INDEX NO. 805017/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED …

IFILEDs NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2017 04:47 PM "O. 805017/2017NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2017

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Index#COUNTY OF NEW YORK Date Filed:

ARIELLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM and

SCOTT WEINBERGER, SUMMONSPlaintiffs,

-against-

IVAN K. ROTHMAN, M.D., SOUTH SHORE PLAINTIFF DESIGNATESHEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGYASSOCIATES, P.C., and NEW YORK COUNTY ASI ir/^TVJAori i?d iva ia THE PLACE OF TRIAL.LEONARD KESSLER, M.D., THE BASIS OF THE

Dejendants. VENUE IS PLAINTIFFS'^ RESIDENCE/PRINCIPAL

PLACE OF BUSINESS.

Plaintiff, ARIELLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM, resides at 404 E. 79th Street, #28C, New York, New York10075; PlaintiffSCOTT WEINBERGER, resides at 305 East 63rd Street, Apt. 8-0, New York, New York,10065; Defendant SOUTH SHORE HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., a domesticcorporation, maintains offices for the transaction of business at 242 Merriek Road, Suite 301, Roekville Centre, NewYork 11570; Defendant IVAN ROTHMAN, M.D., a physician licensed in the State of New York, resides at 470Links Drive South, Roslyn, New York and maintains offices for the transaction of business at 242 Merriek Road,Suite 301, Roekville Centre, New York 11570; Defendant LEONARD KESSLER M.D., a physician licensed inthe State of New York, maintains offices for the transaction of business at 242 Merriek Road, Suite 301, Roekville

Centre, New York 11570.

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve acopy ofyour Answer ifany, or if the Complaint is not served with this Summons, to serve a Noticeof Appearance, on the Plaintiffs Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this Summons,exclusive of the day ofservice (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this Summons is notpersonally delivered to you within the State ofNew York); and in case ofyour failure to appear oranswer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded herein.

The relief sought is a judgment against you in favor of Plaintiffs substituting the PersonalRepresentative of the Estate of the Late Deborah W. Rothman, and additionally, for money damagesin an amount to be determined by a Jury at trial of this action, jointly and severally, together withcosts, interest and disbursements of this action for the physical injuries, damages and WrongfulDeath of the Late Deborah W. Rothman caused by the medical malpractice, recklessness, grossnegligence, lack of informed consent and other culpable conduct ofDefendants in and around9/1/2013 through date of 12/20/2013, in the medical care and treatment rendered to the lateDeborah W. Rothman at SOUTH SHORE HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C.,at 242 Merriek Road, Suite 301, Roekville Centre, New York 11570; and at her residence, 470Links Drive South, Rosyln, New York, 11576.

Upon your failure to appear, judgment will be taken against you by default for the reliefprayed and the costs of this action.

Dated: January 16, 2017Yours etc.,JOSEPH C. ANDRUZZI

Attorneyfor Plaintiffs,326 Broadway, Suite 200Bethpage,New York 1| 1714(516)433-8600

1 of 107

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2017 11:05 AM INDEX NO. 805017/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2017

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Index#;COUNTY OF NEW YORK

XARIELLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM and

SCOTT WEINBERGER VERIFIED

Plaintiffs,-against-

IVAN K. ROTHMAN, M.D., SOUTH SHOREHEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., andLEONARD KESSLER, M.D.

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff(s), ARIELLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM and SCOTT WEINBERGER,

complaining of the Defendant(s) IVAN K, ROTHMAN, M.D., SOUTH SHORE

HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., and LEONARD KESSLER, M.D. by

their attomeys, JOSEPH C. ANDRUZZI, ESQS. allege upon information and belief as follows:

1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, PlaintifF(s) ARIELLE WEINBERGER

PAPADAM, was and still is a resident of the County ofNew York, to wit, residing at: 404 E.

79th Street, #28C, New York, New York 10075.

2. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintif!][s) SCOTT WEINBERGER, was and

still is a resident of the County ofNew York, to wit, residing at 305 East 63rd Street, Apt. 8-0,

New York, New York, 10065.

3. At all times hereinafter mentioned the Defendant(s) are individuals and/or

Domestic corporations and maintain their principal place(s) ofbusiness in the State ofNew

York, County of Nassau, to wit:

Defendant(s) FVAN K. ROTHMAN, M.D., a physician licensed in the State ofNew York,

resides at 470 Links Drive South, Roslyn, New York and maintains offices for the transaction of

business at 242 Merrick Road, Suite 301, Rockville Centre New York 11570; Defendant(s)

1

2 of 107



SOUTH SHORE HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.O., a domestic corporation,

maintains offices for the transaction of business at 242 Merrick Road, Suite 301, Rockville

Centre, New York 11570; Defendant(s) LEONARD KESSLER, M.D., a physician licensed in

the State ofNew York, maintains offices for the transaction ofbusiness at 242 Merrick Road,

Suite 301, Rockville Centre, New York 11570.

4. The late Deborah (Weinberger) Rothman, (hereafter, altematively

"Plaintiff(s')-Decedent," "Decedent," "Patient") died Testate on 12/20/2013 of

Cholangiocarcinoma at 57 years old.

5. Upon his own Petition, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN was appointed

Executor by Decree dated 1/23/2014 of the Estate of the Decedent by Order and Decree of the

Surrogate's Court for the County ofNassau, State ofNew York, in accord with Plaintiff(s')-

Decedent's Last Will and Testament, duly subscribed 11/30/2012.

6. Pursuant to paragraph "NINTH" of the Last Will and Testament, duly. Plaintiff

ARIELLE WEINBERGER was nominated as Successor Executor under circumstances where

Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN "for any reason, (should) fail to qualify or cease to act as

executor hereunder."

7. Plaintiff(s)-Distributees, pursue herein Wrongful Death, Conscious Pain and

Suffering and Lack of Informed Consent claims against Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN, a

physician, arising out of his medical care and treatment of the Decedent, their mother, and

accordingly, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN no longer qualifies, nor is eligible, to maintain

his appointment as Personal Representative of the Estate ofhis medical malpractice victim

Deborah (Weinberger) Rothman.

8. At all times relevant herein, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN and LEONARD

KESSLER M.D. undertook a course of medical conduct as agents, servants and/or employees of

Defendant(s) SOUTH SHORE HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C.

9. At all times relevant herein, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN leveled medical

3 of 107



conduct upon Plaintiff(s')- Decedentwith the facilitation agreementand cooperation of

Defendant(s) HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C. and LEONARD KESSLER,

M.D.

10. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant(s) held themselves out as duly

qualified and capableof renderingcompetent medical care and treatment to the generalpublic

including the Decedent.

11. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant(s) furnished and/or provided

doctors, nurses and other personnel to afford medical care, advice, referral and recommendations,

management and treatment to the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent.

12. In and around 9/1/2013 through 12/20/2013 and thereafter, Defendant(s), their

servants, agents and employees, did undertake medical treatment of Plaintiff(s')-Decedent and

accepted her as their Patient.

13. "Treatment" and medical conduct at issue herein was inflicted upon the late

Deborah (Weinberger) Rothman, both at the Defendant(s') IVAN K. ROTHMAN, LEONARD

KESSLER M.D. and SOUTH SHORE HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C.'s

practice offices located at 242 Merrick Road, #301, Rockville Center, New York 11570 and as

well in isolated confinement at Decedent's home.

14. Defendant(s) negligently and unskillflilly rendered medical care, advice, referral

and recommendations, management and treatment to the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent and negligently

undertook medical conduct; Defendant(s) mismanaged the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent, a patient in

their charge, causing Plaintiff(s')-Decedent physical injury, physical and mental trauma,

emotional and social stigma, pain, suffering, sickness, loss ofquality of life, loss of sentient life

in her terminal disease course and loss of dignity in death and caused the untimely death of

Plaintiff(s')-Decedent, and other injury, all as a result of Defendant('s) carelessness, negligence

and other culpable conduct.

15. The medical care and treatment rendered by the Defendant(s), their agents.

4 of 107



servants and/oremployees to Plaintiff(s')-Decedent wasrendered in a negligent andcareless

manner that departed from accepted standards of medical care, and they failed to use reasonable

care and skill in the care and treatment of Plaintiff(s')-Decedent.

16. Defendant(s) neglectedto heed the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent true condition(s); failed

to timelyand properlytreat Plaintiff(s')-Decedent; they rendered improperand harmful medical

care and treatment to the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent.

17. The treatment and management of the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent by the Defendant(s),

theiragents, servants andemployees wasperformed not in accordance withgoodand accepted

standards of medical care and practiceand causedthe untimelydeath of the patientand

Plaintiff(s) to sustain damages.

18. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN departed from acceptedmedicalpractice in

secretlyundertaking a course of palliative care only without the Patient's knowledge or consent,

and he never had any intention of pursuing any medical options to extend her life.

19. Soon after her diagnosis, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN admitted to Eric

Schenkel, M.D. that his treatment plan would not be revealed to the Patient and that he would

undertake "palliative care [only]" and "never had any intention of trying to research assistance to

extend her life."

