by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Michael O. Pitt and Jeffrey P. Brien obtained a defense verdict in favor of an otolaryngologist following a five day jury trial in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. At issue was surgery to remove a polyp from the plaintiff’s sphenoid sinus. Plaintiff had alleged that the surgery performed was not necessary given her condition and that the physician was negligent in his performance of the surgery. The plaintiff alleged that the surgery caused her to suffer from continuous, debilitating sinus infections and migraine headaches. Through expert testimony and the plaintiff’s medical records, Mr. Pitt argued that the surgery was appropriate given the plaintiff’s lengthy history of sinus infections and headaches, and was performed by the defendant in accordance with the applicable standard of care.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | 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 | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Daniel F. Ryan, III and Amanda A. O’Dea 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 | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Anthony P. DeMichele obtained summary judgment for an insurance company in a coverage dispute involving one of its insureds. The insured, an attorney, was sued in two separate state court actions based upon his involvement in several real estate investments.
In the underlying litigation, two individuals had filed separate actions against the insured claiming he misrepresented information about the investment opportunities. After the investments were made, the individuals alleged that the insured misappropriated the money for his personal gain. The insured alleged that he provided legal services for the real estate holding company that was involved in the investments, and therefore, his malpractice insurance covered the claims. As a result, the insured submitted the claims to his insurance company for coverage.
Mr. DeMichele, on behalf of the insurance company, initiated a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking a declaration from the court as to the parties’ rights under the insurance policy at issue. At the conclusion of extensive discovery, Mr. DeMichele moved for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that exclusions in the insurance policy precluded coverage of the claims. Based upon the language of the exclusions, Mr. DeMichele argued that the insurance company did not have a duty to defend or a duty to indemnify its insured with regard to the claims that were asserted in the underlying state court actions.
The insured responded by filing a motion for summary judgment and argued that the policy exclusions did not apply, and therefore, a duty to defend and a duty to indemnify existed.
The district court agreed with Mr. DeMichele’s position and granted the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment while at the same time denying the insured’s motion for summary judgment. Based upon the court’s decision, the insurance company did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify its insured for the claims that were asserted in the state court actions.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Marshall L. Schwartz obtained a defense verdict in favor of an orthopaedic surgeon following a six day trial in Montgomery County. The plaintiffs alleged that the orthopaedic surgeon breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose the plaintiff-husband as suffering from a displaced left greater tuberosity fracture, failing to order additional diagnostic studies of the plaintiff-husband’s left shoulder, and failing to properly counsel the plaintiffs regarding appropriate treatment options for the patient’s shoulder. Plaintiffs maintained that the orthopaedic surgeon’s alleged negligence caused a delay in the performance of surgery on the plaintiff-husband’s left shoulder, which resulted in permanent stiffness, pain, weakness and degenerative changes to the arm. However, the defense presented evidence that the orthopaedic surgeon properly diagnosed the plaintiff-husband’s condition, ordered appropriate diagnostic studies, and advised the plaintiffs of all reasonable treatment options. Moreover, the defense offered evidence that the plaintiff-husband’s alleged injuries were not proximately caused by the orthopaedic-surgeon’s conduct. Following a brief deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in the orthopaedic-surgeon’s favor, finding that he did not deviate from the standard of care in treating the plaintiff-husband.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Michael O. Pitt and Stephanie M. Hohing 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.
