Defense Verdict for Otolaryngologist in Bucks County

Paul Peel obtained a defense verdict for an otolaryngologist in Bucks County.  Plaintiff, a physician, alleged that he underwent unnecessary sinus surgery causing him to require a revision surgery. Plaintiff also alleged that he was not given proper informed consent. Mr. Peel secured dismissal of various claims by plaintiff at non-suit. The defense successfully argued that the surgery was medically indicated and that proper informed consent was given. Experts in otolaryngology and radiology testified. The jury deliberated only one hour before returning a verdict for the defense.

Defense Verdict for Otolaryngologist in Bucks County

Michael O. Pitt obtained a defense verdict in favor of an otolaryngologist following a five day jury trial in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. At issue was surgery to remove a polyp from the plaintiff’s sphenoid sinus. Plaintiff had alleged that the surgery performed was not necessary given her condition and that the physician was negligent in his performance of the surgery. The plaintiff alleged that the surgery caused her to suffer from continuous, debilitating sinus infections and migraine headaches. Through expert testimony and the plaintiff’s medical records, Mr. Pitt argued that the surgery was appropriate given the plaintiff’s lengthy history of sinus infections and headaches, and was performed by the defendant in accordance with the applicable standard of care.

Defense Verdict in Favor of Hospital in Bucks County

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.

Defense Verdict on Behalf of an Emergency Medicine Physician in Bucks County

Daniel F. Ryan, III and Brett M. Littman obtained a defense verdict in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas on behalf of an emergency department physician in a medical malpractice action.

In November 2002, the plaintiff presented to the emergency department with neurological complaints, including right-sided weakness and difficulty with speech. The defendant-physician ordered diagnostic tests and lab studies to determine the cause of the symptoms and, with the help of consulting neurologists, formulated a treatment plan.

The plaintiff contended that the physician failed to administer tPA, a “clot-busting” medication. According to the plaintiffs, this medication would have prevented the development of a stroke, which he ultimately suffered and which left him with significant disabilities.

The defense presented extensive expert testimony to the jury that the plaintiff was absolutely not a candidate to receive tPA, given his presentation, which included rapidly improving symptoms. These symptoms occurred, resolved, and then re-occurred. The defense also explained that emergency physicians often rely on consultations with specialists, such as neurologists, and that the defendant was justified in relying on the expertise of consultants in order to establish a treatment plan.

After a short deliberation, the jury found that the physician complied with the standard of care and was not negligent.