20. From the earliest days ofher diagnosis, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN

departed from good and accepted medical practice in undertaking a course of"treatment" of the

Decedent consisting ofa steady regimen ofdrugging to unconsciousness and which otherwise

rendered the Patient bed bound and sedentary with little if any physical activity permitted and he

departed from good and accepted medical practice in bizarre and radical departure in depriving

the Patient ofnutritional support which caused shocking physical wasting and hastened the

Patient's loss of sentient life and hasted her death.

21. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN departed from good and accepted medical

practice in administering oral mixtures and concoctions of morphine, lorazepam, zolpidem and

hydroxyzine and often wit|hout the Patient's consent or knowledge.

45 of 107




practice in administering pain medications for no medicallytherapeutic or palliativepurpose or

effect, but rather, in a course of"treatment" to induce the Patient almost continuous

unconsciousness and which otherwise rendered the cancer Patient wholly sedentary and bed

bound.

23. Over the period of the Decedent's disease course, each of Stacy Abrams, 1962

Lowell Lane Merrick, New York 11566, Plaintiff Arielle (Weinberger) Papadam, 404 East 79ty

Street, #28C New York, New York 10075, Fran Gutleber, 87 Fruitledge Road Brookville, New

York 11545, Randi Levine, 426 Toflree Court North Hills, New York 11576, Toni Gad, 9801

Collins Ave Apt 15n, Bal Harbour, Florida, 33154 Susan Baum, Senior Clinical Specialist at

Genentech BioOncology-Rituxan, residing at 1680 Fieldview Lane Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

18015 and Charleen Rhindress, 11 Arden Court Melville, New York 11741 witnessed the

administration by Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN ofconcoctions and mixtures ofMorphine,

Lorazepam, Zolpidem and Hydroxyzine in the Patient's drinks with Defendant(s) IVAN K.

ROTHMAN insisting that she consume them.

24. Each witnessed the administration of Morphine and other pain medications by

Defendant(s) FVAN K. ROTHMAN under circumstances where the Patient was not in pain or

otherwise uncomfortable.

25. Each witnessed the Patient's attempts to protest or resist the drugging in order to

remain awake and functional, with Defendant(s) FVAN K. ROTHMAN insisting and persuading

her to submit to the "treatment" time and time again.

26. Each witnessed the Patient routinely disoriented due to drugging, and witnessed

her struggling, unsuccessfully, to gain some control over her social interactions and some degree

of control and autonomy over her status and care, fighting the unconsciousness being continually

induced by the "treatment" inflicted upon her by Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN.

27. In the first three-and-one-half weeks of Decedent's post-diagnosis disease course.

6 of 107



Stacy Abrams witnessed Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN's administration of high dose

Ativan, causing the Decedent to sleep 14 to 18 hours per day and during which period of time she

lost at least 30% of her body weight.

28. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN emphatically stated to Randi Levine that "it

was fine" for the Patient "to sleep and not eat."

29. On at least one occasion within the first three weeks after diagnosis, Randi Levine

witnessed Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN mix a drink ofAtivan, Ambien and Morphine and

insist that the Decedent drink it, in spite of her protests and communication that she was not in

pain, the "treatment" causing the Decedent to sleep continuously for days.

30. Randi Levine witnessed Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN administer high dose

unconsciousness inducing drugging over the Patient's protest on numerous occasions.

31. When questioned by Randi Levine as to the utility of such drugging in the

Decedent's care and treatment, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated on several occasions

"that [the Decedent] had no chance, she [was] doomed;" and additionally, that he was "already

making plans for his life without her."

32. Fran Gutleber suggested that Defendant(s) FVAN K. ROTHMAN administer less

drugging in order that the Decedent could be awake, functional, moving and eating, but he

dismissed Fran Gutleber stating "that [he] knew what she needed and there was nothing to

discuss;" "she was going to die."

33. When Fran Gutleber questioned Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN on the issue

ofMorphine administration as she had observed the Decedent to be comfortable and in no pain,

he again dismissed her, insisting that "[he] knew best."

34. Fran Gutleber witnessed Defendant(s) FVAN K. ROTHMAN actively

discouraging the Patient from getting out ofbed and walking around, telling her that she was "too

weak and should just stay in bed and rest."

7 of 107



35. On several occasions Toni Gad observed during visits that if she withdrew from

the Decedent's bedside for even a few momentsduring periods of lucidity and good

conversation, when she retumed, the Decedent was routinely dosed again, out of her presence,

and restored to a state ofdrug induced unconsciousness or semi-consciousness, all in accord with

the "treatment" regimen ordered and administered by, and otherwise at the direction, of

Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN.


practice in that he failed to render full and reasoned medical judgment and excluded from

professional consideration the utility of second opinions or collaboration with available

sub-specialists in the field, despite the Patient's wishes.

37. Over the period of the Decedent's disease course, Defendant(s) IVAN K.

ROTHMAN stated and admitted to each of Stacy Abrams, PlaintiffArielle (Weinberger)

Papadam, Fran Gutleber, Randi Levine, Eric Schenkel, M.D. 1680 Fieldview Lane, Bethlehem

Pennsylvania 18015, Toni Gad, Susan Baum and Charleen Rhindress that he would not consider

second medical opinions or consultations with readily available sub-specialists in

cholangiocarcinoma.

38. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Randi Levine that she had "nerve"

to question his medical judgment.

39. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN repeatedly stated and claimed to Randi

Levine "that [he was] the best oncologist; [that he] knew more than any other doctor, [and that

he] should be left to do what he wished."

40. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Stacy Abrams on numerous

occasions "I'm the doctor and I know best for Debbie" despite Decedent's questions and protests

to being routinely medicated to unconsciousness from the very onset of the diagnosis in

September, 2013.

41. Despite the Patient being lead to believe early in her disease course that

8 of 107



sub-specialists (Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology) at ColumbiaPresbyterian Hospital were

being consultedfor her treatment plan and would follow up and participate in her care,

Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Randi Levine that he "was not going to follow

through with that;" that "[he] was not going to go through [an extensive disease course] with

another sick wife;" that he "would [only] keep [Decedent] comfortable but she had no chance of

beating this cancer;" "that [Decedent] Debbie [Rothman] would be gone within a few weeks,

maybe a month maximum;" that "[He] knew this because [he] was an expert."


occasions that he was "a much smarter physician than the Columbia doctors" and that he could

"administer the chemo [therapy treatments to Decedent] better than anyone."

43. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Susan Baum that the

"[sub-specialist] doctor(s) at Columbia are good, but I'm a much better oncologist."

44. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN declared to Eric Schenkel, M.D. that he

would be making all medical decisions for the Patient unilaterally and that he was "smarter" than

available sub-specialists in cholangiocarcinoma at Columbia Presbyterian; that he was "not open

to any ideas on clinical trials or other life saving measures."

45. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Eric Schenkel, M.D. that the

"[sub-specialist] doctor at Columbia is good, but I'm a much better oncologist."

46. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Fran Gutleber that "he knew what

she [the Decedent] needed and there was nothing to discuss," on the issues of Decedent's

management and regarding second opinions or collaboration with sub-specialists; declaring with

resignation that he "was the expert doctor and she was going to die."

47. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Charleen Rhindress that he "[didn't]

need another opinion" in the Patient's care and treatment and exclaimed that he was the "Doctor

and know[s] what she needs!" responsive to Charleen Rhindress' suggestion that he was "too

close to the situation to make these decisions alone."

8

9 Of 107



48. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Plaintiff Arielle (Weinberger)

Papadam that the "no one is better at dealing with cancer than 1am!" and that he was "much

smarter" than sub-specialists at Columbia.

49. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Toni Gad "absolutely not" did he, or

would he, consider a second opinion to be ofutility as to any aspect of Decedent's care; that

"[he] was the best doctor out there" and that "[he] was giving Debbie every care she need[ed];

that he "was better than any other doctor."

50. Additionally, in September, 2013, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to

Toni Gad that "cancer grows with food;" and "you should not feed cancer" as an explanation for

the absence ofnutritional support and visibly accelerated wasting, telling Toni Gad that the

decedent was "at the end of her life and that it [death] would happen any day."

51. When Toni Gad broached the subject of seeking a second opinion or collaboration

ofother physicians, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN responded to her with a communicative

and aggressive facial expression seeking to cause her (and which did cause her) to withdraw

from the conversation immediately.

52. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN departed from accepted medical practice in

failing to follow even basic chemotherapy infusion protocols, including weight measurement and

the keeping of appropriate medical record(s) of the Patient's vital signs and weight, necessary to

properly manage chemotherapy doses.

53. Defendant(s) LEONARD KESSLER, M.D. departed from accepted medical

practice in failing to follow even basic chemotherapy infusion protocols, including weight

measurement and the keeping of appropriate medical record(s) of the Patient's vital signs and

weight, necessary to properly manage chemotherapy doses.

54. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN departed from accepted medical practice

administering non-therapeutic chemotherapy dosages to the Patient.

10 of 107



55. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN admitted to Eric Schenkel, M.D. that he

volitionally infused chemotherapy dosages to the Patient in excess ofaccepted therapeutic levels.


abandoning chemotherapy despite the fact that the Patient's serological tumor markers indicated

that the cancer was responsive to chemotherapy.

