by Mark Bauman | Jul 29, 2015 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
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.
by Mark Bauman | May 25, 2015 | Medical Malpractice, Other Venues, Successes
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.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 19, 2015 | Delaware County, Medical Malpractice, Successes
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.
by Mark Bauman | Nov 10, 2014 | Medical Malpractice, Other Venues, Successes
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.
by Mark Bauman | Nov 6, 2014 | Medical Malpractice, Other Venues, Successes
Marshall L. Schwartz and Brett M. Littman recently obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case on behalf of a thoracic surgeon and hospital following a six-day jury trial.
In June 2008, after being diagnosed with lung cancer, the patient presented for surgery to remove two lobes of his lung and treat his condition. The plaintiff alleged that while the surgery was successful, the defendant failed to properly monitor his respiratory status and perform proper post-operative care. He further alleged that this led to a build-up of carbon dioxide and depleted oxygenization, which caused permanent injury.
The defense presented extensive expert testimony in both thoracic surgery and pulmonology, to show that the patient was closely monitored and received proper treatment provided by the entire medical staff, which included physicians, residents, and nurse aides. The defense further established that the patient’s injury could not have been prevented in even the best of circumstances.
After a brief deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense and found that the defendant was not negligent.
by Mark Bauman | May 19, 2014 | Medical Malpractice, New Jersey, Successes
Heather Hansen recently obtained a directed verdict in favor of an orthopedic surgeon in the Superior Court of New Jersey-Atlantic County.
The plaintiff had sustained a work-related knee injury and had an arthroscopy prior to seeing the defendant orthopedic surgeon. After failing conservative therapy, the defendant orthopedic surgeon performed a total knee replacement. In the months thereafter, plaintiff’s pain and function progressively improved and radiographs showed a well-positioned total knee replacement. However, plaintiff sought the opinion of another orthopedic surgeon for complaints of pain. Plaintiff alleged that surgeon commented that while plaintiff had excellent alignment and range of motion of the knee, he thought there may be an elevated joint line or a patella baja (an abnormally low lying patella). He later performed an arthroscopic debridement with resection of scar tissue.
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant orthopedic surgeon negligently performed the total knee replacement by elevating the joint line which caused a patella baja. It was the defendant’s position that the surgery was appropriately performed and that there was no elevation of the joint line.
After the plaintiffs presented their case at trial, Ms. Hansen moved for a directed verdict, and successfully argued that plaintiffs’ liability expert provided only net opinions and did not provide the requisite testimony needed to establish that the defendant’s care and treatment of the plaintiff deviated from the standard of care. The Court agreed with Ms. Hansen’s arguments and granted the motion for a directed verdict.
