by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Michael O. Pitt obtained a defense verdict in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas for a family physician, her medical technician, and her practice. The defendant physician was the primary care doctor of the plaintiff husband, an avid bowler. Plaintiffs claimed that when he presented to defendant physician’s office for a routine blood draw, the medical technician “stabbed the needle” deeply into his arm and “poked and manipulated the needle in an attempt to draw blood.”
Plaintiffs’ allegations were that the medical technician’s negligent manipulation of the needle in the plaintiff’s elbow caused severe damage to the biceps tendon requiring plaintiff to undergo extensive rehabilitation and eventually surgical intervention. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages included continued pain, decreased strength and decreased range of motion of the right elbow to such an extent that he was unable to bowl at the same level as he could prior to the blood draw in question. There was also a claim for loss of consortium on behalf of the wife.
At trial, Mr. Pitt was able to use expert testimony to effectively demonstrate to the jury that the medical records supported defendants’ assertion that any injury or damage to plaintiff’s elbow was the result of repetitive overuse from bowling, which had created chronic degeneration and tendonitis in the elbow, not an acute injury from a blood draw.
After a three day trial, the jury found in favor of each of the named medical providers.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Bucks County, Medical Malpractice, Successes
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.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Marshall L. Schwartz and Brett M. Littman obtained a defense verdict in favor of a surgical oncologist in Philadelphia County. Plaintiff, who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer, claimed that after undergoing a mastectomy and concurrent breast reconstruction, the defendant-physician negligently performed a biopsy on the radiated skin of her breast, causing the loss of a saline breast expander. Plaintiff further alleged that with the loss of this expander, she was deprived of the possibility of a meaningful reconstruction of her breast. The defense maintained that the biopsy was a necessary procedure to rule out a recurrence of cancer. Further, the loss of the expander was an accepted risk of the procedure, which could occur in the absence of negligence.
After a four day trial and a brief deliberation, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Daniel F. Ryan, III recently obtained a defense verdict at trial on behalf of a cardiologist in Philadelphia County, PA. Plaintiff’s decedent was on anticoagulants for several years because of atrial fibrillation and was hospitalized for treatment of an infection. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently managed plaintiff’s decedent’s anticoagulation during the hospital admission causing him to suffer a subarachnoid hemorrhage and ultimately his death. After two and a half days of trial and two days of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all of the defendants.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Montgomery County, Successes
Marshall L. Schwartz obtained a defense verdict in favor of an orthopaedic surgeon following a six day trial in Montgomery County. The plaintiffs alleged that the orthopaedic surgeon breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose the plaintiff-husband as suffering from a displaced left greater tuberosity fracture, failing to order additional diagnostic studies of the plaintiff-husband’s left shoulder, and failing to properly counsel the plaintiffs regarding appropriate treatment options for the patient’s shoulder. Plaintiffs maintained that the orthopaedic surgeon’s alleged negligence caused a delay in the performance of surgery on the plaintiff-husband’s left shoulder, which resulted in permanent stiffness, pain, weakness and degenerative changes to the arm. However, the defense presented evidence that the orthopaedic surgeon properly diagnosed the plaintiff-husband’s condition, ordered appropriate diagnostic studies, and advised the plaintiffs of all reasonable treatment options. Moreover, the defense offered evidence that the plaintiff-husband’s alleged injuries were not proximately caused by the orthopaedic-surgeon’s conduct. Following a brief deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in the orthopaedic-surgeon’s favor, finding that he did not deviate from the standard of care in treating the plaintiff-husband.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Michael O. Pitt obtained a defense verdict in favor of a cardiologist in Philadelphia County. Plaintiff’s decedent presented to the emergency room with chest pain and shortness of breath. A cardiology consultation was requested and at the time of the examination by the cardiologist the decedent was awake, alert and comfortable. A few hours following the examination, the decedent suffered an arrest and died several days later.
Plaintiff alleged that the decedent’s vital signs were not stable and that the cardiologist should have recommended prophylactic intubation. The defense maintained that there was nothing at the time of the cardiologist’s examination to suggest an acute cardiac or respiratory illness and, therefore, prophylactic intubation was not necessary.
After a five day trial and a brief deliberation, the jury found in favor of the doctor.