57. Defendant(s) LEONARD KESSLER, M.D. departed from accepted medical

practice in abandoning chemotherapy despite the fact that the Patient's serological tumor markers

indicated that the cancer was responsive to chemotherapy.

58. Defendant(s) LEONARD KESSLER, M.D. departed from good and accepted

medical practice in failing to inform the Patient that serological tumor markers indicated that the

Patient's cancer was responsive to treatment.


practice in failing to inform the Patient that serological tumor markers indicated that the Patient's

cancer was responsive to treatment.


keeping the Patient rigidly sedentary, with consequential mismanagement ofagonizing pleural

effusion.

61. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN and LEONARD KESSLER, M.D. departed

from accepted medical practice failing to address psychological care needs of the Patient; in

failing to prescribe and provide assistive efforts to manage nausea and vomiting; in failing to

prescribe and provide appropriate nutritional management and support and physical therapy to

abate wasting; in failing to prescribe and provide steroid and other pharmacological treatment to

maintain appetite, amongst other things.


failing to inform the Patient of risks, benefits and altematives to the "treatment" being

10

11 of 107



undertaken by the Defendant(s); and in failing to inform her of her prognosis and treatment

options.

63. Efforts by friends and family to inform the Patient of altematives to the "care"

being leveled upon her by the Defendant(s) were met with threats and actionsby Defendant(s)

IVAN K. ROTHMAN to thwart any such communications and prevent information from

reaching the Patient.

64. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN's goal to prevent choice or consent on the

part of the Patient was perfected and furthered by a pattern of strong efforts to isolate her from

family, friends and personal support network and he threatened her family to submit to his

decision that the Patient remain uninformed and misinformed of her diagnosis, uninformed and

misinformed ofher medical treatment and status, at all points through death, under penalty of

being "cutoff from access to the Decedent in her terminal disease course.

65. These actions were taken with the knowledge of treating physician Defendant(s)

LEONARD KESSLER M.D., and with his acquiescence and facilitation.

66. In November 2013, the Decedent communicated to Arielle (Weinberger) Papadam

confusion regarding her medical status and stated that she was unaware of the fact that

Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN had terminated her chemotherapy, believing and desiring

that she would return to treatment the following week.

67. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN, without the Patient's consent, cancelled an

appointment in November, 2013 with Abby Siegel, M.D., a Gastrointestinal Medical Oncologist

at Columbia Presbyterian, and additionally, failed for many weeks prior to forward pertinent

records, as had been requested by the doctor in advance of the scheduled appointment, which the

Patient greatly desired.

68. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN admitted to Randi Levine that he cancelled

the Columbia appointment and was simply "not going to follow through" with consideration of

life extending treatment options because "he was not going to go through this again with another

11

12 of 107



sick wife," but rather, that it was his plan only to "keep her comfortable but she had no chance of

beating this cancer" and that she "would be gone within a few weeks maybe a month maximum."

69. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN admitted to Stacy Abrams that he cancelled

the Columbiaappointment, admitted to her that he dismissed any consideration of life extending

treatment from the beginningand admitted that the Patient would not be informedof this plan

despite her expressed desire to pursue such treatment.

70. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN also directed other care givers, including

hospice nurses, that the Patient remain at all times wholly uninformed that she was undergoing

hospice care, all the while the Patient believing that she was continuing chemotherapytreatment

and believing that she was continuing treatment pursuant to a plan recommended by

sub-specialists at Columbia Presbyterian, with whom she desired follow-up consultations and

with whom she believed she was scheduled for follow-up appointments.

71. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN instructed Randi Levine that "he did not want

any of her friends to tell [the Decedent] how sick she was."

72. Defendant(s) FVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Eric Schenkel, M.D. that he would

not inform the Patient how bad the diagnosis was and that he would make all the decisions about

the Decedent's care and not leave any choice up to her.

73. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN warned Stacy Abrams that she should

counsel Susan Baum to stop researching available clinical trials and cease efforts to inform the

Patient of treatment options, under threat that he would complain to Baum's employer, Genentech

BioOncology-Rituxan, and seek to influence them to fire her from her employment.

74. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN threatened Stacy Abrams that "if [she] ever

wanted to see [her] friend alive again [she] would tell Susan [Baum] to cease and desist."

75. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN admitted to Stacy Abrams that he purposely

failed to inform the Patient that her cancer had metastasized to bone and failed to inform the

12

13 of 107



Patient that her "PET scan lit up" "like a Christmas tree."

76. When the Decedent was made aware of some of these facts by third parties, she

protested to Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN her objections to his failure to keep her fully

informed of her status, to no avail.

77. Similarly, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN warned Kenneth M. Wolk soon

after the diagnosis, "Ifyou tell your sister anything, you will no longer be allowed in the house to

see her."

78. Defendant('s) concerted efforts to prevent the Patient from even limited autonomy

over her body and choice in her care was furthered by a relentless pattern of isolation of the

Patient from her fnends and family.

79. Over the period of the Decedent's disease course, each of Stacy Abrams, Plaintiff

Arielle (Weinberger) Papadam, Charleen Rhindress, Fran Gutleber, Randi Levine, Susan Baum,

Toni Gad and Kenneth M. Wolk witnessed Defendant(s) FVAN K. ROTHMAN undertaking a

course ofmedical treatment, communication and conduct actively discouraging the Decedent's

physical movement, her reception of friends, family, well wishersand clergyand each witnessed

continuous interference with communications from her friends and family.

80. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN informed Charleen Rhindress that he

"banned" long time friends Susan Baum and Eric Schenkel, M.D. from the Decedent's home

during her convalescence and that he did not want the Decedent to talk to or see Fran Gutleber

and other friends.

81. On numerous occasions, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN communicated

refusals to the Decedent's requests for access to her cell phone and home phone in the presence

of Charleen Rhindress. The Decedent informed him that she wanted to speak to her friends. On

several occasions he replied, "You don't need to speak with them," in the presence of Charleen

Rhindress.

13

14 of 107



82. On several occasions, in the presence of Charleen Rhindress, Defendant(s) IVAN

K. ROTHMAN actively dissuaded Decedent from getting out ofbed to receive visitors in her

living room.

83. On many occasions Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN rebuffed Charleen

Rhindress' calls and requests to visit the Decedent during her disease course, answering

repeatedly, "It's not a good time."

84. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN requested and directed that Charleen

Rhindress remove herself from the Decedent's bedside and home when the Decedent started

asking Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN questions about her care and prognosis; Defendant(s)

rVAN K. ROTHMAN commanded "Charleen, I need you to leave now!"

85. In the presence of Fran Gutleber, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN refused the

Decedent's request that she be allowed downstairs to sit on the patio on a beautiful sunny day

and visit with her friend.

86. On many occasions Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN rebuffed Fran Gutleber's

calls and requests to visit the Decedent during her disease course, starting on repeated occasions,

"[she] was too tired, too sick," and "it would be for the best if [the Patient] would just die that

day."

87. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN refused to permit the Decedent to visit with

her brother Kenneth M. Wolk, 4705 Center Boulevard, Apartment 808 Long Island City, New

York 11109, other than under his personal observation and supervision.

88. When PlaintiffArielle (Weinberger) Papadam spoke with Defendant(s) IVAN K.

ROTHMAN about installing a chairlift which she offered to pay for, in order that the Decedent

be able to move about her home and have increased quality of life, Defendant(s) IVAN K.

ROTHMAN stated "I'm not doing it. It will destroy the walls and it is costly. She won't be using

it for that long anyway."

14

15 of 107



89. In addition to the failure to inform the Patient of the nature ofher condition or her

treatment options, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN made numerous statements to each of

Stacy Abrams, Charleen Rhindress, Fran Gutleber, Randi Levine, Susan Baum, Toni Gad and

Eric Schenkel, M.D. that the Decedent "wouldbe betterof dead"; that he wished she wouldjust

not wake up; that he "needed to get on with his life" and that althoughhe was acting as her

doctor, he was unwilling personally to participate in a lengthydiseasecourseas a spouse,

something he had experienced with the sickness and death ofa prior wife.

90. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Stacy Abrams that he wanted this

death to be different than his first wife's cancer and care and that "[He] wasn't about to relive

those 6 years all over again."

91. Similarly, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Randi Levine that he was

not prepared to deal with a lengthy illness and that he simply wanted the Decedent to die as

quickly as possible.

92. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Charleen Rhindress on at least two

occasions that "[he] just wish[ed] she wouldn't wake up again."

93. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Fran Gutleber that "it would be for

the best if [the Decedent] would just die that day."

94. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Susan Baum "she'd be better off

dead. It would be a blessing if she didn't wake up tomorrow."

95. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN admitted to Randi Levine that he mislead the

Patient about following-up with the Columbia treatment plan, and told Randi Levine "that he was

not going to follow through with that because he was not going to go through this again with

another sick wife;" that he "would keep her comfortable but she had no chance ofbeating this

cancer;" and that he "would start dating immediately."

96. Within days of the diagnosis, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Randi

15

16 of 107



Levine that he had already "gotten over" her "impending death;" and that from "the moment [the

decedent] was diagnosed [that] she was terminal"; he declared that "there was no hope or help for

[her] and that she [would] be dead within weeks."

97. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff(s')-Decedentsuffered, resulting in her

death; was deprivedof the opportunityfor a cure; was deprived of treatment to afford a longer

life; was deprived ofher quality of life and dignity in death and the loss of the last precious

months of the late Deborah (Weinberger) Rothman's life.

98. Plaintiff(s) suffered pecuniary losses, special and general damages for the

Wrongful Death of Plaintiff(s')-Decedent.

99. The foregoing injuries and damagesof the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff(s')-Decedent

were caused solelyby virtue of carelessness and other culpable conducton the part of the

Defendant(s), their servants, agents, and employees and without any negligence on the part of the

Plaintiff(s), or Plaintiff(s')-Decedent, contributing thereto.

100. This action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in CPLR 1602.

AS AND FOR A FIRST STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW CAUSE OF ACTION TO

SUBSTITUTE A QUALIFYING PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OFTHE MALPRACTICE VICTIM TO PROSECUTE THE CLAIMS FOR THE BENEFIT

OF THE PLAINTIFF(S)-DISTRIBUTEES

101. Plaintiff(s) repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1

through 100 above as if same were fully set forth at length herein.

102. Pursuant to N.Y. Const, art. VI, § 7 and N.Y. Const, art. VI, § 12 the Supreme

Court and Surrogate's Court have concurrent jurisdiction in matters involving decedents estates

and the Supreme Court maintains concurrent jurisdiction with the Surrogate's Court forproper

reliefuponan Application andcauseDisqualifying and Removing Defendant(s) IVAN K.

ROTHMAN as Executor of the Estate of his malpractice victim, pursuant to the N.Y. Est.

Powers & Trusts Law and otherwise at law.

16

17 of 107



103. Additionally, Pursuant to N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law §§ 5-4.1 and N.Y. Surr.

Ct. Proc. Act Law §§ 707(2), 711(1) Plaintiff(s) are entitled to the appointment of a

Representative of the Estate for their benefit by Order of the Supreme Court herein, where as a

matter of fact and law, the existing Representative cannot and will not pursue malpractice claims

for the Distributees'-Plaintiff(s) benefit against himself.

104. Accordingly, Plaintiff(s) are entitled to an Order disqualifying and removing

rVAN K. ROTHMAN as Executor and/or removing him for the limited purposes of the

prosecution of the action herein and Duly Substituting Plaintiff ARIELLE WEINBERGER

PAPADAM as Personal Representative of the Estate in consonance with the Decedent's Last will

and Testament, generally and/or by Limited Letters and Plaintiff(s) are entitled to an Order

directing for Substitution of the Parties as appropriate.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH BY

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

105. Plaintiff(s) repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1


106. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff(s) as next of kin of Plaintiff(s')-Decedent

have suffered pecuniary loss and have been deprived of said Decedent's support, comfort,

services, companionship, guidance, advice, love and affection all to their damage, in a substantial

sum of money which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise

have jurisdiction of this action.

107. By reason of the above, the next of kin of the Decedent have sustained severe and

significant pecuniary loss in a substantial sum of money to be determined by Court and jury and

Plaintiff(s) are entitled to recover a Judgment against Defendant(s), jointly and severally,

therefore.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECEDENT'S CONSCIOUS PAIN

AND SUFFERING

17

18 Of 107



108. Plaintiff(s) repeatand reallege eachand everyallegation contained in paragraphs 1

through 107above as if same were fullyset forth at lengthherein.

109. Plaintiff(s')-Decedent suffered profoundconscious pain and suffering and loss of

qualityof life and dignityin death and the loss of the last preciousmonthsof the late Deborah

(Weinberger) Rothman life, under circumstances whereshe was deprived of the comfort of

friends and family, all due to the culpable conduct of the Defendant(s); all as a consequence of

Defendant(s') departures from good and accepted medical practice.

110. That as a result ofDefendant(s') culpableconduct, Plaintiff(s) have been damaged

in the amountsand manneraforesaid in a substantial sum ofmoneyto be determined by a court

and jury, including a punitive award, in excess of the jurisdictional limits ofall lower courts

which would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action and Plaintiff(s) are entitled to recover a

Judgment against Defendant(s),jointly and severally, therefore.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LACK OF INFORMED

CONSENT

111. Plaintiff(s) repeat and reallegeeach and every allegationcontainedin paragraphs 1


112. At no time was the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent ever advised, either orally or in writing,

of the possible risks and dangersnor of the possibilityof hastened death or permanentdamage to

the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent's body with regard to the care and treatmentcourse being renderedto

her, nor was the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent ever advised that she may suffer severe personal injuries

and damages and hastened death or loss ofa chance for a cure or longer life, and had the

Defendant(s) or any of their agents, servants, employees and/or associates informed or advised

the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent of the possible risks involved, the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent would not

have been lulled into a false sense of security by their "treatment" and absolutely would never

have consented to the treatment rendered by the Defendant(s), all ofwhich resulted in the

hasteneddeath of Plaintiff(s')-Decedent, caused conscious pain and suffering, loss of the

Patient's autonomy, loss of sentient life in Decedent's terminal disease course and injuriesand

damages to the Pl|aintiff(s')-Decedent and the Plaintiff(s).

18

19 of 107



113. Defendant(s) failed to honor and act in accordance with the terms and

representations of any consent, informed or not, given by the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent.

114. By reason of the above premises, the medical "care" and "treatment" rendered and

afforded to the Plaintiff(s')-Decedent was without first obtaining an informed consent and, as

such, the Plaintiff(s) have been damaged in the amounts and manner aforesaid, in a substantial

sum of money to be determined by a court and jury, in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all

lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action and Plaintiff(s) are entitled

to recover a Judgment against Defendant(s), jointly and severally, therefore.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff(s) ARIELLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM and SCOTT

WEINBERGER demand Judgment against Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN, M.D.,

SOUTH SHORE HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., and LEONARD

KESSLER, M.D. on the First Cause ofAction and an Order removing Defendant(s) IVAN K.

ROTHMAN as Representative of the Estate of the Late Deborah (Weinberger) Rothman and

Substituting therefor Plaintiff ARIELLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM as Representative to

prosecute the claims herein; that the caption and Parties in these proceeding be So Substituted

and Amended in conformity with such Order; on each of the SECOND, THIRD and FOURTH

Causes ofAction in an amount to be determined by a jury at trial of this action, along with

punitive damages, jointly and severally, together with costs, interest and disbursements of this

action.

Dated: Bethpage, New YorkDecember 6, 2015

19

20 of 107

liSQS./l/or Pfainlijffls)

}26broadway.Suite2(MDclhpagc, New York 11714(S16) 942-0733



VERIFICATIONSTATE OF NEW YORK)

) SS.'COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

ARIELLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM , beingswornsays;

I am the PlaintifFin the action herein; I have read the annexed Verified Complaint and know the contentsthereofandsame aretrueto myknowledge, except those mattersAcrein which arestatq44Qj)e alleged oninformation and belief, and as to those matters I believe them/fob^Ntrue.

ARIE EiNBERGER RAPADAM

SCOTT WEINBERGER, beingsworn saj«:

I am the Plaintiff in the action herein; I have read the annexed Verified Complaint and know the contentsthereof and same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged oninformation and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

SCOTT WEINBERGER

Sworn to BY AI^LLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM and SCOTT WEINBERGER before methis December/',

NOTARY PUBLlt

I

rITi ft

STEVE XUNotary Public - State of New York

NO. 01XU6272758Qualified in Queens County

My Commission Expires Nnv iq 20I6

26

jsocntawpfiuzaNotey Pubic.

NeredAN69a94i^OwgadinlfiMiMwCiiWly

nflmmksiQnExpkas9/]9/ 2018.



VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK)) SS.!

COUNTY OF NEW YORK)

ARIELLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM , being swom says:

I am the PlaintifTin the action herein; I have read the annexed Verified Complaint and know the contentsthereof and same are true to my knowledge,except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged oninformation and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

ARIELLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM

SCOTT WEINBERGER, being swom says:

I am the Plaintiff in the action herein; I have read th^annexed Verified Complaint and know the contentsthereofand same are tme to my knowledge, except those ma4 ;rs therein whijfh are st^d to be alleged oninformation and belief, and as to those matters I believe them io be inie

MO.0tHE61593814 OuaWWInBtonxCMTO\ -"'.-'i'Ti I F

Swom to BY.

this December 6,20IS

WEIIWERGI

SCOTT WEINBERGER before me

20

22 of 107



SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF NEW YORK

ARIELLE WEINBERGER FAPADAM and

SCOTT WEINBERGER,



Defendants.

X

X

Index#:

CERTIFICATE OF

MERIT

JOSEPH C. ANDRUZZI, an attorney duly admitted to the practice of law before the

courts of the State ofNew York Affirms under penally ofperjury:

1. I am associated with the offices of JOSEPH C. ANDRUZZI, ESQS., attorneys for

Plaintiff herein, am familiar with the relevant facts by review of Plaintiffs file and certify the

following pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 3012-a of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules:

2. I have reviewed the facts of this case and have consultedwith a physician licensed

to practicemedicine in the State of New York and who I believe is knowledgeable in the relevant

issues of this action.

