Defense Verdict for Internist in Philadelphia County

Dan Ryan obtained a defense verdict for internist in Philadelphia County. Plaintiff’s husband died at the age of forty two as a result of his coronary artery disease (CAD). In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleged Mr. Ryan’s client (an Internist) failed to appreciate the significance of cardiac studies taken in the months and years leading up to the death and that he should have done more to decrease or eliminate some of the risk factors Plaintiff’s husband had for developing CAD, including smoking and poor diet. The defense maintained Plaintiff’s husband’s death was both unpredictable and unpreventable over the four day trial, and the jury agreed. After deliberating just over two hours, they found Mr. Ryan’s client was not negligent.

Defense Verdict for OB/GYN in Philadelphia County

Dan Ryan obtained a defense verdict for an OB/GYN in Philadelphia County. The Plaintiff, who was pregnant with her first child, was diagnosed with fibroids. The fibroids did not complicate the pregnancy. After several hours of labor, the fetal heart rate decelerated and would not return to baseline. An emergency c-section was ordered. The Plaintiff and her husband initially refused the recommendation, but finally agreed twenty-five minutes later. A healthy baby was delivered via c-section, but because of the fibroids, uncontrollable bleeding was encountered. An emergency hysterectomy was performed. The defense maintained that the c-section was necessary to save the baby’s life and the hysterectomy was necessary to save the Plaintiff’s life. After the three week trial and a two hour deliberation, the jury agreed, and found that Mr. Ryan’s client was not negligent.

Defense Verdict for Plastic Surgeon in Philadelphia

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

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

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.

Dismissal of All Claims for Insurance Agent

In a case involving a claim of professional negligence against an insurance agent filed in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Anthony P. DeMichele obtained a voluntary dismissal for his client. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff claimed that his insurance agent negligently advised him to switch annuities. According to the plaintiff, he was told by his insurance agent that he did not have enough liquidity in his annuity to satisfy his financial needs. Based upon his insurance agent’s recommendation and advice, the plaintiff switched annuities. After making the switch, the plaintiff learned for the first time that the value of his annuity substantially decreased due to early withdrawal penalties and cancellation fees. The plaintiff claimed that he was not advised of these penalties and fees. The plaintiff also learned that not only did the value of his annuity decrease but the insurance agent earned a large commission as a result of the switch in annuities. The plaintiff claimed that he was unaware of the insurance agent’s compensation at the time the switch in annuities occurred. Further, after the switch in annuities, the plaintiff alleged that he learned that his original annuity had sufficient liquidity for his financial needs and therefore, it was not necessary to switch the annuities.

The plaintiff alleged that the insurance agent recommended the switch in annuities solely for the insurance agent’s own self-interest and at the expense of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that there was no need for him to switch the annuities and that the only reason he made the switch was because his insurance agent advised him to do so. In relying on the insurance agent’s advice, the plaintiff made the switch and suffered a loss in the value of his annuity. Moreover, the plaintiff claimed that the insurance agent’s commission demonstrated that the insurance agent was acting with his own interests in mind and not in the best interest of the plaintiff.

During an aggressive deposition of the plaintiff, Mr. DeMichele obtained valuable admissions from the plaintiff. These admissions weakened plaintiff’s case against the insurance agent and forced the plaintiff to reevaluate his case. A few days after the plaintiff’s deposition, plaintiff decided not to pursue his case against the insurance agent and filed a voluntary dismissal with the Court, dismissing the case against the insurance agent.