by Mark Bauman | Oct 11, 2019 | Chester County, Hospital Liability, Successes
Marshall L. Schwartz recently obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a hospital in a four-day jury trial in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. The case involved allegations that the defendant hospital failed to rotate, turn and reposition the patient during his hospitalization, and as a result, the patient developed a stage IV pressure ulcer.
The case involved a patient that was admitted to the hospital with complaints of a headache, confusion, and weakness. Imaging identified masses on his brain, and the patient underwent several brain surgeries. The patient remained in critical condition at the hospital for approximately three months while he recovered. During this time, he developed several medical issues including the development of pressure ulcers.
The defense argued that although the patient developed pressure ulcers, it was not the result of any negligent action on behalf of the medical providers at the hospital but that it was unavoidable as a result of the patient’s critical, life threatening illness, multiple comorbidities and his past medical history.
After a brief deliberation, the jury returned a verdict, finding that the defendant hospital was not negligent.
by Mark Bauman | Sep 23, 2019 | Hospital Liability, Philadelphia, Successes
Marshall L. Schwartz and Caitlin E. McCauley recently obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a hospital in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The matter involved a patient who developed a pressure wound during an admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). The decedent resided at a nursing home (also a named defendant) and was transferred to the hospital in respiratory distress. Notably, the decedent was 95 years old at the time of her admission and suffered from multiple co-morbidities including diabetes, dementia, depression, failure to thrive, respiratory failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Plaintiff alleged that, as a result of the wound, the decedent experienced extreme pain, suffering and death.
Plaintiff’s claims under the Wrongful Death Act were dismissed pursuant to a motion in limine filed on behalf of the hospital. The trial proceeded with testimony from multiple experts and witnesses, including an ICU nurse who cared for the decedent. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants finding that the care provided to the decedent was at all times within the standard of care.
by Mark Bauman | Jan 31, 2019 | Hospital Liability, Philadelphia, Successes
Anthony P. DeMichele recently obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a hospital in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The matter involved a patient who fell while undergoing physical therapy two days after a right total hip replacement. As a result of the fall, the patient fractured the right hip that had just been replaced and underwent another surgical procedure to repair the fracture. Of note, at the time of the original hip replacement, the patient was markedly disabled and required a live-in aide to help with activities of daily living.
At the time of the fall, the patient was ambulating with a walker while the physical therapist had her hands on the patient and an aide followed them closely with a wheelchair. Plaintiff alleged that both the physical therapist and the wheelchair follow were not positioned correctly. The defense argued that the physical therapist had hands on the patient and was in the correct position when the patient fell. The defense also argued that the wheelchair follow was positioned correctly within inches of the patient and that the fall was an unfortunate accident. The defense presented experts in physical therapy and orthopedic surgery, who confirmed that the care was within the standard of care and that the patient’s current limitations were not a result of the fall and fracture.
After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the hospital, finding that its care and treatment of the patient was not negligent.
by Mark Bauman | Oct 8, 2018 | Hospital Liability, Philadelphia, Successes
Marshall L. Schwartz and Lisa J. Peters recently obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case on behalf of a hospital following a four-day jury trial in Philadelphia County.
In December of 2013, the plaintiff was transferred to the critical care unit of defendant hospital for significant pericardial effusion with tamponade physiology. The plaintiff presented with a stage II wound on admission and was discharged with same. Plaintiff’s experts argued that the wound was not properly cared for during admission, resulting in the worsening of the wound and continued treatment subsequent to discharge, including surgical debridement.
The defense maintained that proper care and treatment was provided and that the plaintiffs significant comorbidities, most significantly, end stage renal disease and diabetes, are what contributed to her inability to heal; not the care of the defendants.
After approximately two hours of jury deliberation, the jury found in favor of the defendants.
by Mark Bauman | Jan 28, 2016 | Hospital Liability, Other Venues, Successes
Anthony P. DeMichele and Jaime N. Johnson recently obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case on behalf of a hospital following a four-day jury trial.
In July 2010, the 24-year old plaintiff presented to the defendant hospital with complaints of abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with symptomatic cholelithiasis and underwent a laparascopic cholecystectomy. She returned to the defendant hospital five days after discharge and was diagnosed with a perforation of the bile duct. Plaintiff underwent an endoscopic retrograde cholantio-pancreatography (ERCP) at the hospital. Days later, a duodenal perforation was discovered.
Plaintiff alleged that there was a delay in diagnosis of the biliary leak and duodenal perforation, which caused her to develop several complications, including a large abdominal hernia. The defense maintained that the complications plaintiff endured were known risks of the procedures and were due to no fault of the defendants
After a two day jury deliberation, the jury found in favor of the defendants.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Hospital Liability, Other Venues, Successes
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment on the verdict in favor of two physicians and a hospital in McNulty v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Inc. In McNulty, the plaintiffs commenced a wrongful death/survival action against the defendants alleging that the defendants breached the standard of care by: (1) leaving a surgical sponge behind the decedent’s heart during an emergent operation, (2) failing to properly check for retained sponges during and after the operation, and (3) failing to surgically remove the retained sponge for two days. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants’ combined negligence was a substantial factor in causing the decedent to develop an infection, which remained dormant in her body for more than ten months, but ultimately led to her untimely death. However, during trial, the defendants presented evidence that the decedent did not suffer from an infection related to the retained sponge. This evidence included testimony from an infectious disease specialist who treated the decedent only days before she died. Finding this evidence persuasive, the jury returned a verdict in the defendants’ favor, concluding that the two physicians were negligent, but that their negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the decedent any harm.
Following the entry of judgment in the defendants’ favor, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Superior Court, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of the infectious disease specialist on the grounds that he was not identified as a possible witness before trial. The plaintiffs further asserted that the jury’s verdict in the defendants’ favor was contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Therefore, the plaintiffs maintained that the Superior Court should vacate the trial court’s judgment in the defendants’ favor and remand the matter to the lower court for a new trial.
However, the Superior Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments and affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment in the defendants’ favor. With respect to the plaintiffs’ first allegation of error, the Superior Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the defendants to call the treating infectious disease specialist to the stand even though he was not specifically identified in the defendants’ witness lists. In reaching this holding, the Superior Court observed that the plaintiffs were well aware of the treating physician’s pending testimony before trial as they attempted to preclude it by filing a motion in limine. The Superior Court further noted that, because the infectious disease specialist had treated the decedent, he was well known to the plaintiffs and their attorney and could have been interviewed by the plaintiffs at any time before trial without the need to engage in formal discovery. Therefore, the Superior Court concluded that the infectious disease specialist’s testimony was not surprising and did not unfairly prejudice the plaintiffs’ case. Accordingly, the Superior Court held that the plaintiffs’ first allegation of error was clearly without merit.
The Superior Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ second allegation of error. In support of this issue, the plaintiffs asserted that the verdict was clearly against the weight of the evidence in light of the uncontroverted testimony that the decedent was compelled to undergo an additional operation due to the defendants’ negligence in leaving a surgical sponge inside her chest. However, after noting that its scope of review was limited to determining whether the trial court’s determination was manifestly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious, or flagrantly against the evidence, the Superior Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument on this issue. In reaching this conclusion, the Superior Court adopted the trial court’s determination that, if the only negligence attributable to defendants was that they either failed to timely discover the retained sponge or failed to perform the sponge removal operation sooner, then the jury could reasonably have concluded that defendants were not responsible for the sponge removal surgery since that operation would have been required even in the absence of negligence. Therefore, since the Superior Court found the plaintiffs’ allegations of error to be completely without merit, the Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment in the defendants’ favor.