3. I have concluded on the basis of such review and consultatiy! [i(s) that there isa

reasonable basis for the commencement of this action.

Dated: Bethpage, New YorkDecember 10, 2015

JOSEPH

23 of 107



2016--

2016-

2016-

2016-

2016-

2016-

2016-

2016-

-01.24-

-01.28-

-01.22-

-01.22-

-01.22-

-01.21-

-01.19-

-01.19-

•Exhib

•Exhib

•Exhib

•Exhib

•Exhib

•Exhib

•Exhib

•Exhib

t7...AFDCmplVerif(Abrams).pdf

t8...AFDCmplVerif(Levine).pdf

t9...AFDCmplVerif(Rhindress).pdf

t6...AFDCmplVerif(Gutleber).pdf

t5...AFDCmplVerif(Baum).pdf

t4...AFDCmplVerif(SchenkelMD).pdf

t11 ...AFDCmplVerif(Wolk).pdf

t10...AFDCmplVerif(Gad).pdf

24 of 107



SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF NEW YORKARIELLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM and

SCOTT WEINBERGER,

Plaintiff,-against-


Defendants.

STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU ) ss.

X

Index#:|

AFFIDAVIT

VERIFICATION

AUx'm^o 1962 Lowell Lane Merrick, New York , • , , , ,MdCy ADrams , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. Reference is made to the Verified Complaint dated 12/10/2015.

2. I have read the annexed excerpt of the Verified Complaint and know the contents

of the paragraphs thereinspecifically identified on the attached and same are true to my

knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on informationand belief,

and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

Re^ectfidly Submitted,

/ Stacy Abrams

state of new YORK County of NASSAU ss:

On 1' ^ l| - before me, the undersigned, personally appeared Stacy Abramspersonally Imowi^ me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to tie the individual(s) vi/hose name(s) is(are) subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/theircapacify(les), and thatbyhis/her/theirsignature(s)onthe instrument, the individual(s), orthe personuponbehalfof\Mhichthe individuals) acted, executed the instrument.

(- —^: ^

(signature and acknowledgment)

NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK

No. 01G06003527

Qualified in Nassau County ^ ^-7..M . . M. 25 OE 107My Commission Exolro< Mnrrh no on lo

f!o 01G06003527a.joiineci in Co"n V ,°l„,.,.onExni-esMo.ch 09,20W



SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Index#:COUNTY OF NEW YORK


SCOTT WEINBERGER


IVAN K. ROTHMAN, M.D., SOUTH SHORE

HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., andLEONARD KESSLER, M.D.

Defendants.X

1

Stacy Abrams, 1962 Lowell Lane Merrick, New York 11566 1 of 11

26 of 107




secretlyundertaking a courseofpalliativecare onlywithout the Patient's knowledge or consent,

and he never had any intention ofpursuing any medical options to extend her life.

20. From the earliest days of her diagnosis, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN



renderedthe Patientbed bound and sedentarywith little if any physical activitypermittedand he

departed from good and accepted medical practice in bizarre and radical departiue in depriving


Patient's loss ofsentient life and hasted her death.


practicein administering oral mixtures and concoctions ofmorphine, lorazepam, zolpidem and

hydroxyzine and often without the Patient's consent or knowledge.

Stacy Abrams, 1962 Lowell l^ne Merrick, New York 11566 2of 1127 of 107




practice in administering pain medications for no medically therapeutic or palliative purpose or



bound.

23. Over the period of the Decedent's disease course, each ofStacy Abrams, 1962

Lowell Lane Merrick, New York 11566,Plaintiff Arielle (Weinberger) Papadam, 404 East 79ty


York 11545, Randi Levine, 426 Toftree Court North Hills, New York 11576, Toni Gad, 9801








Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN under circumstances where the Patient was not in pain or



remain awake and functional, with Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN insisting and persuading




ofcontrol and autonomyover her status and care, fighting the unconsciousness being continually


27. In the first three-and-one-half weeks of Decedent's post-diagnosis disease course,

5


28 of 107



Stacy Abrams witnessed Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN's administration ofhigh dose

Ativan, causing the Decedent to sleep 14 to 18 hours per day and during which period of time she

lost at least 30% of her body weight

6

Stacy Abrams, 1962 Lowell Lane Menick, New York 11566 4 of 11

29 of 107




ROTHMAN stated and admitted to each of Stacy Abrams, Plaintiff Arielle (Weinberger)




cholangiocarcinoma.


occasions "I'm the doctor and I know best for Debbie" despite Decedent's questions and protests

to being routinely medicated to unconsciousness from the very onset of the diagnosis in

September, 2013.

7


30 Of 107




occasions that he was "a much smarter physician than the Columbia doctors" and that he could

"administer the chemo [therapy treatments to Decedent] better than anyone."

8


31 of 107





the keeping ofappropriate medical record(s) of the Patient's vital signs and weight, necessary to


9


32 of 107



63. Efforts by fnends and family to inform the Patient of alternatives to the "care"

being leveled upon her by the Defendant(s) were met with threats and actions by Defendant(s)




part of the Patient was perfected and furthered by a pattem of strong efforts to isolate her from


decision that the Patient remain uninformed and misinformed ofher diagnosis, uninformed and






records, as had been requested by the doctor in advance ofthe scheduled appointment, which the


Stacy Abrams, 1962 Lowell Lane Menick, New York 11566 8 of 11

33 of 107









75. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN admitted to Stacy Abrams that he purposely

failed to inform the Patient that her cancer had metastasized to bone and failed to inform the

12


34 of 107



Patient that her "PET scan lit up" "like a Christmas tree."

76. When the Decedent was made aware of some ofthese facts by third parties, she








Toni Gad and Kenneth M. Wolk witnessed Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN undertaking a

course of medical treatment, communication and conduct actively discouraging the Decedent's

physical movement, her reception of friends, family, well wishers and clergy and each witnessed

continuous interference with communications from her fnends and family.

13


35 of 107



89. In addition to the failure to inform the Patient of the nature of her condition or her



Eric Schenkel, M.D. that the Decedent "would be better of dead"; that he wished she would just

not wake up; that he "needed to get on with his life" and that although he was acting as her

doctor, he was unwilling personally to participate in a lengthy disease course as a spouse,


90. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Stacy Abrams that he wanted this

death to be different than his first wife's cancer and care and that "[He] wasn't about to relive

those 6 years all over again."

15


36 of 107




SCOTT WEINBERGER,

Plaintiff,-against-

rVAN K. ROTHMAN, M.D„ SOUTH SHOREHEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., andLEONARD KESSLER, M.D.

Defendants.

STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU )ss.;

Index#: |

AFFIDAVIT

VERIFICATION

Psnrii I m/inL' 426Toftree CourtNorth Hills, New York . . . , , ,Kanui Levine , being duly swom, deposes and says:


2. I have read the annexed excerpt of the Verified Complaint and knowthe contents

of the paragraphs thereinspecifically identified on the attached and sameare true to my

knowledge, exceptthose matters thereinwhich are statedto be allegedon information and belief,


Respectfully Subm

State of new YORK County of NASSAU ss:

On V^ ^ before me, the undersigned, personally appeared Randi Levinepersonally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to the within in^ment and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her^eircapacity(ies), and thatby his/hewwirsignaturefs) on the instrument, the individual(s), orthe person upon behalf ofwhichthe indlvidual(s) acted, execut^thq instrument.

(signature andoffice/of inaivldudytaking aclmowfedgment)

37 of 107

SUZANNE FASSBERGnotary PUBLiC-STATE OF NEW VORK

NO. 01FA6034978Quollfled in Queens County

MV CommUilon M\t9% December 20 J





SCOTT WEINBERGER



Defendants.X

1

Randi Levine, 426 Toftree Court North Hills, New York 11576 1 of 11

38 of 107




secretly undertaking a course of palliative care only without the Patient's knowledge or consent,







the Patient of nutritional support which caused shocking physical wasting and hastened the



practice in administering oral mixtures and concoctions ofmorphine, lorazepam, zolpidem and


Randi Levine, 426 Toftree Coi^ North Hills, New York 11576 2of 1139 of 107







bound.


Lowell Lane Merrick, New York 11566, PlaintiffArielle (Weinberger) Papadam, 404 East 79ty















26. Each wimessed the Patient routinely disoriented due to drugging, and witnessed




5


40 of 107



28. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN emphatically stated to Randi Levine that "it

was fine" for the Patient "to sleep and not eat."

29. On at least one occasion within the first three weeks after diagnosis, Randi Levine

witnessed Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN mix a drink ofAtivan, Ambien and Morphine and

insist that the Decedent drink it, in spite of her protests and communication that she was not in

pain, the "treatment" causing the Decedent to sleep continuously for days.

30. Randi Levine witnessed Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN administer high dose

unconsciousness inducing drugging over the Patient's protest on numerous occasions.

31. When questioned by Randi Levine as to the utility ofsuch drugging in the

Decedent's care and treatment, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated on several occasions

"that [the Decedent] had no chance, she [was] doomed;" and additionally, that he was "already

making plans for his life without her."

