by Mark Bauman | Aug 20, 2012 | Philadelphia, Professional Liability, Successes
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.
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.
