by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Dan Ryan obtained a defense verdict for an orthopedic surgeon in Delaware County. The plaintiff underwent a total right knee replacement in 1997, by the orthopedic surgeon. The plaintiff did very well with her knee implant for a period of almost five years. In 2002, the plaintiff began to experience right knee pain and it was found that the right knee implant had loosened. As a result, the plaintiff underwent a second knee replacement surgery to the right side. The plaintiff claimed that this loosening was caused by the way that the knee was aligned during the 1997 surgery, and also because the knee prosthesis used was too large. The defense maintained that the 1997 surgery exceeded the standard of care and that the loosening of the knee implant was not caused, in any way, by the technique used in the previous surgery. Following a two day trial and thirty minutes of deliberation, the jury agreed, and found that Mr. Ryan’s client was not negligent.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Paul Peel obtained a defense verdict for an otolaryngologist in Bucks County. Plaintiff, a physician, alleged that he underwent unnecessary sinus surgery causing him to require a revision surgery. Plaintiff also alleged that he was not given proper informed consent. Mr. Peel secured dismissal of various claims by plaintiff at non-suit. The defense successfully argued that the surgery was medically indicated and that proper informed consent was given. Experts in otolaryngology and radiology testified. The jury deliberated only one hour before returning a verdict for the defense.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Bart C. Tuttle received a decision in favor of an anesthesiologist at arbitration. Plaintiff, a 57 year old woman, had a history of cardiovascular disease and was diagnosed with progressive multivessel disease in February 2002. On February 28, 2002, Plaintiff underwent a quadruple coronary artery bypass grafting procedure, which involved a sternotomy and a saphenous vein was harvested from the patient’s right leg for the grafting procedure. After the procedure was completed, the Plaintiff was prepared to be transferred from the operating room table to the hospital bed using a roller board. During the transfer, the bed separated from the operating room table, and the Plaintiff began to slide between the bed and the table. The anesthesia team protected the Plaintiff’s head and neck, including the endotracheal tube. All medical personnel participating in the transfer lowered Plaintiff to the ground between the bed and the table. She landed on her left side. Plaintiff was examined for injuries, then lifted onto the hospital bed. A trauma team was called as a precautionary measure to perform a comprehensive evaluation. Following a full work up including multiple diagnostic tests, it was determined Plaintiff did not suffer any injury as a result of the incident. Plaintiff remained in the hospital during the normal post-operative period, and was discharged for rehabilitation.
Plaintiff claimed that she suffers from ongoing pain in her sternum, and suffered an injury to her right ankle as a result of the incident. Plaintiff sued the anesthesiologist, the cardiothoracic surgeon, several nurses, and the hospital. She did not proceed against the cardiothoracic surgeon during the arbitration.
Mr. Tuttle argued that the transfer from the OR table to the bed was performed in the standard fashion. Unfortunately, the bed separated from the OR table and Plaintiff had to be lowered to the floor. This unforeseen incident was handled appropriately, the patient was well protected, and she was subsequently thoroughly examined and deemed to be free from injury. The defense presented the expert testimony of James Noone, M.D., an anesthesiologist and pain management specialist. Dr. Noone testified that because Plaintiff experienced relief from her sternal pain for three months following a steroid injection, this indicated the pain was due to costochondritis. The costochondritis was not caused by the incident; therefore, her sternal pain was not a result of the incident. Furthermore, sternal pain is a common symptom following a median sternotomy incision even with successful healing. Mr. Tuttle further argued that Plaintiff’s right ankle complaints could not be related to the incident because she was lowered onto her left side, therefore, the mechanism of the incident could not have caused injury to her right ankle. Further, the saphenous vein harvested for the grafting procedure was taken from the right leg.
The arbitration panel agreed that Plaintiff did not suffer any injury as a result of the incident and found in favor of the defense.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Dorothy Duffy obtained a defense verdict for a plastic surgeon. On October 28, 2003, 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.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
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.