6


41 of 107




ROTHMAN stated and admitted to each ofStacy Abrams, Plaintiff Arielle (Weinberger)




cholangiocarcinoma.

38. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Randi Levine that she had "nerve"

to question his medical judgment.

39. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN repeatedly stated and claimed to Randi

Levine "that [he was] the best oncologist; [that he] knew more than any other doctor, [and that

he] should be left to do what he wished."

41. Despite the Patient being lead to believe early in her disease course that

7


42 of 107



sub-specialists (Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology) at Columbia PresbyterianHospital were

being consulted for her treatment plan and would follow up and participate in her care,

Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Randi Levine that he "was not going to follow

through with that;" that "[he] was not going to go through [an extensive disease course] with

another sick wife;" that he "would [only] keep [Decedent] comfortable but she had no chance of

beating this cancer;" "that [Decedent] Debbie [Rothman] would be gone within a few weeks,

maybe a month maximum;" that "[He] knew this because [he] was an expert."

8


43 of 107



63. Efforts by friends and family to inform the Patient ofaltematives to the "care"

being leveledupon her by the Defendant(s) were met with threats and actions by Defendant(s)





family, fnends and personal support network and he threatened her family to submit to his





appointment in November, 2013 with Abby Siegel, M.D., a GastrointestinalMedical Oncologist




68. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN admitted to Randi Levine that he cancelled

the Columbia appointment and was simply "not going to follow through" with consideration of

life extending treatment options because "he was not going to go through this again with another

11


44 of 107



sick wife," but rather, that it was his plan only to "keepher comfortable but she had no chance of

beating this cancer" and that she "would be gone within a few weeks maybe a month maximum."

71. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN instructed Randi Levine that "he did not want

any of her friends to tell [the Decedent] how sick she was."

12

Randi Levine, 426 Toftree Court North Hills, New York 11576

45 of 107

8 Of 11




protested to Defendant(s) IVANK. ROTHMAN her objections to his failure to keep her fully

informed ofher status, to no avail.


over her body and choice in her care was furthered by a relentless pattem of isolation of the

Patient from her friends and family.



Toni Gad and Kenneth M. Wolk witnessed Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN undertakinga


physicalmovement, her receptionof friends, family, well wishers and clergyand each witnessed


13


46 of 107





Stacy Abrams, Charieen Rhindress, Fran Gutleber, Randi Levine, Susan Baum, Toni Gad and


not wake up; that he "needed to get on with his life" and that althoughhe was acting as her

doctor, he was unwilling personally to participate in a lengthydisease course as a spouse,

something he had experienced with the sickness and death of a prior wife.

91. Similarly, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Randi Levine that he was

not prepared to deal with a lengthy illness and that he simply wanted the Decedent to die as

quickly as possible.

95. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN admitted to Randi Levine that he mislead the

Patient about following-up with the Columbia treatment plan, and told Randi Levine "that he was

not going to follow through with that because he was not going to go through this again with

another sick wife;" that he "would keep her comfortable but she had no chance of beating this

cancer;" and that he "would start dating immediately."

96. Within days of the diagnosis, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Randi

15


47 of 107



Levinethat he had already"gottenover" her "impending death;" and that from "the moment[the

decedent] was diagnosed [that] she was terminal"; he declared that "there was no hope or help for

[her] and that she [would] be dead within weeks."

16 '


48 Of 107



SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF NEW YORKARIELLE WEINBERGER PAFADAM and

SCOTT WEINBERGER,

Plaintiff,-against-


Defendants.

STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )ss.

Index#:!

AFFIDAVIT

VERIFICATION

11 Arden Court Melville,New York < j • ^ .Cnarieen Rhindress , beingdulysworn, deposes and says:

1. RefCTence is made to the Verified Complaint dated 12/10/2015.


of the paragraphstherein specifically identified on the attached and same are true to my

knowledge,except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on informationand belief,

and as to those matters 1 believe them to be true.

state of new YORK County of SUFFOLK

R^ectfully Submitted,/II I J 'tjKffhxJjl/A .kJu iCharleen Rhindress

ss;

On o// l>efore me, the undersigned, personally appeared Charleen Rhindresspersonally knownto me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individua](s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to the wittilninstmment and acknowledged to me that he/she/lhey executed the same in his/her/theircapacity(l88),andthatbyhts/her/theirsignature(s)on the Instrument,the indlvldual(s),or the person upon behalf ofwhichthe tndividual(s) acted, executed the Instrument.

(signature an^ of Individuai taKlndiidtnowtedgment)

49 of 107

NMCrjSCARMGaiANOWirMucsrAiEOPNeiinaK

WSSNIOOUNIYUC.iffljSOB22Stfl3





SCOTT WEINBERGER



Defendants.X

1

Charieen Rhindress, 11 Arden Court Melville, New York 11741 1 of 9

50 of 107







departed from good and accepted medical practice in undertaking a course of "treatment" of the









Charieen Rhindress, 11 Arden^ourt Melville, New York 11741 2of 951 of 107







bound.


Lowell Lane Merrick, New York 11566,Plaintiff Arielle (Weinberger) Papadam, 404 East 79ty



Collins Ave Apt 15n,Bal Harbour, Florida, 33154 Susan Baum, Senior Clinical Specialist at














ofcontrol and autonomy over her status and care, fighting the unconsciousnessbeing continually


5

Charieen Rhindress. 11 Arden Court Melville, New York 11741 3 of 9

52 Of 107








cholangiocarcinoma.

7

Charleen Rhindress, 11 Arden Court Melvllle. New York 11741 4 of 9

53 of 107



47. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Charleen Rhindress that he "[didn't]

need another opinion" in the Patient's care and treatment and exclaimed that he was the "Doctor

and know[s] what she needs!" responsive to Charleen Rhindress' suggestion that he was "too

close to the situation to make these decisions alone."

8

Charleen Rhindress, 11 Arden Court Melville, New York 11741

54 Of 107

5 Of 9



63. Efforts by fnends and family to inform the Patient of altematives to the "care"





part ofthe Patient was perfected and furthered by a pattem ofstrong efforts to isolate her from




being "cutoff" from access to the Decedent in her terminal disease course.






Charieen Rhindress, 11 Arden Court Melville, New York 11741 6 of 9

55 of 107





informed ofher status, to no avail.

78. Defendant(*s) concerted efforts to prevent the Patient from even limited autonomy



79. Over the period of the Decedent's disease course, each ofStacy Abrams, Plaintiff


Toni Gad and Kenneth M. Wolk witnessed Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN imdertaking a







and other fnends.

81. On numerous occasions, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN commimicated

refusals to the Decedent's requests for access to her cell phone and home phone in the presence

ofCharleen Rhindress. The Decedent informed him that she wanted to speak to her friends. On

several occasions he replied, "You don't need to speak with them," in the presence ofCharleen

Rhindress.

13

Charleen Rhindress. 11 Arden Court Melville, New York 11741 7 of 9

56 Of 107



82. On several occasions, in the presence ofCharleen Rhindress, Defendant(s) IVAN

K. ROTHMAN actively dissuaded Decedent from getting out ofbed to receive visitors in her

living room.

83. On many occasions Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN rebuffed Charleen

Rhindress' calls and requests to visit the Decedent during her disease course, answering

repeatedly, "It's not a good time."

84. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN requested and directed that Charleen

Rhindress remove herself from the Decedent's bedside and home when the Decedent started

asking Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN questions about her care and prognosis; Defendant(s)

IVAN K. ROTHMAN commanded "Charleen, 1need you to leave now!"

14

Charleen Rhindress, 11 Arden Court Melville, New York 11741 8 of 9

57 of 107






Eric Schenkel, M.D. that the Decedent "would be better ofdead"; that he wished she would just




92. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Charleen Rhindress on at least two

occasions that "[he] just wish[ed] she wouldn't wake up again."

15

Charleen Rhindress, 11 Arden Court Melville, New York 11741 9 of 9

58 of 107



SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF NEW YORKARIELLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM and AinnnAvrrSCOTT WEINBERGER,

Plaintiff,-against-

IVAN K. ROTHMAN, M,D., SOUTH SHOREHEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., andLEONARD KESSLER, M.D.

Defendants.

Index#:

VERIFICATION

STATEOF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU )SS.:

E:»^n 87 FruWedge Road Brookville, New York , . . , . ,rran VjUtieDer ^^5^5 , being duly sworn, deposesand says:


2. I have read the annexed excerpt of the Verified Complaint and know die contents

of the paragraphs therein specifically identified on the attached and same are true to my

knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief^


Respectfully Submitted,

Fran Gutiroer

state of new YORK County of NASSAU ss:

On jTci/lUd/y before me, the undersigned, personally appeared Fran Gutleberpersonallyknown to me or provedto me on the tjasis of satisfactory evidence to be the indlvldual(8) whose namefs) is(are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/herAheircapacity(les), and that byhis/her/their signature(s)on the Instrument,the Individual(s), or the person upon behalfofwhichthe individual(s) acted, executed the instrument

•nature(signature and office of individual taking acknowiedgment)

ANGELA MADURANotaiy Public. State of New Voik

No. 0fMA6330427Ouaflfied in Nassau County; A

Commlsakin Ejqpiraa S/MiMLlj





SCOTT WEINBERGER



Defendants.X

1

Fran Gutleber, 87 Fruitledge Road Brookville, New York 11545 1 of 10

60 Of 107




secretly undertaking a courseof palliativecare onlywithout the Patient's knowledge or consent,




Decedent consisting of a steady regimen ofdrugging to unconsciousness and which otherwise

rendered the Patient bed bound and sedentarywith little ifany physicalactivitypermittedand he





practice in administeringoral mixtures and concoctions ofmorphine, lorazepam, zolpidem and

hydroxyzineand often without the Patient's consent or knowledge.

