximately two hours, the nature of which is not stated in the intake. Following the procedure, she developed significant, persistent numbness affecting approximately 70% of the sole of her foot — specifically the entire lateral half of the foot and the entire heel area — which she describes as potentially permanent. Two possible mechanisms of injury were discussed during the intake call: (1) direct nerve injury during surgical dissection at the operative site, and (2) improper positioning of the foot in the post-operative cast, with the foot placed downward and turned inward in a manner that may have compressed the nerve. The treating/operating surgeon — not identified by name in the intake — stated during a follow-up visit that direct surgical nerve injury was considered less likely given the anatomical location of the numbness. The plaintiff returned to see the physician in October 2024 due to the unusual and persistent symptoms. Attorney James Rubinowitz recommended the plaintiff consult a neurologist and document all complaints. The firm intends to send a demand letter to the doctor and the doctor's office prior to filing suit. The sole identified potential defendant is Dr. Brian Lynn. His role in this matter — whether as the operating surgeon, a referring physician, or another capacity — is not specified in the intake. No address, facility affiliation, or employer is identified for Dr. Brian Lynn. No governmental, quasi-governmental, or municipal entity has been identified as a potential defendant. No police, FDNY, or EMS response has been indicated, consistent with the surgical/medical malpractice nature of the claim. This is not a wrongful-death matter. Note: The plaintiff's name spelling is uncertain based on intake phonetics. The attorney spelled the last name as P-I-D-E-D-I-J-A-N; the plaintiff corrected it to P-I-D-E-D-J-I-A-N. The full name "Datevjan Pidedjian" is recorded as a best approximation and must be verified against a signed document before any filings are made. The spouse's last name (Pidedjian) is assumed from context but was not explicitly confirmed in the intake. The ZIP code was transcribed in the intake as "1103030" and has been normalized to 11030 but should be verified. Injuries and Treatment: The plaintiff reports persistent numbness affecting approximately 70% of the sole of her left or right foot (laterality not specified in the intake), encompassing the entire lateral half of the sole and the entire heel area. The plaintiff describes the sensation as a constant feeling of swelling or puffiness in the affected region, requiring a conscious mental effort to suppress throughout the day. She also reports difficulty walking and an altered gait. Motor function is reported as intact. The suspected nerve injuries, as discussed during intake, are damage to the sural nerve or the lateral plantar nerve, though no formal neurological diagnosis has been rendered. The plaintiff has not yet been evaluated by a neurologist as of the date of the intake call; she is open to doing so and was advised by Attorney Rubinowitz to pursue that consultation and to document all complaints. The surgical procedure that preceded the onset of symptoms was performed at an unknown facility, the name of which was not provided in the intake. The nature of the surgical procedure itself is not stated. No date for the surgery is provided. No operating surgeon is identified by name in the intake beyond the general reference to a treating/operating physician. The plaintiff returned for a follow-up visit in October 2024, at which time the unidentified physician commented on the likely mechanism of the nerve injury. Dr. Brian Lynn is identified in the intake as a treating or referring physician, but his specific role in the plaintiff's care — including whether he performed the surgery — is not established by the intake data. No diagnostic imaging studies (MRI, CT, X-ray, EMG) are mentioned in the intake, though an EMG/nerve conduction study would be the standard diagnostic workup for the reported nerve injury and has not yet been obtained. No surgery has been performed to address the nerve injury. No future surgery or scheduled treatment is identified in the intake. No information regarding New York no-fault insurance is applicable, as this is a medical malpractice matter rather than a motor vehicle accident. Key Facts and Liability Considerations: - Statute of limitations: New York medical malpractice actions are governed by a two-and-a-half-year statute of limitations running from the date of the alleged malpractice or, where continuous treatment applies, from the end of the continuous treatment period. The date of the subject surgery is unknown from the intake, making it impossible to assess current SOL exposure or proximity to the deadline. Obtaining the date of the procedure is an immediate priority. - The operating surgeon's identity is not confirmed in the intake; it is unclear whether Dr. Brian Lynn is the surgeon, a referring physician, or holds another role in the plaintiff's care. Defendant identification is incomplete. - Dr. Brian Lynn's address, facility affiliation, professional capacity, and employer are all unknown from the intake, limiting the ability to fully assess defendant coverage and institutional liability exposure. - The surgical facility where the procedure was performed is unidentified. If a hospital or ambulatory surgical center is involved, it may be a separate institutional defendant. - Two competing causation theories were discussed in the intake (direct surgical nerve injury versus post-operative cast positioning error), and the surgeon has already expressed