Health Care

Gary Samms and Ryan Gannon obtained a defense verdict in a complex medical malpractice case after a two-week jury trial in New Jersey. The elderly plaintiff claimed his posterior lumbar laminectomy for decompression was negligently performed. It was alleged that care failures in the performance of surgery caused a loss of bowel and bladder control that ultimately required an irreversible colostomy and placement of a suprapubic catheter, as well as subsequent infections requiring extended medical intervention and rehabilitative care.

Gary Samms achieved a unanimous defense verdict in a hotly-contested wrongful death case. The lawsuit included allegations of failure to perform a workup and diagnose lung cancer. The nine-day trial revolved around the care provided by the primary care and orthopedic physicians. The plaintiffs claimed the patient’s symptoms were related to a Pancoast tumor that was undiagnosed, resulting in his death. Gary was able to establish with the jury the superiority of the defense experts by comparison, and he successfully explained there can be concurrent diseases and there was an objective reason for each and every one of the patient’s symptoms.

Gary Samms received a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of an orthopedic and physical therapy practice. The plaintiff’s demand had been $5 million. The jury deliberated for approximately six hours and had to decide whether the injuries sustained by the plaintiff—detached retina, macular hole and other related eye injuries resulting in five surgeries in two years—were related to any negligence by his clients. Gary was able to prove, through aggressive cross-examination, that the injuries were not related to any negligence on the part of the practice, even though they occurred while the patient was being monitored and treated in physical therapy. 

After eight days of trial, Joseph Hoynoski secured a directed verdict on behalf of his client, an orthopedic surgeon, who was alleged to have breached the standard of care as it related to his performance of a reverse right-shoulder replacement. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish that the surgery performed by the orthopedic surgeon was unnecessary, as alleged in the amended complaint.

Julia Klubenspies, David Tomeo and Victoria Pepe were successful in defending against a plaintiff’s motion to amend a complaint to add the CEO of a major New Jersey hospital under a theory that a certain provision in the New Jersey Administrative Code made the CEO responsible for ensuring that certain newborn metabolic test results were timely received and reported. Following extensive briefing by David and Tori and many discussions with Julia and opposing counsel, the motion was withdrawn just prior to oral argument.

Kathleen Kramer and Gabor Ovari obtained a defense verdict after a week-long jury trial in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff alleged she sustained a bowel perforation injury in the course of a robotic-laparoscopic hysterectomy. The procedure was performed by an obstetrician/gynecologist. During the course of the procedure, a general surgeon was called in to evaluate the bowels for injuries. There were no injuries found, so the procedure was completed, and the patient was discharged the following day. Two days later the patient returned in critically ill condition, and a bowel perforation in the sigmoid colon was identified. The plaintiff alleged the providers negligently failed to detect the injury during the hysterectomy. After a week-long trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants.

Sharon Campbell-Suplee and Jessica Wachstein successfully defended a claim for failure to diagnose infectious endocarditis after a periodontal procedure. The plaintiff, who was 56 years old at the time, was diagnosed with streptococcal endocarditis after undergoing periodontal surgery with our client. As a result, he required an aortic valve replacement. He claimed he had to sell his business as he could no longer work. It was asserted at trial that our client, the periodontist who performed the surgery, and the co-defendant dentist failed to recognize signs and symptoms of potential infectious endocarditis in post-op interactions with the plaintiff. The claim also alleged, had the plaintiff been diagnosed sooner, he would not have required open heart surgery and could have successfully been treated with antibiotics only. 

Donna Modestine received a defense verdict in a high/low arbitration. She represented a surgeon in a case in which the plaintiff alleged a delay in the performance of an appendectomy for a perforated appendix. The plaintiff went on to require a prolonged hospitalization and two subsequent surgeries. Donna successfully argued that the delay in performance of the surgery did not result in any of the plaintiff's injuries.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

---

 

^{The Quarterly Dose – November 2024, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.}