Health Care

Gary Samms (King of Prussia) secured a non-suit in a hotly-contested medical malpractice matter with a pre-trial demand of $7 million. The granting of a non-suit is a rarity at trial. The case involved the death of a neurologist following complications from a green light procedure for prostate issues. The plaintiffs contended thermal injury occurred, as well as a bladder perforation, infection, bladder removal and, ultimately, death. They argued that the hospital did not act appropriately and failed to have appropriate policies and procedures regarding the use of warm saline during the procedure. Their corporate and direct negligence theories failed after Gary’s cross-examination of their expert on voir dire, which revealed that the expert was not qualified to offer opinions on hospital policies and procedures. This development built on Gary’s earlier successful cross-examinations of the pathologist involved in the autopsy and the urologist who performed the procedure. The victory was in part due to the excellent work of Tyler Price (Philadelphia) and paralegal Nancy Farnen (Philadelphia). Gary also prevailed in a binding high-low arbitration regarding the death of a patient suffering from C-diff after a surgical procedure. His evaluation of the records and experts was significant to the success.

Maura Waters Brady (Roseland) obtained a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of a defendant anesthesiologist following a six-week trial in Hudson County, New Jersey. The plaintiff, a 43-year-old woman, presented to the hospital in septic shock seven days after undergoing a robotic hysterectomy and required emergency surgery. She alleged that she aspirated during intubation, causing complications that ultimately resulted in lower extremity gangrene and the loss of all 10 toes. The defense disputed that aspiration occurred, pointing to the patient’s stable vital signs and end-tidal CO₂ readings during the procedure, and argued that the toe amputations were caused by the severe sepsis she had upon arrival at the hospital rather than the anesthesia care provided. Despite a $12 million demand, no settlement offers were made. Instrumental to the defense were Julia Klubenspies (Roseland) and Karen Kankula (paralegal, Roseland).

Thomas Lent (recently retired) and Andra Paganie (Erie) obtained a dismissal with prejudice of a second amended complaint against our client, a skilled nursing facility. The plaintiffs, a dentist (POA) and his wife, alleged that they suffered a variety of harms after the facility allegedly failed to timely provide them with an update on the dentist’s father prior to his passing. The father was 101 years old and a longtime resident of the facility. In a 17-page opinion and order, the judge overwhelmingly agreed with our arguments for the demurrer to all main counts. The judge granted leave to amend on one claim, but with a cautionary comment, as this would be the plaintiffs’ counsel’s fourth bite at the apple.

Jack Farrell, Daniel Dolente, and Travis Talbot (all of Philadelphia) successfully obtained dismissal of a Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas action on forum non conveniens grounds, with leave for plaintiffs to refile in Delaware. Plaintiffs asserted negligent security and branch design claims against a bank after an alleged robbery and assault in Wilmington, Delaware. Despite all key facts, witnesses, and evidence being centered in Delaware, plaintiffs filed suit in Philadelphia. After a years-long venue and forum dispute, including a Superior Court appeal, we demonstrated significant hardship to witnesses and the case’s strong connection to Delaware. The court ultimately granted the petition to dismiss for forum non conveniens. Charmaine Pinckney and Jennifer Cicchetti (Philadelphia) provided paralegal support.

Nicole Tanana (Scranton) secured a complete defense victory in a premises liability action arising from an alleged incident at a skilled nursing facility. The plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries when a dumpster door swung open and struck her. Although the plaintiff initiated suit just before the statute of limitations expired, she failed to take any affirmative steps to serve the defendants for more than four months and did not effectuate service until five months after filing. The court agreed that this lack of diligence warranted dismissal under controlling Pennsylvania law and dismissed the action with prejudice, resulting in a final resolution in favor of the defendants.