Robert De Niro Seeks to Dismiss Lawsuit over ’03 Cancer Diagnosis

May 25, 2007

  • May 25, 2007 at 10:14 am
    matt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Seems like this could be an interesting case. He had a prostate *biopsy* (not just a regular prostate check) three days before allegedly signing the document. Would a medical professional consider a biopsy to be a \”diagnosis or treatment of\” a prostate condition? Also there is no mention of any broker E&O implications here. Seems like he may not have had a firm diagnosis but at least a strong suspicion of a problem.

  • May 25, 2007 at 1:48 am
    David says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    \”treatment\”: 1a. the act, manner, or method of handling or dealing with someone or something; 2a. administration or application of remedies to a patient or for a disease or injury;therapy\”.

    He did receive \”treatment\”.

    Should be interesting and precedence setting.

    Whether or not he was properly served is a whole different issue.

  • May 25, 2007 at 1:57 am
    Don says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wonder when the PSA result were posted and what results? No prostrate samples for the lab as a routin procedure!!

  • May 25, 2007 at 2:19 am
    TPG says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Man, what a pain in the *** this lawsuit is gonna be!

  • May 25, 2007 at 2:27 am
    Hello Hollywood says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    One could lose confidence in Hollywood.

  • May 27, 2007 at 6:52 am
    Hmmm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How exactly does your definition of \’treatment\’ apply to having a biopsy performed? If he had surgery to remove or taken drugs to \’treat\’ the potential issue then yes, it would be treatment. If I go and have an X-Ray performed does that classify as treatment for a broken bone? I doubt it. All that happened, according to the information above, is that he was in the process of having a thorough diagnosis performed. He didn\’t lie – if they wanted to know if he had any suspicion that there was a cancer or any other form of medical issue then they should have asked the direct question. Based on the article they have no case. He will win and they will waste additional funds trying to defend what cannot be defended. Open and shut.

  • May 29, 2007 at 10:45 am
    Hmmm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Chad – I think it is pretty obvious that this will come down to the phrasing of the direct question that they asked. If they asked if he was \’currently undergoing treatment\’ and not if he had \’a suspicion of any possible medical illness, disease or condition\’ then he, and the production company, will and should get their claim paid. The insurer needs to phrase their question correctly. I am a casualty underwriter and I would never dream of having a claim against one of my Insureds knocked back if I didn\’t ask the right question. Perhaps Firemans will need to take this kick up the backside (no pun intended) and rephrase their questions so that they more accurately request the information they are chasing.

  • May 29, 2007 at 12:44 pm
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I see the arguements – but honestly, a brief news article is not going to provide all of the relevent facts about the lawsuit.

    I have a very hard time feeling sorry for someone who is inteligent and has the financial resources, but somehow chooses to go without proper health coverage. This would never have been an issue had Mr Dinero carried proper health cover.

  • May 29, 2007 at 1:03 am
    Kay says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dave, I think your mistaken. My understanding is that Firemans Fund covered the production company and paid out under the policy due to the delay in production caused by this medical issue. This doesn\’t appear to be about Mr. De Niro\’s personal medical coverage, or lack of it.

  • May 29, 2007 at 1:27 am
    Chad Balaamaba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    please keep in mind the description of \’never been \”diagnosed with or treated for\” any prostate disorder\’ seems a bit light; consent orders, releases, and authorizations contain much more information…remember we are obviously reading something from De Niro\’s camp as the form of a press release; Fireman\’s must feel pretty secure in their case, as they write allot of business to the entertainment industry, including the folks who work in it. It\’s unlikely they\’d want to take a chance and ruffle feathers unless they felt certain of recovery.

    you have to admit it was interesting timing; one doesn\’t usually obtain a biopsy unless they are trying to confirm/rule out the presence of cancer, so it seems a bit naive for the De Niro camp to parade him as innocent in this matter…we have to assume they needed HIM to conduct the biopsy; it will be hard for him to blame it on his manager.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*