by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Bart C. Tuttle and Brook Hastings obtained a defense verdict in favor of a pulmonology/critical care specialist in Montgomery County. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant-physician, who was on-call at the time of decedent’s presentation to the hospital, failed to immediately come into the hospital and evaluate the patient. As a result, plaintiff alleged that the decedent was not intubated and ventilated in a timely fashion, which resulted in the decedent’s untimely death. The defense maintained that upon presentation to the hospital, the patient was critically ill with a number of co-morbidities including pneumonia, renal failure, dehydration and starvation, respiratory failure, and sepsis. The patient was seen by a board certified house physician who was in constant contact with the defendant-physician. More importantly, the defense maintained that intubation upon arrival to the hospital, prior to any trial of supplemental oxygen, would have been inappropriate and in fact, likely would have hastened the patient’s death. When the decedent’s respiratory condition worsened, the defendant-physician was again called and he presented to the hospital. At that time, the patient was intubated and ventilated. Unfortunately, the patient’s other organs failed and he passed away several hours later.
After a six day trial and a brief deliberation, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | 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.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Marshall L. Schwartz and Melissa L. Mazur obtained a defense verdict in favor of a hospital following a four day jury trial in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff alleged that the decedent suffered a retroperitoneal bleed as a result of a cardiac catheterization procedure and that defendants were negligent in the post-procedure management of the bleed. Plaintiff’s expert witnesses alleged that defendant physicians failed to obtain appropriate consultations and failed to order appropriate diagnostic studies to determine the extent of the retroperitoneal bleed.
The defense argued that the care provided to the patient was appropriate as the patient did not exhibit signs of an ongoing bleed; therefore, surgical intervention was not warranted. Plaintiff further claimed that the cardiologists on staff at the hospital were ostensible agents of the hospital. The defense for the hospital rebutted plaintiff’s allegations of negligence and further asserted that there was insufficient evidence to establish a claim for vicarious liability through ostensible agency. Plaintiff had claims for wrongful death and survival, including a claim for lost earnings.
The jury determined that neither the physicians nor the hospital were negligent.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Dorothy Duffy and Jeffrey P. Brien 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 | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Michael O. Pitt and Brett M. Littman obtained a defense verdict in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on behalf of a family practice physician in a medical malpractice action. The plaintiff presented to the defendant-physician on several occasions between May 2008 and February 2009 with complaints, which included sore throat and reflux symptoms, for which she was treated with medications to reduce acid reflux.
In February 2009, the plaintiff again presented to the defendant-physician with now-constant throat pain, and the defendant-physician referred her to an ENT specialist. Upon visiting this specialist, the plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer of the supraglottic larynx in February of 2009, for which she was successfully treated.
The plaintiff contended that the physician failed to send her for a consult with an ENT physician sooner. The defense presented extensive expert testimony to the jury that the physician appropriately treated the patient’s complaints at each appointment and ordered a consult when appropriate. Additionally, the defense presented expert testimony to the jury that the patient has been cancer-free for nearly three years, and that her prognosis for the future is excellent.
After a short deliberation, the jury found that the physician complied with the standard of care and was not negligent.
