Defense Verdict on Behalf of Internal Medicine Physician

Heather Hansen recently obtained a defense verdict on behalf of an internal medicine physician in Delaware County. In the case, the plaintiff presented to the emergency department of a local hospital and was admitted for treatment of a suspected urinary tract infection. Plaintiff claimed that she advised the hospital and the internal medicine physician that she took the medication Ativan at home, but that they failed to provide this medication during her hospitalization. On her fourth hospital day, the plaintiff suffered a seizure and was later found to have compression fractures of the superior endplates of her thoracic vertebrae at multiple levels. Plaintiff alleged that the internal medicine physician and the hospital were negligent by failing to perform a complete medication reconciliation which led to a failure to prescribe Ativan and caused her to suffer a withdrawal seizure. The defense presented evidence that appropriate medication reconciliation was performed by the internal medicine physician and that there were a number of other potential causes for plaintiff’s seizure. After an eight day trial and brief deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of no negligence against the internal medicine physician.

Defense Verdict on Behalf of Hospital

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.

Defense Verdict on Behalf of Obstetrician

Heather Hansen recently obtained a defense verdict on behalf of an obstetrician in Philadelphia. In this case, Plaintiffs alleged negligence in relation to labor and delivery at a Philadelphia hospital. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant failed to recognize and interpret the signs and symptoms of placental abruption, failed to diagnose and treat placental abruption, failed to timely respond to signs of fetal distress, and delayed in the performance of a cesarean section. Plaintiff produced an obstetrics and gynecology expert that criticized the time the cesarean section was called, and opined that the delivery should have been called 16 to 18 minutes earlier. The defense maintained that the obstetrical team recognized and responded to the fetal bradycardia immediately, and performed all necessary resuscitative measures in an attempt to regulate the fetal heart rate, before calling an emergent cesarean section. The baby was delivered within ten minutes from the time the attending obstetrician called the emergency cesarean section.

After a three day trial and brief deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the attending obstetrician.

Defense Verdict on Behalf of Emergency Room Physician

Michael O. Pitt recently obtained a defense verdict on behalf of an emergency room physician in a nine day jury trial involving allegations of a failure to diagnose an epidural abscess. 

This case involved a patient who presented to the emergency department with complaints of back pain, anxiety, fever, nausea, and vomiting.  The plaintiff had a longstanding history of drug and alcohol abuse, and admitted to treating his chronic back pain with heroin.  Shortly after his initial presentation to the emergency department his symptoms improved and he was diagnosed with acute back pain and narcotic withdrawal. 

The next day, blood cultures that were ordered in the emergency department revealed the plaintiff had methicillin resistant staph aureus bacteremia.  Although this is a treatable condition, it can be life threatening if not treated timely.  Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the hospital staff was unable to reach him on the telephone number he provided the previous day.  Further, despite increased symptoms that included weakness and tingling in the legs, the plaintiff failed to return to the emergency room as instructed. Instead, the plaintiff continued to use heroin to treat his symptoms.  The plaintiff finally returned to the emergency department the following day, and is now paralyzed from the chest down. 

The defense successfully argued that even though the emergency room physician discharged the plaintiff with a diagnosis of acute back pain and narcotic withdrawal, plaintiff’s presenting symptoms were consistent with this diagnosis.  In support of this argument, experts in emergency medicine and infectious disease were called to testify and supported this defense. 

After deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous 12 – 0 verdict, finding that the defendant physician’s treatment of the plaintiff was not negligent.  

Defense Verdict in Favor of Orthopedic Surgeon

Heather Hansen and Paul E. Peel recently obtained a defense verdict in favor of an orthopedic surgeon in a medical malpractice action in Delaware County.

Plaintiffs’ allegations of negligence related to the care rendered following the performance of a total knee arthroplasty performed by the defendant physician. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant failed to utilize appropriate infection prophylaxis and failed to administer post-operative antibiotics, which ultimately led to the development of infection. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant physician deviated from the standard of care by failing to timely recognize and treat the infection.

The defense maintained that the plaintiff did not exhibit any signs or symptoms indicative of infection following the surgery, through the time that the plaintiff was treating with the defendant physician.

After a five day trial and a brief deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the orthopedic surgeon.

Defense Verdict on Behalf of Surgeon and Hospital

Marshall L. Schwartz and Brett M. Littman recently obtained a verdict on behalf of a surgeon and hospital in a four day jury trial involving allegations of negligence in the performance of a laparoscopic hernia repair.

This case involved a patient who first underwent surgery to remove a mass on her appendix, which was suspicious for malignancy. Several months after this surgery, the patient developed a hernia, which the defendant-surgeon planned to repair laparoscopically.

Plaintiff alleged that when the surgeon repaired the hernia, he negligently perforated her bowel with a harmonic scalpel, which is a device that uses high-frequency vibrations to generate heat and cut through tissue. Plaintiff further alleged that the surgeon failed to properly inspect the bowel for any signs of injury. This perforation caused an infection and required a prolonged recuperation.

The defense successfully argued that even though the surgeon perforated the bowel, any such injury was a recognized risk of the procedure and did not constitute negligence. In support of this argument, the defendants called an expert in laparoscopic surgery who corroborated this defense.

The jury ultimately found that the defendant was not negligent.