by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Dan Ryan received a defense verdict in a case in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in which the Plaintiff, the estate of a deceased patient, alleged that an Internist failed to diagnose and treat the patient’s lung cancer. The patient ultimately died from stage three lung cancer. The Plaintiff asserted that the Internist should have ordered follow-up studies as a result of abnormalities suggested on a July 1999 chest x-ray. According to Plaintiff’s expert, if the physician would have performed timely follow-up studies, the patient’s lymph node involvement would not have been as extensive and he would have had a better chance of prolonged survival.
On June 14, 1999, the patient, a 53-year-old male, presented to his Internist’s office after an illness and complained that he was light-headed, had cramping and diarrhea and had a temperature of 102 degrees, The patient denied any dyspnea on exertion or hemoptysis. The patient’s history was significant for cigarette smoking and interstitial lung infiltrates but indicated to the Internist that he had stopped smoking in 1995. The Internist had the impression that the patient had an upper respiratory infection that was probably viral in nature. He ordered a chest x-ray and blood work. The blood work was normal. The chest x-ray, performed on July 8, 1999, revealed a patchy infiltrate in the right lower lobe, which the Internist felt was consistent with the patient’s symptoms.
On July 20, 1999, the patient returned for a follow-up visit. He did not have any shortness of breath, sputum or cough. His weight was stable and his lungs were clear. At the next office visit on November 16, 1999, the patient complained of hemoptysis. A chest x-ray was immediately ordered, which revealed a right hilar mass with post-obstructive atelectasis and infiltrate, most suspicious for carcinoma. The Internist promptly referred his patient to a pulmonary specialist. A non-small cell carcinoma of the lungs was eventually diagnosed with positive lymph nodes. Despite treatment and due to the virulent nature of the tumor and the significant node involvement, the patient died less than one year later, in October of 2000.
After a six-day trial and 2 ½ days of jury deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding that the Internist was not negligent in their treatment of his patient.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Bart C. Tuttle obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a neurologist in a medical malpractice action filed in Philadelphia County. This case involved allegations of failure to prevent and diagnose bilateral foot drop, ankle contractures and heterotopic ossification in a critically ill patient who was being treated for Leukemia. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia in July 1997 at the age of 37. He received three rounds of chemotherapy and underwent a bone marrow aspiration and biopsy for treatment of his leukemia. Following the third round of chemotherapy, the Plaintiff experienced significant complications from the chemotherapy and was admitted to the hospital in January 1998 due to what is commonly referred to as a “chemo crash”. Plaintiff was critically ill, was placed on a ventilator, and remained in the ICU for nearly two months.
After emerging from a coma-like state in late March 1998, signs of a foot drop were noted. On March 31, 1998 he was transferred to a rehabilitation facility due to severe deconditioning as a result of his critical illness. During his admission at the rehabilitation facility, Plaintiff was diagnosed with bilateral foot drop, and subsequently diagnosed with ankle contractures and heterotopic ossification of the hip. Heterotopic ossification is a condition in which bone formations begin to grow, and can occur in patients who are in a coma-like state for prolonged periods of time.
Plaintiff claimed that due to improper positioning, turning and range of motion during his hospitalization, he developed these conditions as a result of compression on the nerves. The Plaintiff currently uses a wheel chair. The defense presented evidence that the bilateral foot drop was a result of critical illness polyneuropathy (CIP) and could not have been prevented. CIP is a condition that can occur in patients who are on a ventilator for prolonged periods of time and suffer from sepsis. The toxins from the sepsis cause nerve damage. The defense also presented evidence that the ankle contractures did not occur during the hospital admission, but rather during the rehabilitation period. Further, the defense argued that the heterotopic ossification was due to the patient’s critical illness and could not have been prevented, and therefore, was not the result of any substandard care.
Following a two and a half week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Heather Hansen obtained a defense verdict for a neurosurgeon in Montgomery County. The plaintiff alleged that the neurosurgeon negligently performed a complete laminectomy with foraminotomy procedure on her, thereby injuring her spinal cord. Although the plaintiff awoke from surgery with a Brown-Sequard Syndrome, the defense contended that the operation was performed appropriately and that there was no evidence in the medical records to suggest that the neurosurgeon caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The defense also noted that the plaintiff’s medical expert had not ruled out all other possible causes of the plaintiff’s injury, such as spinal stroke. After deliberating for less than an hour, the jury returned a verdict in the defendant’s favor.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Heather Hansen obtained a defense verdict for an orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia County. The plaintiff alleged that the orthopedic surgeon negligently opted to perform a bilateral total knee replacement despite alleged vascular compromise in the patient; and negligently ordered the use of a continuous passive motion (CPM) machine during the patient’s post-operative rehabilitation. The defense contended that the orthopedic surgeon appropriately performed the surgery as the patient was given pre-operative clearance and as the surgeon himself palpated pedal pulses pre-operatively and, therefore, detected no vascular compromise. The defense also contended that the post-operative rehabilitation order to utilize the CPM machine was appropriate and within the standard of care.
Following a five day trial, and after deliberating for a mere fifteen minutes, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
John F. O’Brien, III obtained a defense verdict for a gynecologic oncologist in Montgomery County. The plaintiffs alleged that the doctor negligently delayed in operating on a post operative partial small bowel obstruction after a total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo oopherectomy was performed for carcinoma in situ of the cervix. The defense contended that the doctor appropriately managed the patient’s post operative course in light of reassuring and improving abdominal symptoms, stable vital signs and given the patient’s pre-existing chronic renal failure, vascular access problems and hypertension. The patient unfortunately died six days post operatively. The defense successfully contended that the care was appropriate, within the standard of care and did not cause the patient’s death.
Following an eight day trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defense
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Heather Hansen obtained a defense verdict for a urologist in Philadelphia County. The plaintiff alleged that the urologist was negligent in the performance of a vesicovaginal repair suffered by the plaintiff after a hysterectomy. They contended that the urologist negligently positioned the plaintiff for the surgery and thus caused femoral and obturator neuropathies. The defense contended that the positioning was proper and within the standard of care, and that this type of injury cannot occur absent negligence.
Following a ten day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the urologist as well as the co-defendant hospital and obstetrician-gynecologist.