a view — noted in the treating physician's own follow-up — that direct surgical injury is less likely. This creates a potential causation challenge that will require neurological and orthopedic expert analysis. - The plaintiff is a retired physician (pediatric emergency medicine), which may affect her credibility as a witness and her ability to articulate and document her own complaints; it may also affect the damages model if her claimed injuries affect activities associated with her professional background or a post-retirement income stream. - No formal neurological diagnosis has been established; the absence of an EMG or nerve conduction study and a neurologist's opinion is a current gap in the medical record that will affect early expert evaluation. - No signed retainer, HIPAA authorization, or limited power of attorney has been executed as of the intake date. Records cannot be requested and representation has not been formalized. - The plaintiff's name spelling has not been verified against a signed document. Any filing using an incorrect name could have procedural consequences. - The spouse named in the intake (Jeanne Pidedjian) has not been confirmed as a spouse or as a potential loss of consortium plaintiff. - The referral source is identified only as "Bill" with no last name provided; the referring attorney's identity and any referral fee arrangement are unconfirmed. - Extraction confidence is flagged at 0.52, indicating meaningful uncertainty in the underlying data. All key facts should be verified directly with the plaintiff before case acceptance. Information Gaps: - Date of the subject surgical procedure: unknown; this is the most critical gap, as it drives the statute of limitations calculation and the continuous treatment analysis. - Nature of the surgical procedure: not stated in the intake; essential for identifying the appropriate standard of care and the relevant defendant specialty. - Identity of the operating surgeon: not confirmed; Dr. Brian Lynn's role (surgeon, referring physician, or other) is unresolved. - Dr. Brian Lynn's address, employer, facility affiliation, and professional specialty: not provided; needed to assess institutional defendants and insurance coverage. - Identity and name of the surgical facility: unknown; the facility may be an independent defendant. - Laterality of the affected foot (left or right): not specified in the intake. - Identity and name of the follow-up physician seen in October 2024: unknown; this provider made a statement about causation that may be significant. - Date of the October 2024 follow-up visit: only an approximate month is provided. - Neurologist referral and evaluation status: plaintiff has not yet seen a neurologist; no EMG or nerve conduction study has been performed; the specific nerve injured has not been formally diagnosed. - Diagnostic imaging: no MRI, CT, X-ray, or EMG identified in the intake; unknown whether any such studies were ordered or performed. - Plaintiff's occupation/income at the time of the procedure: described as retired but details of any post-retirement income or activities are unknown, affecting the damages model. - Plaintiff's employment status and any lost income or earning capacity claim: not addressed in the intake beyond the retirement reference. - Marital status and spousal relationship to Jeanne Pidedjian: the spouse is referenced but the relationship is not confirmed; loss of consortium eligibility is unresolved. - Whether Jeanne Pidedjian intends to assert a loss of consortium claim: not addressed in intake. - Dependents: not identified in the intake. - Health insurance carrier: not provided; needed to assess lien or subrogation exposure. - Medicare or Medicaid coverage: not addressed; plaintiff's age (59) places her below Medicare eligibility but this should be confirmed. - Preexisting conditions or prior treatment to the affected foot or lower extremity: not addressed in the intake; essential for causation and damages. - Prior surgeries to the same foot or lower extremity: not addressed. - Whether plaintiff was previously represented by another firm for this incident: not confirmed. - Full correct spelling of plaintiff's name: must be verified against a signed document before any filing. - Spouse's last name confirmation: assumed to be Pidedjian based on context; not explicitly confirmed. - Plaintiff's ZIP code: transcribed as "1103030" in the raw intake; assumed to be 11030 but must be verified. - Referral source full identity: only "Bill" with no last name; referring attorney identity and any fee arrangement are unconfirmed. - No retainer, HIPAA authorization, or limited power of attorney has been signed; formal representation has not been established. --- PRELIMINARY MEDICAL CHRONOLOGY Date unknown — Unknown surgical facility — Approximately two-hour surgical procedure (nature of procedure not stated); onset of foot numbness reported post-operatively [records not yet obtained; facility not identified] Date unknown (described as October 2024) — Unknown physician office — Follow-up visit for persistent foot numbness; treating physician commented that direct surgical nerve injury was less likely given anatomical location of symptoms [records not yet obtained; provider not identified] Date unknown — No neurologist identified — Neurological consultation not yet performed as of intake date; plaintiff open to referral; Attorney Rubinowitz advised plaintiff to see neurologist and document complaints [no records exist; future encounter] Date unknown — No facility identified — EMG/nerve conduction study: not yet performed as of intake date [no records exist; future encounter]