Defense Verdict for Orthopedic Surgeon in Delaware County

by | Aug 20, 2012 | Delaware County, Medical Malpractice, Successes

Dan Ryan obtained a defense verdict for an orthopedic surgeon in Delaware County. The plaintiff underwent a total right knee replacement in 1997, by the orthopedic surgeon. The plaintiff did very well with her knee implant for a period of almost five years. In 2002, the plaintiff began to experience right knee pain and it was found that the right knee implant had loosened. As a result, the plaintiff underwent a second knee replacement surgery to the right side. The plaintiff claimed that this loosening was caused by the way that the knee was aligned during the 1997 surgery, and also because the knee prosthesis used was too large. The defense maintained that the 1997 surgery exceeded the standard of care and that the loosening of the knee implant was not caused, in any way, by the technique used in the previous surgery. Following a two day trial and thirty minutes of deliberation, the jury agreed, and found that Mr. Ryan’s client was not negligent.

Defense Verdict for Otolaryngologist in Bucks County

by | Aug 20, 2012 | Bucks County, Medical Malpractice, Successes

Paul Peel obtained a defense verdict for an otolaryngologist in Bucks County.  Plaintiff, a physician, alleged that he underwent unnecessary sinus surgery causing him to require a revision surgery. Plaintiff also alleged that he was not given proper informed consent. Mr. Peel secured dismissal of various claims by plaintiff at non-suit. The defense successfully argued that the surgery was medically indicated and that proper informed consent was given. Experts in otolaryngology and radiology testified. The jury deliberated only one hour before returning a verdict for the defense.

Defense Verdict for Plastic Surgeon in Philadelphia

by | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes

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

by | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes

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

by | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes

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.

Favorable Ruling for Nursing Home from Superior Court of Pennsylvania

by | Aug 20, 2012 | Nursing Home, Other Venues, Successes

Paul Peel received a favorable ruling for a nursing home from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.  In Wister v. Liberty Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., 200 EDA 2005 (Pa. Super. October 17, 2005), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a trial court’s decision and dismissed plaintiff’s action for failure to timely file a Certificate of Merit as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3. In the underlying action, plaintiff alleged that a nursing home failed to properly transfer her to another nursing home. As result of this improper transfer, the plaintiff did not receive certain medications which caused her serious and permanent injuries.

After plaintiff failed to timely file a Certificate of Merit, both nursing homes filed a Praecipe for Entry of Judgment of Non Pros which was granted by the trial court. Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Open the Judgments arguing that she did not assert a professional liability claim, as the defendants were not medical professionals and Certificates of Merit were not required. Further, plaintiff alleged that her claims against the defendants were administrative and clerical, not professional. The trial court agreed with plaintiff’s argument and ruled that the Judgments of Non Pros were improperly entered. The trial judge relied upon Judge Wettick’s opinion in Herrmann v. Pristine Pines of Franklin Park, Inc., 64 D.&C. 4th 14 (C.P. Allegheny County, 2003), stating that the defendants waived their right to file Praecipes for Judgment of Non Pros because they did not file preliminary objections to plaintiff’s complaint. In accordance with the opinion in Hermann, the trial judge stated that if plaintiff’s complaint did not expressly assert a professional liability claim, the defendants were to file preliminary objections. As neither defendant filed preliminary objections raising this issue, the defendants waived their claim that plaintiff violated Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3 and were not entitled to Non Pros judgments.

On appeal to the Superior Court, Mr. Peel argued that a nursing home clearly falls under the definition of a healthcare provider as defined by 40 P.S. § 5101.1(c). Further, Mr. Peel contended that the plaintiff’s complaint clearly sounded in professional negligence and therefore she was required to file a Certificate of Merit. The Superior Court agreed with Mr. Peel’s arguments and stated that plaintiff’s allegations of a nursing home’s failure to send a patient’s records to another nursing home and the second nursing home’s failure to realize that insufficient information was sent falls under the “furnishing of health care services.” Pa. C.S.A. § 5101.1(c). Accordingly, plaintiff’s action was sounded in professional negligence which required a Certificate of Merit. The entry of Non Pros was proper and the trial court’s opening of the judgment was reversed.