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.
by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Heather Hansen secured a defense verdict in favor of an emergency medicine physician following an eight day jury trial in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.
The patient was 18 years of age and the lawsuit was brought by his father. The patient had a history of passing out with exertion which was previously worked up by pediatric cardiologists and no further treatment was recommended. In 2007, the patient was playing football when he experienced chest pain and shortness of breath. He was taken to a local emergency room, and the emergency medicine physician consulted trauma and cardiology within minutes of his arrival. EKG’s were obtained and were abnormal. He was seen by cardiology and was in the process of being admitted to the CCU when he passed away from a rare cardiac defect. Specifically, the cause of death was an anomalous origin of the left coronary artery.
The plaintiff’s expert witnesses alleged that the emergency medicine physician was responsible for all of the care since he was still in the emergency room, despite being in the process of being admitted to the CCU. Plaintiff’s experts also alleged that other medications should have been given, the attending cardiologist should have been called, and the patient should have been taken to the catheterization lab. The documentation and medical care provided by the cardiology staff was also criticized. Plaintiff had claims for wrongful death and survival, including a claim for lost earnings.
The defense was that the emergency medicine physician obtained the appropriate consultations in an extremely timely and appropriate manner, and provided treatment that was appropriate. It was not the standard of care for an emergency medicine physician to take such patients to the catheterization lab, and evidence was presented that his death could not have been prevented due to his rare cardiac defect. The jury determined that the emergency medicine physician was not negligent.
