Long-Term Care Liability

• Leslie Jenny and Karen “Missy” Minehan obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a skilled nursing facility in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in Cleveland, Ohio. The children of an 82-year-old skilled nursing resident brought a lawsuit after their mother developed shingles and associated meningitis and passed away. They claimed the facility had inadequate infection control and failed to identify signs/symptoms of developing change in their mother’s condition. Leslie and Missy proved the facility offered the appropriate vaccinations required by the state of Ohio and that the standard of care did not require the facility offer or administer the Shingrix vaccine to its residents. They also proved the facility properly monitored the resident’s signs and symptoms; she did not exhibit any classic signs or symptoms of shingles at the facility; and the facility timely sent her to the ER for evaluation when her condition changed. In closing arguments after a five-day trial, the plaintiffs asked the jury for $3 million. The jury deliberated for 75 minutes and returned with a defense verdict.
• In another matter, Missy won preliminary objections, in the nature of a demurrer, to the plaintiff’s claims against the individual defendants (including the administrator and members/owners) and based upon improper venue in a nursing home case filed in Philadelphia County. Missy represents the skilled nursing facility, the nursing home administrator, direct and indirect members/owners of the nursing home, and the registered home office. Although the nursing home is located in Lancaster County, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in Philadelphia County under the “new” venue rule based. The plaintiff based venue upon the fact that the administrator works for a third-party nursing home that operates in Philadelphia (true) and upon his allegation that several of the other individual defendants have an “office or a usual place of business” in Philadelphia (not true). 
• Suzanne Utke won a very hard-fought motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute in a matter that is now 10 years old. Suzanne won oral argument to dismiss the suit, based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case, by proving both actual prejudice to the client, a psychologist, and an inexcusable seven-year delay in any activity by the plaintiff. This medical malpractice claim was brought in Cumberland County and was related to a psychological evaluation conducted of the plaintiff’s three children, whom he physically and psychologically abused for years.
• Donna Modestine and Kevin Majernik received a defense verdict for an emergency room physician in a medical malpractice case after a six-day trial. The plaintiffs alleged the physician failed to diagnose a treat a transient ischemic attack in the emergency department and this failure caused the plaintiff’s ischemic stroke 48 hours later. The plaintiff was 44 years old at the time. Following an hour and a half of deliberations, the jury found that the emergency room physician did not violate the standard of care.
• Ryan Gannon, Maura Brady and paralegal Karen Kankula (all of Roseland) received a unanimous defense verdict for their client in a high-exposure birth injury case. The plaintiff, the mother, alleged the obstetrician defendant was negligent in failing to identify her baby as large for gestational age in the prenatal period, in failing to proceed with a cesarean section during the labor, and in negligently performing a forceps delivery. The plaintiff alleged, as a result of her injuries from the delivery, she suffered pelvic organ prolapse, incontinence, and ongoing pain and suffering. The plaintiff underwent two subsequent gynecologic surgeries and alleged she would never be able to return to work for the remainder of her life as result of her ongoing pain. Through the testimony of our client and experts, we were able to establish that the care provided by the obstetrician was within accepted standards of care and the decision to proceed with the delivery as performed was the safest option for the mother and baby. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of our client. 
• Gary Samms (Philadelphia/King of Prussia) received a defense verdict on behalf of an anesthesiologist after a six-day trial in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs had contended the anesthesiologist failed to deal with internal bleeding and blood pressure issues and failed to communicate with the surgeon during a Cesarean section and in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit, leading to the plaintiff almost bleeding out and causing the loss of her uterus during an emergency hysterectomy. The matter involved seriously conflicting experts and was a well-tried case by all parties. Fortunately, the jury was receptive to the defense arguments that, in fact, the doctor not only complied with the standard of care, but exceeded it. Instrumental in the victory were shareholder Ray Petruccelli and paralegal Nancy Farnen.
• In another medical malpractice case that was transferred to him just two weeks before trial, Gary obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a leading surgeon from a world-class orthopaedic institution in Bucks County. The plaintiff alleged failure to diagnose compartment syndrome in a 19-year-old who broke his ankle skateboarding. The jury returned a defense verdict.
• Nicole Tanana secured a voluntary dismissal of a client in a catastrophic medical malpractice in Philadelphia County based on her preliminary objections as to the failure to serve the complaint in a timely manner. Rather than have the court grant her preliminary objections on lack of good faith effort to serve original process, plaintiff’s counsel chose to voluntarily dismiss the case. Nicole’s client was the last defendant served in a case that was active in Philadelphia for over a year.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

---

 

_{The Quarterly Dose – March 2025, 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. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.}