by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Heather Hansen obtained a defense verdict for an orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. In 2003, Plaintiff underwent a right total knee arthroplasty procedure. After the procedure, Plaintiff allegedly suffered from pain, stiffness and decreased range of motion. A manipulation procedure was performed, but Plaintiff continued to complain of pain, stiffness and decreased range of motion. The following year, Plaintiff underwent a revision of the total knee arthroplasty procedure with a different orthopedic surgeon. A smaller sized tibial insert was used by the second surgeon. Plaintiff alleged an improvement in his range of motion after the revision procedure.
Plaintiff alleged that the initial orthopedic surgeon used an incorrectly sized tibial insert which caused a restricted range of motion, pain, stiffness, and altered gait. Plaintiff further alleged he could no longer perform his usual activities. The defense maintained that the component was the correct size, but Plaintiff unfortunately suffered from stiffness which is a known complication of the procedure. Plaintiff also did not follow post-operative instructions that were provided, and used weights against the specific, written orders of the orthopedic surgeon. The medical records also demonstrated that Plaintiff’s range of motion did not improve after the smaller component was used in the revision procedure.
After a three day trial, the jury returned with a defense verdict.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Michael O. Pitt obtained a defense verdict in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas for a family physician, her medical technician, and her practice. The defendant physician was the primary care doctor of the plaintiff husband, an avid bowler. Plaintiffs claimed that when he presented to defendant physician’s office for a routine blood draw, the medical technician “stabbed the needle” deeply into his arm and “poked and manipulated the needle in an attempt to draw blood.”
Plaintiffs’ allegations were that the medical technician’s negligent manipulation of the needle in the plaintiff’s elbow caused severe damage to the biceps tendon requiring plaintiff to undergo extensive rehabilitation and eventually surgical intervention. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages included continued pain, decreased strength and decreased range of motion of the right elbow to such an extent that he was unable to bowl at the same level as he could prior to the blood draw in question. There was also a claim for loss of consortium on behalf of the wife.
At trial, Mr. Pitt was able to use expert testimony to effectively demonstrate to the jury that the medical records supported defendants’ assertion that any injury or damage to plaintiff’s elbow was the result of repetitive overuse from bowling, which had created chronic degeneration and tendonitis in the elbow, not an acute injury from a blood draw.
After a three day trial, the jury found in favor of each of the named medical providers.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Marshall L. Schwartz and Brett M. Littman obtained a defense verdict in favor of a surgical oncologist in Philadelphia County. Plaintiff, who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer, claimed that after undergoing a mastectomy and concurrent breast reconstruction, the defendant-physician negligently performed a biopsy on the radiated skin of her breast, causing the loss of a saline breast expander. Plaintiff further alleged that with the loss of this expander, she was deprived of the possibility of a meaningful reconstruction of her breast. The defense maintained that the biopsy was a necessary procedure to rule out a recurrence of cancer. Further, the loss of the expander was an accepted risk of the procedure, which could occur in the absence of negligence.
After a four day trial and a brief deliberation, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant.
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, 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.
