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.
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.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 16, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Michael O. Pitt and Brett M. Littman obtained a defense verdict in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on behalf of a family practice physician in a medical malpractice action. The plaintiff presented to the defendant-physician on several occasions between May 2008 and February 2009 with complaints, which included sore throat and reflux symptoms, for which she was treated with medications to reduce acid reflux.
In February 2009, the plaintiff again presented to the defendant-physician with now-constant throat pain, and the defendant-physician referred her to an ENT specialist. Upon visiting this specialist, the plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer of the supraglottic larynx in February of 2009, for which she was successfully treated.
The plaintiff contended that the physician failed to send her for a consult with an ENT physician sooner. The defense presented extensive expert testimony to the jury that the physician appropriately treated the patient’s complaints at each appointment and ordered a consult when appropriate. Additionally, the defense presented expert testimony to the jury that the patient has been cancer-free for nearly three years, and that her prognosis for the future is excellent.
After a short deliberation, the jury found that the physician complied with the standard of care and was not negligent.
