Attorney Joe Carcione, Esq.

Lawzilla References

Judge Denies Attorney Joe Carcione's Motion for Further Deposition of Doctor

Judge Notes Carcione Ended Deposition After Getting Call From His Wife Wondering Why He Wasn't Home

In Another Lawsuit Carcione's Client Loses and Held Liable for $108,497.37

William Hoy v Stanford Health Care, San Mateo County Superior Court Case Number 17-CIV-00862.

From the court's tentative ruling and online court records for the case it is Lawzilla's understanding the following happened:

Joe Carcione, Esq. and his law firm represent the plaintiff in a medical malpractice lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges complications from surgery caused plaintiff significant neurological and other physical and emotional problems that will continue for the rest of plaintiff's life. As a result, the plaintiff will require significant future medical care including around the clock home health care.

Attorney Carcione during the lawsuit took the deposition of defendant Gary Steinberg.

Dr. Steinberg is a primary defendant who recommended procedures and performed the surgery.

The doctor's availability was tight and defense counsel said he was available for four hours on a certain date starting at 2 pm.

The judge said counsel "implicitly" consented to the 4-hour deposition at the offered date and time.

Despite the discussion about a 4-hour time-frame, the court noted defense counsel said the deposition could continue as long as necessary to be completed.

That is what the other attorney said in his declaration under penalty of perjury:

The judge then said attorney Joe Carcione ended the deposition so he could go home!

The judge quoted Carcione at the deposition:

[T]he last time my phone went off here a few minutes ago. It was my wife, and I know why she's calling me, and I told her I would be home by 6:15. I live close is the good news ....

Then Carcione left the deposition and went home. It was 6:16 pm.

Later, the Carcione law firm filed a motion to have additional time to take Dr. Steinberg's deposition.

The judge denied the motion.

The court said Carcione had implicitly agreed to a four-hour deposition, then he unilaterally stopped the deposition so he could go home.

The judge also said the attorney had not identified any specific further questioning he needed that was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and had not shown good cause for another deposition.

Lawzilla Opinion and Review

This is one of the funniest comments we have seen in a court order.

Did Carcione's wife need Joe home for dinner? Sex? Healthcare? Watch TV? Did she bash him with a frying pan for being late?

The mind wanders in fun speculation.

It is also weird that coming up on 6 pm, when Carcione thinks the time for the deposition is about up so he can go home, that he is not asking the doctor about the surgery or Hoy at all.

Instead, there are questions about budgets, how they are set, and how the doctor's compensation is set and paid for.

He's the attorney so there is probably a good reason for this, but it didn't strike us as the most important questions to ask.

Especially - when - unbelievably - Joseph Carcione takes a break from 5:46 pm to 5:59 pm.

Weird. He indicates the questioning is going to end by 6 and he told his wife he would be home, but he is taking a long break right before 6 pm, and before that only asking the surgeon about money issues - questions we would think someone else could also answer.

It is also an outrageous situation.

The complaint alleges William Hoy has significant neurological, physical and emotional injuries, and requires around the clock home-care.

This lawsuit is seemingly everything to Mr. Hoy and his future well-being.

In the motion to compel Carcione's office argued to the judge that their client had brain surgery which left him permanently injured. He is in a wheelchair and his speech is almost unintelligible.

Yet, his attorney had to stop the deposition of the surgeon to go home because his wife called? Or because he told her he would be home by a certain time?

Wonder what Mr. Hoy and his wife must think about this?

Why didn't attorney Carcione say excuse me and take a short break at the deposition, call his wife back and tell her the deposition was going long and he would be home later?

Carcione argued to the judge that his client had a brain bleed and Dr. Steinberg had considered the possible causes.

The attorney argued he was entitled to ask what the possible causes were and why they were ruled out.

After all, how much is Hoy's case worth? What is the contingency fee Carcione's law firm likely wants?

But instead of asking these important questions Carcione was asking stuff about hospital budgets and then took a 15 minute break right before 6 pm.

Then Carcione decided to ask different questions for a few minutes before he had to run home.

Wonder what Mr. Hoy and his wife must think about his attorney and contingency fee (presuming that is the likely fee arrangement for this type of case)

We know our opinion: we would look elsewhere for an attorney.

Carcione Firm Loses Case and Client Hit for $108,497.37 Judgment

Joe Carcione is the top billed attorney representing the plaintiff in Stevenson v Farmers. The complaint asked for a jury trial.

The trial was lost.

Afterwards the judge ordered that Carcione's client pay a massive $108,497.37 to Farmers.

This is a judgment against the plaintiff. In other words, although Carcione's client sued she ended up with a judgment against her for more than $108,497.37.

Could this be any worse?

Our read of the lawsuit is that Ms. Stevenson was injured while walking on a sidewalk.

The property owners had a $5000 no fault insurance policy with Farmers to cover medical bills. It was claimed the policy was not paid.

This is a small claims amount.

In essence, it started with a claim $5000 had not been paid and the claim was lost at trial, and as a result the client was ordered to pay $108,497.37!

Ouch.

Then this caught our attention in the lawsuit:

See how the lawsuit drafted by the Carcione law firm goes from the first cause of action to the fifth cause of action?

What happened to #2, #3 and #4?

It appears to us there may have been shoddy legal work and/or cutting and pasting from another claim.

This lack of attention to detail does not exactly scream "excellent law firm" to us. Neither does the end result.

Joe Carcione Details