Fran Gutleber, 87 Fruitledge Rgad Brookville, New York 11545 2of 1061 of 107







bound.


Lowell Lane Merrick, New York 11566,Plaintiff Arielle (Weinberger)Papadam, 404 East 79ty

















ofcontrol and autonomy over her status and care, fighting the unconsciousness being continually


5

Fran Gutleber, 87 Fruitledge Road Brookville, New York 11545 3 of 10

62 of 107



32. Fran Gutleber suggested that Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN administer less

drugging in order that the Decedentcould be awake, functional, moving and eating,but he

dismissed Fran Gutleber stating "that [he] knew what she neededand there was nothing to

discuss;" "she was going to die."

33. When Fran Gutleber questioned Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN on the issue

ofMorphineadministration as she had observedthe Decedent to be comfortable and in no pain,

he again dismissed her, insisting that "[he] knew best."

34. Fran Gutleber witnessed Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN actively

discouraging the Patient from gettingout ofbed and walking around, telling her that she was "too

weak and should just stay in bed and rest."

6 ^Fran Gutleber, 87 Frultledge Road Brookville, New York 11545 4 of 10

63 of 107




ROTHMAN stated and admitted to each ofStacy Abrams, PlaintiffArielle (Weinberger)




cholangiocarcinoma.

7

Fran Gutleber, 87 Fruitledge Road Brookvllle, New York 11545 5 of 10

64 of 107



46. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Fran Gutleber that "he knew what

she [the Decedent] needed and there was nothing to discuss," on the issues ofDecedent's

management and regarding second opinions or collaboration with sub-specialists; declaring with

resignation that he "was the expert doctor and she was going to die."

8

Fran Gutleber, 87 Fruitledge Road Brookviiie, New York 11545 6 of 10

65 of 107



63. Efforts by friends and family to inform the Patient ofalternatives to the "care"















11

Fran Gutleber, 87 Fruitledge Road Brcokville, New York 11545 7 of 10

66 of 107







over her body and choice in her care was furthered by a relentless pattem of isolation of the





course ofmedical treatment, conununication and conduct actively discouraging the Decedent's



13 '

Fran Gutleber, 87 Fmitledge Road Brookville. New York 11545 8 of 10

67 of 107



85. In the presence of Fran Gutleber, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN refused the

Decedent's request that she be allowed downstairs to sit on the patio on a beautiful sunny day

and visit with her fnend.

86. On many occasions Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN rebuffed Fran Gutleber's

calls and requests to visit the Decedent during her disease course, starting on repeated occasions,

"[she] was too tired, too sick," and "it would be for the best if [the Patient] would just die that

day."

14

Fran Gutleber, 87 Frultledge Road Brookville, New York 11545 9 of 10

68 of 107






Eric Schenkel, M.D. that the Decedent "would be better ofdead"; that he wished she would just




93. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Fran Gutleber that "it would be for

the best if [the Decedent] would just die that day."

15

Fran Gutleber, 87 Frultledge Road Brookville, New York 11545 10 of 10

69 of 107




SCOTT WEINBERGER,

Plaintijf,-against-

IVAN K ROTHMAN, M.D., SOUTH SHOREHEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., andLEONARD KESSLER, M.D.

Defendants.

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF LEHIGH ) ss.:

Index#:

AFFIDAVIT

VERIFICATION

Susan Baum1680 Fieldview Lane Bethlehem,Pennsylvania 18015 , being duly sworn, deposes and says:


2. 1have read the annexed excerpt of the Verified Complaint and know the contents


knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief,

and as to those matters 1 believe them to be true.

Respectfully Submitted, W

Susan Baum

ssLenHflMstate of PENNSYLVANIA County of

On before me, the undersigned, personally appeared Susan Baumpersonallyknown to me or provedto me on the basis of satisfactoryevidence to be the indivldual(s) whose name(s) Is(are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/theircapacity{ies)^aR^albyhis/herfthelrsignature(s)on the instrument, the Indivldual(s), or the person upon behalfofwhichtheIndividual acted, executed theinstrument.

'' I

^findiviMal takingacknowledgment)

/70'of 107

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOTARIAL SEALTeresa A Oartouzos. Notaiy Public

HeHertown Boro, Northampton CountyMyCommission Expires May17. 2017

(EUBER. PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF NOTARIES

\





SCOTT WEINBERGER



Defendants.X

1

Susan Baum. Senior Clinical Specialist. Genentech BioOncology-Rituxan, 1 of 101680 Fieldview Lane Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

71 Of 107
















Susan Baum, Senior Clinicai Special^t, Genentech BioOncology-Rituxan, 2 of101680 Fleldvlew Lane Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

72 of 107




practice in administering pain medications for no medically therapeutic or palliative purposeor

effect, but rather, in a course of "treatment" to induce the Patient almost continuous

unconsciousness and which otherwise renderedthe cancerPatientwhollysedentary and bed

bound.


Lowell Lane Merrick,New York 11566, PlaintiffArielle (Weinberger) Papadam,404 East 79ty

Street, #28C New York,New York 10075, Fran Gutleber,87 FruitledgeRoad Brookville, New


CollinsAve Apt 15n,Bal Harbour, Florida, 33154 SusanBaum, SeniorClinicalSpecialist at



administration by Defendant(s) IVANK. ROTHMAN ofconcoctions and mixturesofMorphine,



24. Each witnessed the administration ofMorphine and other pain medications by

Defendant(s) IVANK. ROTHMAN under circumstances where the Patient was not in pain or






her struggling, imsuccessfully, to gain some control over her social interactions and some degree

ofcontroland autonomy over her status and care, fighting the unconsciousness being continually


Susan Baum, Senior ClinicalSpecialist, Genentech BioOncology-Rituxan, 3 of 101680 Fieldview Lane Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

73 of 107




ROTHMAN stated and admitted to each of StacyAbrams,Plaintiff Arieile (Weinberger)




cholangiocarcinoma.

Susan Baum, Senior CtinlcaiSpecialist, Genentech BioOncology-Rltuxan, 4 of 101680 Fieldview Lane Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

74 Of 107



43. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Susan Baum that the

'[sub-specialist] doctor(s) at Columbia are good, but I'm a much better oncologist.

8

Susan Baum, Senior Clinical Specialist, Genentech BicOncology-Rituxan,1680 Fieldview Lane Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

75 of 107

5 Of 10





the keeping of appropriate medical record(s) of the Patient's vital signs and weight, necessary to


Susan Baum, Senior ClinicalSpecialist, Genentech BioOncology-Rituxan, 6 of 101680 Fieldview Lane Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

76 of 107



63. Efforts by friends and family to inform the Patient ofaltematives to the "care"


IVAN K. ROTHMAN to thwart any such conununications and prevent information from


64. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN^s goal to prevent choice or consent on the





being "cutoff' from access to the Decedent in her terminal disease course.






11

Susan Baum, Senior Cilnlcai Specialist, Genentech BioOncology-Rituxan, 7 of 101680 Fieldview Lane Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

77 of 107









12

Susan Baum, Senior Ctinicai Specialist, Genentech BioOncology-Rituxan, 8 of 101680 Fieldview Lane Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

78 Of 107









79. Over the period of the Decedent's disease course, each ofStacy Abrams, Plaintiff









and other fnends.

13

Susan Baum. Senior Clinical Specialist, Genentech BioOncology-Rituxan, 9 of 101680 Fieldview Lane Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

79 of 107










94. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Susan Baum "she'd be better off

dead. It would be a blessing if she didn't wake up tomorrow."

15

Susan Baum, Senior Clinlcai Specialist, Genentech BioOncology-Rituxan, 10 of 101680 Fieldview Lane Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

80 of 107




SCOTT WEINBERGER,

Plaintiff,-against-

IVAN K. ROTHMAN, M.D.. SOUTH SHOREHEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., andLEONARD KESSLER, M.D.

Defendants.

STATE OF Pennsylvania , COUNTY OF Lehigh

Index#:

AFFIDAVIT

VERIFICATION

) ss.:

ERIC SCHENKEL , being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. 1am a physician licensed to the practice of medicine in the State of Pennsylvania.


3. 1have read the annexed excerpt ofthe Verified Complaint and know the contents


knowledge, as opinions are so stated within a reasonable degree of professional certainty, except

those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those

matters 1 believe them to be true.

Respectfully Submitted.

ERIC SCHENKEL, M.D.

State of Pennsylvania . County of Lohi^ ss; /fjr-

On '7A''uA''y 2-1, zc>(f before me, the undersigned, personally appeared ERIC SCHENKEL. M,D,personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the

lndividual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/theyexecuted the same In his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their slgnature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s),or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument.

