Defense Verdict for Plastic Surgeon in Philadelphia

Dorothy Duffy obtained a defense verdict for a plastic surgeon. The Honorable Victor J. DiNubile, Jr. released all 300+ pending silicone breast implant cases in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. All but two of those cases have been discontinued. In one of the remaining cases, a jury recently returned a verdict in favor of the defendant plastic and reconstructive surgeon.

In March of 1985, the plaintiff underwent cosmetic breast augmentation. Her breast implants were removed in 1994 and one was found to be ruptured. The plaintiff filed her lawsuit in 1994 during the stay imposed by the Coordinating Court for the silicone breast implant litigation. After the stay on Philadelphia County cases was lifted in 2003, discovery proceeded pursuant to the case management orders established through the mass tort program.

The case proceeded to trial on the issue of informed consent. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to advise her of the risks of implant rupture and gel bleed prior to the surgery. The defendant plastic and reconstructive surgeon testified that he did advise the plaintiff of all of the material risks of the surgery, including implant rupture. The jury agreed and returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

Defense Verdict on Behalf of General Surgeon in Philadelphia

Marshall L. Schwartz obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a general surgeon in Philadelphia.  Plaintiff was 42 when she underwent a laparoscopic ventral hernia repair procedure. Plaintiff alleged that use of the Veress needle, the method used to insufflate the abdomen, was improper due to plaintiff’s prior abdominal surgeries, and that the needle perforated plaintiff’s small bowel. Following the procedure, a bowel perforation was discovered; plaintiff also alleged that the surgeon failed to discover the perforation during the procedure. The defense countered with a “two schools of thought” defense to defend the use of the Veress needle and established that the bowel perforation was a risk of the procedure and would not have been present during the operation. Experts in the field of General Surgery testified. Following a five day trial in Philadelphia County, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the surgeon.

Defense Verdict for Cardiothoracic Surgeon in Philadelphia County

Daniel F. Ryan, III obtained a defense verdict for a cardiothoracic surgeon in Philadelphia County.  In this case, the decedent underwent a ventral septal defect repair procedure on November 15, 2000. The decedent subsequently underwent a second emergency heart surgery, during which a surgical sponge was left in her. A third surgery was performed on November 17, 2000 to remove the retained sponge.

In September of 2001, decedent was admitted to the hospital after what was believed to be a transient ischemic attack. On echocardiogram, it was discovered that she had a mass on her left atrium. She underwent surgical resection of this mass, which was cultured and found to be negative for infection. During the same procedure, the decedent underwent mitral valve repair and removal of part of the prior pericardial patch repair. The final culture of the removed portion of the pericardial patch repair was also negative.

On October 2, 2001, decedent developed severe mitral regurgitation and was taken emergently back to the operating room. In the operating room, she became hypotensive and physicians attempted access to the right femoral vessels to establish cardiopulmonary bypass, which was unsuccessful. Physicians were able to establish cardiopulmonary bypass by right thoracotomy. The decedent underwent mitral valve replacement, but she could not be separated from cardiopulmonary bypass and was pronounced dead in the operating room.

Plaintiff alleged a breach of the standard of care for the retained sponge and failure to perform a post-operative chest x-ray to determine whether a sponge had been left in her following the emergency surgery. Plaintiff also contended that the delay in diagnosing the presence of the sponge resulted in a delay in removal, increased risk of harm and post-operative complications.

Following an eight day trial, the jury entered a defense verdict.

Defense Verdict for Orthopedic Spine Surgeon in Camden County, New Jersey

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.

Defense Verdict for Anesthesia Pain Management Group in Montgomery County

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.

Defense Verdict for Orthopedic Surgeon in Philadelphia County

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.