by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Philadelphia, Professional Liability, Successes
In a case involving a claim of professional negligence against an insurance agent filed in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Anthony P. DeMichele obtained a voluntary dismissal for his client. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff claimed that his insurance agent negligently advised him to switch annuities. According to the plaintiff, he was told by his insurance agent that he did not have enough liquidity in his annuity to satisfy his financial needs. Based upon his insurance agent’s recommendation and advice, the plaintiff switched annuities. After making the switch, the plaintiff learned for the first time that the value of his annuity substantially decreased due to early withdrawal penalties and cancellation fees. The plaintiff claimed that he was not advised of these penalties and fees. The plaintiff also learned that not only did the value of his annuity decrease but the insurance agent earned a large commission as a result of the switch in annuities. The plaintiff claimed that he was unaware of the insurance agent’s compensation at the time the switch in annuities occurred. Further, after the switch in annuities, the plaintiff alleged that he learned that his original annuity had sufficient liquidity for his financial needs and therefore, it was not necessary to switch the annuities.
The plaintiff alleged that the insurance agent recommended the switch in annuities solely for the insurance agent’s own self-interest and at the expense of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that there was no need for him to switch the annuities and that the only reason he made the switch was because his insurance agent advised him to do so. In relying on the insurance agent’s advice, the plaintiff made the switch and suffered a loss in the value of his annuity. Moreover, the plaintiff claimed that the insurance agent’s commission demonstrated that the insurance agent was acting with his own interests in mind and not in the best interest of the plaintiff.
During an aggressive deposition of the plaintiff, Mr. DeMichele obtained valuable admissions from the plaintiff. These admissions weakened plaintiff’s case against the insurance agent and forced the plaintiff to reevaluate his case. A few days after the plaintiff’s deposition, plaintiff decided not to pursue his case against the insurance agent and filed a voluntary dismissal with the Court, dismissing the case against the insurance agent.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | ADR, Commercial Liability / Litigation, Successes
Marshall L. Schwartz obtained an arbitration award in favor of a general contractor in a Montgomery County construction litigation matter. The defendant, and owner of the property at issue, failed to make payment under the contract. The matter proceeded to arbitration under the theories of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The general contractor was awarded contract damages plus interest.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, New Jersey, Successes
Daniel F. Ryan, III obtained a defense verdict for an orthopedic spine surgeon in Camden County, New Jersey. Plaintiff presented to the orthopedic spine surgeon with symptoms and physical findings of cervical myelopathy. Cervical myelopathy is a dangerous and progressive disease of the spinal cord which if left untreated can result in catastrophic consequences for the patient. Plaintiff also presented with known problems of his lower back which were causing him pain. MRIs of the cervical and lumbar spine were obtained and the MRI of the cervical spine did show cord compression indicative of a diagnosis of cervical myelopathy. After confirmation from a neurologist that plaintiff’s symptoms were not being caused by some underlying neurologic condition (MS, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Brain Tumor, etc.), the spine surgeon confirmed his diagnosis of cervical myelopathy and with the plaintiff’s informed consent performed an anterior cervical decompression and fusion on the plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleged that the orthopedic spine surgeon misdiagnosed him with cervical myelopathy. This alleged misdiagnosis resulted in plaintiff undergoing an unindicated anterior cervical fusion where plaintiff’s real complaints were centered around the pain emanating from his lower back.
The defense maintained that the surgeon appropriately elicited plaintiff’s symptoms of cervical myelopathy. The plaintiff had hyperreflexia, a positive Hoffmann’s sign, clumsiness with his hands and gait abnormalities, all of which offered further evidence in support of the diagnosis of cervical myelopathy. Plaintiff also had cord compression on the MRI of his cervical spine. Taking plaintiff’s symptoms and physical findings into account, the surgeon acted appropriately and saved the plaintiff from potential catastrophic future consequences related to his cervical myelopathy. After a one week trial, the jury rendered a verdict for the surgeon after deliberating for two and a half hours.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Montgomery County, Successes
Michael O. Pitt obtained a defense verdict for an anesthesia pain management group in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff had a series of stellate ganglion blocks for arm pain, which were performed by several anesthesia pain management physicians. After the last block, the plaintiff developed an infection and eventually osteomyelitis, which were diagnosed approximately seven weeks after the performance of the block. Ten days after the block was performed, the plaintiff presented to one of the anesthesia pain management physicians with pain complaints and a white blood cell count and ESR were ordered to rule out infection. The studies were negative. Two weeks later, the plaintiff presented to his family physician with continued complaints and was referred back to the anesthesia pain management group. He returned to the family physician three weeks later with continued complaints after failing to follow up with the anesthesia pain management physicians. The family physician eventually ordered an MRI and the infection and osteomyelitis were diagnosed. The plaintiff underwent a bone biopsy and was placed on IV antibiotics until the infection and osteomyelitis resolved.
Plaintiff alleged that the anesthesia pain management group and the family physicians delayed the diagnosis and failed to appropriately respond to plaintiff’s complaints. It was alleged that the plaintiff had ongoing neck pain as a result of the delayed diagnosis.
The defendants argued that they reacted appropriately to the plaintiff’s complaints and that any alleged delay did not cause any additional injury. After a one week trial, the jury rendered a verdict for all of the defendants after a very brief deliberation.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Heather Hansen obtained a defense verdict for an orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. In 2003, Plaintiff underwent a right total knee arthroplasty procedure. After the procedure, Plaintiff allegedly suffered from pain, stiffness and decreased range of motion. A manipulation procedure was performed, but Plaintiff continued to complain of pain, stiffness and decreased range of motion. The following year, Plaintiff underwent a revision of the total knee arthroplasty procedure with a different orthopedic surgeon. A smaller sized tibial insert was used by the second surgeon. Plaintiff alleged an improvement in his range of motion after the revision procedure.
Plaintiff alleged that the initial orthopedic surgeon used an incorrectly sized tibial insert which caused a restricted range of motion, pain, stiffness, and altered gait. Plaintiff further alleged he could no longer perform his usual activities. The defense maintained that the component was the correct size, but Plaintiff unfortunately suffered from stiffness which is a known complication of the procedure. Plaintiff also did not follow post-operative instructions that were provided, and used weights against the specific, written orders of the orthopedic surgeon. The medical records also demonstrated that Plaintiff’s range of motion did not improve after the smaller component was used in the revision procedure.
After a three day trial, the jury returned with a defense verdict.
