Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Attorneys obtained a defense verdict in a long-term care negligence claim brought against a nursing home

Attorneys obtained a defense verdict in a long-term care negligence claim brought against a nursing home. The plaintiff, a 75-year-old man with a prior medical history of stroke, back surgery, knee surgery, diabetes, etc. had hip replacement surgery at a hospital, and was transferred to a sub acute facility with a stage 2 buttock ulcer and a heel ulcer within a week. The buttock ulcer worsened to a stage 4 with osteomyelitis at the sub acute facility. Plaintiff was then transferred back to the hospital for antibiotics and arrived at our facility on December 1, 2005. Plaintiff had a minor fall on December 11th, his sacral wound ultimately improved, he underwent daily physical and occupational therapy and was able to walk a few steps with a walker by his discharge on February 3, 2006. While at home, the heel ulcer worsened and plaintiff was readmitted to the hospital February 9 with multiple debridements and severe circulatory compromise. He underwent an above knee amputation on March 5, 2006. Plaintiff alleged violations of the state Nursing Home Act and OBRA violations, which allows for the recovery of punitive damages and fee shifting. Plaintiff alleged the fall at our client's facility caused him severe leg pain which caused a contracture of the knee and the development of a heel ulcer. Plaintiff further alleged that the ulcer and contracture were the cause of the above knee amputation. Plaintiff's treating vascular surgeon testified that he had to amputate because of an infected ulcer and had to perform an above knee amputation because of a "20 degree knee contracture." Defense expert testified that the reason for the amputation was circulatory in nature and by demonstrating the use of a guide wire, etc. in an arteriogram, showed the jury how a 20 degree contracture could not possibly effect a bypass procedure. The judge allowed the jury instructions to include all OBRA, state statutes and administrative code violations. The judge also allowed a jury interrogatory regarding violation of a statute without proximate cause. After a 37 day trial, the jury deliberated 4 hours and returned a defense verdict on all counts.

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."