(signature and officeof individual taking acknowledgment)

81 of 107

COMMONWEAI.THQP PEKN8YLVANIAULTHOPI

NOTARliksBALSusn S. DoOgKomy Public

BctfaldicmTwpbNortm^Coo Oom^MycommltriDa explrts luN 11,2019





SCOTT WEINBERGER

Plaintiffs.-against-


Defendants.X

1

Eric Schenkel, M.D. 1680 Fieldview Lane, Bethlehem Pennsylvania 18015 1 of 10

82 of 107






19. Soon after her diagnosis, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN admitted to Eric

Schenkel, M.D. that his treatment plan would not be revealed to the Patient and that he would

undertake "palliative care [only]" and "never had any intention of trying to research assistance to

extend her life."





departed from good and accepted medical practice in bizarre and radical departiue in depriving






Eric Schenkel, M.D. 1680 Fleldview]jane, Bethlehem Pennsylvania 18015 2of 1083 of 107



22, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN departed from good and accepted medical




bound.

5

Eric Schenkel, M.D. 1680 Fleldvlew Lane, Bethlehem Pennsylvania 18015 3 of 10

84 of 107






Permsylvania 18015, Toni Gad, Susan Baum and Charleen Rhindress that he would not consider


cholangiocarcinoma.

7


85 Of 107



44. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN declared to Eric Schenkel, M.D. that he

would be making all medical decisions for the Patient unilaterally and that he was "smarter" than

available sub-specialists in cholangiocarcinoma at Columbia Presbyterian; that he was "not open

to any ideas on clinical trials or other life saving measures."

45. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Eric Schenkel, M.D. that the

"[sub-specialist] doctor at Columbia is good, but Vm a much better oncologist."

8

Eric Schenkel, M.D. 1680 Fleldvlew Lane, Bethlehem Pennsylvania 18015 5 of 10

86 Of 107





the keeping ofappropriate medical record(s) of the Patient's vital signs and weight, necessary to


9


87 of 107



63. Efforts by friends and family to inform the Patient of altematives to the "care"

being leveled upon her by the Defendant(s)were met with threats and actions by Defendant(s)

rVAN K. ROTHMAN to thwart any such communications and prevent information from













1

1Eric Schenkel, M.D. 1680 Fleldview Lane, Bethlehem Pennsylvania 18015 7 of 10

88 of 107



72. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Eric Schenkel, M.D. that he would

not inform the Patient how bad the diagnosis was and that he would make all the decisions about

the Decedent's care and not leave any choice up to her.

12

Eric Schenkel, M.D. 1680 Fleldvlew Lane, Bethlehem Pennsylvania 18015

89 Of 107

8 Of 10






78. Defendant's) concerted efforts to prevent the Patient from even limited autonomy






and other friends.

13

Eric Schenkel, M.D. 1680 Fieidvlew Lane, Bethlehem Pennsylvania 18015 9 of 10

90 of 107



89. In addition to the failure to inform the Patient of the nature ofher condition or her

treatment options, Defendant(s) FVAN K. ROTHMAN made numerous statements to each of


Eric Schenkel, M.D. that the Decedent 'Vould be better ofdead"; that he wished she would just




15 '

Eric Schenkel, M.D. 1680 Fleldview Lane, Bethlehem Pennsylvania 18015 10 of 10

91 Of 107



SUPR£M£ COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF NEW YORK

ARIELLE WEINBERGER FAFADAM and

SCOTT WEINBERGER,

Plaintiff,-against-

IVAN K. ROTHMAN, M.D., SOUTH SHOREHEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES, F.C., andLEONARD KESSLER, M.D.

Defendants.

STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ) ss.:

Index#:

AFFIDAVIT

VERIFICATION

4705 Center Boulevard, Apartment 808 . • , i j »Kenneth M. Wolk (.»/, n». yoa iiios . being duly sworn, deposes and says:


2. 1have read the annexed excerpt of the Verified Complaint and know the contents


knowledge, except those matters thereinwhich are statedto be allegedon informationand belief,


Respectfully ^bmitted,

Kenneth M. Wolk

state of new YORK County of QUEENS ^ ' ss:

On I'i before me, the undersigned, personally appeared Kenrteth M. Wolkpersonally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satlsfoctory evidence to be the Indtvldual(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to the vdthin Instrument and acknowledsed to me that he/she/they executed the same In his/her/theircapacity(ies), and that byhis/her/their slgnature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s).orthe person upon behalf ofwhichthe indi^lduai(s)^acted, executed the Instrument.

V'>>^gnature and altakt cknowledgment)

92 of 107

ESTHrn JIMENEZ CAPONotary Public • State ol New York

NO. 0lJI6t3317|7Oual.tied in Bronx ciunty

'•'•r CoTrrifs'iic.i Expires




XARIELLE WEINBERGER PAPADAM and

SCOTT WEINBERGER

Plaintiffs.-against-



Defendants.X

1

Kenneth M. Wolk, 4705 Center Boulevard, Apartment 808 Long Island City, New York 11109 1 of 6

93 of 107













Kenneth M. Wolk, 4705 Center Boulevard, /^^rtment 808 Long Island City, New York 11109 2of 694 of 107







bound.















5


95 of 107



63. Efforts by fnends and family to inform the Patient ofaltematives to the "care"





part ofthe Patient was perfected and furthered by a pattem of strong efforts to isolate her from










Kenneth M.Wolk, 4705 Center Boulevard, Apartment 808 Long Island City, New York 11109 4 of 6

96 of 107






77. Similarly, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN warned Kenneth M. Wolk soon

after the diagnosis, "Ifyou tell your sister anything, you will no longer be allowed in the house to

see her."


over her body and choice in her care was furthered by a relentless pattern of isolation ofthe





course ofmedical treatment, communication and conduct actively discouraging the Decedent's


continuous interference with communications fi-om her friends and family.

13


97 of 107



87. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN refused to permitthe Decedent to visitwith

her brother Kenneth M. Wolk, 4705 Center Boulevard, Apartment 808 Long island City, New

York ill 09, other than under his personal observation and supervision.

14 '

Kenneth M. Woik, 4705 Center Boulevard,Apartment 808 Long Island City, NewYork11109 6 of 6

98 of 107




SCOTT WEINBERGER,

Plaintiff,-against-


Defendants.

STATE OF FLORIDA (ouNTY OF Broward ) ss.

X

Index#:

AFFIDAVIT

VERIFICATION

Ton i Gdd being duly swom, deposes and says:Hollywood, Fl 33019




knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on informationand belief,


Respectfully Submitted,

State of FLORIDA County of Broward ss:

On /// Ijefore me. the undersigned, personally appeared Ton! Gadpersonallyknown to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactoryevidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to the within instrumentand acknowledged to me that he/sheAheyexecuted the same inhis/herAheircapadty(lesLan<thatbyhisAierAhelrsl9nature(s)on the instrument,the individual(s), or the person upon behalfofwhichthe individj/^(s) a^ed.executed the instrument.

h-(signature and officeof individua taking acknowledgment)

99 of 107

LAWRENCE M.KERSHWCommission#EE 162756ExpifK April 9,20169arartThniTioyFa(Bh*n<*»K*W!S-'0i$





SCOTT WEINBERGER




Defendants.X

1

Toni Gad, 201 Van Buren Street, unit103, Hollywood, Fi 33019 1 ®

100 of 107
















... 2 of 8• 4 •

101 of 107







bound.
















her to submit to the '^treatment" time and time again.





3 of 8

102 of 107



35. On several occasions Toni Gad observed during visits that if she withdrew from

the Decedent's bedside for even a few moments during periods of lucidity and good

conversation, when she returned, the Decedent was routinely dosed again, out ofher presence,

and restored to a state of drug induced unconsciousness or semi-consciousness, all in accord with

the "treatment" regimen ordered and administered by, and otherwise at the direction, of

Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN.






cholangiocarcinoma.

4 of 8

103 of 107



49. Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to Toni Gad "absolutely not" did he, or

would he, consider a second opinion to be ofutility as to any aspect of Decedent's care; that

"[he] was the best doctor out there" and that "[he] was giving Debbie every care she need[ed];

that he *Svas better than any other doctor."

50. Additionally, in September, 2013, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN stated to

Toni Gad that "cancer grows with food;" and "you should not feed cancer" as an explanation for

the absence ofnutritional support and visibly accelerated wasting, telling Toni Gad that the

decedent was "at the end ofher life and that it [death] would happen any day."

51. When Toni Gad broached the subject ofseeking a second opinion or collaboration

of other physicians, Defendant(s) IVAN K. ROTHMAN responded to her with a communicative

and aggressive facial expression seeking to cause her (and which did cause her) to withdraw

from the conversation immediately.

5 of 8

104 of 107



63. Efforts by friends and family to inform the Patient of alternatives to the "care"





part ofthe Patient was perfected and furthered by a pattem of strong efforts to isolate her from










6 of 8

105 of 107















13

7 of 8

106 of 107










15

8 of 8

107 of 107



INDEX NO. 805017/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED …

Documents

Transcript of INDEX NO. 805017/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED …