by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Hospital Liability, Montgomery County, Successes
Dan Ryan and Carolyn Bohmueller secured a defense verdict in favor of a hospital following a six day jury trial in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, a prominent local celebrity, alleged that a hematologist/oncologist failed to properly diagnose her rare condition called POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal gammopathy, and skin lesions) syndrome and failed to offer her appropriate treatment. The hematologist/oncologist was on staff at the hospital, and alleged to be an ostensible agent of the hospital. Plaintiff claimed that the standard of care required that she should have been referred for a second opinion, she should have been diagnosed with POEMS, and high dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation should have been recommended. Plaintiff claimed that, as a result of the alleged negligence, she suffered a loss of earning capacity which exceeded $7,000,000, as well as pain and suffering and loss of life’s pleasures. The defense for the hospital rebutted agency and substantive claims, and presented evidence that the use of high dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplantation for POEMS syndrome was experimental at the time, and is still not considered to be the standard of care for treatment of POEMS syndrome. The jury determined that neither the hospital nor the physician were negligent.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Commercial Liability / Litigation, New Jersey, Successes
Anthony P. DeMichele, along with co-counsel, Domenick Carmagnola of Carmagnola & Ritardi, LLC in Morristown, New Jersey, obtained a defense verdict for a closely held office products company and its chief executive officer in a breach of contract and conversion claim brought by the company’s former president. The lawsuit, initially filed in Philadelphia County but transferred to Bucks County where the company maintains its operations, claimed that the former president was entitled to the value of 10% stock ownership in the company, basing his right to the stock on a handshake deal he claimed he reached with the founder and chief executive officer of the company. As part of his claim, the former president argued that he paid $100,000 for the first 4% of the stock and that the remaining 6% was owed to him because his rights to obtain the remaining stock vested when he was terminated without cause. The former president contended that the acceptance of the payment created a contract for the sale of the 4% stock interest. The company and chief executive officer argued that the payment of the $100,000 was made through misrepresentations and fraud by the former president and that the company and chief executive officer were wrongfully induced into accepting the $100,000 payment. Further, the company and chief executive officer presented evidence that that the former president failed to perform his duties as president of the company, and as a result, his termination was for cause. As part of his claim, the former president presented expert witness testimony that the company was worth in excess of $70 million dollars at the time of his termination, and therefore, he was entitled to damages in excess of $7 million dollars. After a six day trial, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict on all claims and did not award any damages to the former president.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Bucks County, Hospital Liability, Successes
Marshall L. Schwartz obtained a defense verdict in favor of a hospital following a four day jury trial in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff alleged that the decedent suffered a retroperitoneal bleed as a result of a cardiac catheterization procedure and that defendants were negligent in the post-procedure management of the bleed. Plaintiff’s expert witnesses alleged that defendant physicians failed to obtain appropriate consultations and failed to order appropriate diagnostic studies to determine the extent of the retroperitoneal bleed.
The defense argued that the care provided to the patient was appropriate as the patient did not exhibit signs of an ongoing bleed; therefore, surgical intervention was not warranted. Plaintiff further claimed that the cardiologists on staff at the hospital were ostensible agents of the hospital. The defense for the hospital rebutted plaintiff’s allegations of negligence and further asserted that there was insufficient evidence to establish a claim for vicarious liability through ostensible agency. Plaintiff had claims for wrongful death and survival, including a claim for lost earnings.
The jury determined that neither the physicians nor the hospital were negligent.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Dorothy Duffy obtained a defense verdict in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on behalf of a surgeon in a medical malpractice action. The plaintiff’s decedent came to the surgeon complaining of hemorrhoids. The surgeon recommended that she proceed with a colonoscopy before undergoing hemorrhoid removal. A colonoscopy was performed and two small polyps were removed. Otherwise, no abnormalities were seen.
Nine months later, the patient presented to the emergency room with abdominal pain. A CT scan revealed a large right-sided colon tumor, abnormal ovaries, numerous liver masses, and masses throughout her abdomen. A repeat colonoscopy showed an ascending colon mass which appeared to be an “extrinsic process.” A biopsy confirmed that this was the primary site of her cancer. Palliative treatment was initiated and the patient eventually passed away.
The plaintiff contended that the surgeon failed to perform the colonoscopy to the cecum (the beginning of the colon), thereby missing the ascending colon mass which would have been visible nine months earlier. The defendant testified that he observed the landmarks of the cecum, indicating that he performed a complete colonoscopy. The defense presented extensive expert testimony to the jury that the patient’s cancer actually began in her appendix. Primary appendeceal cancer cannot be diagnosed on colonoscopy. The appendeceal cancer spread to the outside of the patient’s ascending colon and pushed in, leading to the finding seen during the second colonoscopy. The diagnosis of primary appendeceal cancer was supported by subsequent radiology studies.
The jury found that the surgeon was not negligent, that is, that he complied with the standard of care. Therefore, the jury did not reach the question of causation. However, the defense also argued that the patient had metastatic cancer at the time of the colonoscopy. The plaintiff’s oncology expert agreed with this conclusion during his cross-examination. Therefore, the defense also argued that any delay in diagnosis did not change the patient’s prognosis or ultimate outcome.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Heather Hansen secured a defense verdict in favor of an emergency medicine physician following an eight day jury trial in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.
The patient was 18 years of age and the lawsuit was brought by his father. The patient had a history of passing out with exertion which was previously worked up by pediatric cardiologists and no further treatment was recommended. In 2007, the patient was playing football when he experienced chest pain and shortness of breath. He was taken to a local emergency room, and the emergency medicine physician consulted trauma and cardiology within minutes of his arrival. EKG’s were obtained and were abnormal. He was seen by cardiology and was in the process of being admitted to the CCU when he passed away from a rare cardiac defect. Specifically, the cause of death was an anomalous origin of the left coronary artery.
The plaintiff’s expert witnesses alleged that the emergency medicine physician was responsible for all of the care since he was still in the emergency room, despite being in the process of being admitted to the CCU. Plaintiff’s experts also alleged that other medications should have been given, the attending cardiologist should have been called, and the patient should have been taken to the catheterization lab. The documentation and medical care provided by the cardiology staff was also criticized. Plaintiff had claims for wrongful death and survival, including a claim for lost earnings.
The defense was that the emergency medicine physician obtained the appropriate consultations in an extremely timely and appropriate manner, and provided treatment that was appropriate. It was not the standard of care for an emergency medicine physician to take such patients to the catheterization lab, and evidence was presented that his death could not have been prevented due to his rare cardiac defect. The jury determined that the emergency medicine physician was not negligent.
