Philadelphia Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

A Lackawanna County jury found that a urologist violated the standard of care in his treatment of a 54 year old man who complained of urinary problems. Terrence Golden began seeking Dr. Milan Smolko in September, 2002 and ultimately treated with him several times over 16 months without any diagnosis of resolution of his problems. Dr. Smolko told Mr. Golden he had an inflamed and enlarged prostate, but did nothing to further evaluate his condition until June, 2003 when a bladder biopsy was ordered. Unfortunately, the pathologist at Wayne Memorial Hospital where the biopsy was sent failed to find the bladder cancer that was causing Mr. Golden’s problems. Mr. Golden continued to see Dr. Smolko until June, 2004, when he made his way to another doctor for a second opinion and was finally correctly diagnosed with bladder cancer.

By the time Mr. Golden was accurately diagnosed, the cancer had spread and Mr. Golden required surgery to remove his bladder, prostate and pieces of his urethra. Even with this radical surgery, Mr. Golden’s cancer was so advanced that it was incurable and he ultimately died in January, 2008 at the age of 60. Mrs. Golden sued Dr. Smolko, Wayne Memorial Hospital and the pathologist who looked at the bladder biopsy in June, 2003. The hospital and pathologist reached a confidential settlement with Mrs. Golden prior to trial, so the case went to the jury solely against Dr. Smolko. The jury awarded $1.88 Million to Mrs. Golden. Dr. Smolko has filed an appeal.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Cancer

Bookmark:

A Philadelphia jury found that the death of a 51 year old man at St. Joseph’s Hospital was preventable and awarded $2.185 Million to his wife of 17 years. Zachary Jones was taken to St. Joseph’s by ambulance after complaining of chest, back and leg pains. An Emergency Room doctor, Dr. Powell, evaluated Mr. Jones within 30 minutes of his arrival at the E.R. and ordered a variety of tests to include blood work, x-rays and an echocardiogram (DEFINE). Unfortunately, the tests Dr. Powell ordered weren’t done for almost 2 hours and by then, Dr. Powell had left the hospital to attend a meeting in Horsham. When Dr. Powell left the E.R., he turned over care of Mr. Jones to Dr. Skobeloff, who had arrived for his first day on the job. Mr. Jones attorney told the jury that Dr. Powell was scheduled to be orienting Dr. Skobeloff all day, but instead left Dr. Skobeloff on his own while Dr. Powell went to the meeting.

If Mr. Jones care had been handled appropriately, his test results would have been read by the E.R. doctor caring for him as soon as they were done and then the tests would have been sent to the radiology department for an “official” read by a radiologist at some later point. Instead, Mr. Jones’ test results were not reviewed by either Dr. Powell (who had left the hospital) or Dr. Skobeloff (who was new to the E.R) and were simply sent on to radiology where the were not reviewed until the morning, by which time Mr. Jones had died. The tests showed that Mr. Jones had a dissecting aortic aneurysm (blood filling in between the layers of the heart wall and the sack that surrounds the heart) that prevented the heart from pumping properly. If the tests had been reviewed, Mr. Jones would have been transferred to another hospital for an operation that may have been able to fix his problem.

Mrs. Jones, who herself was recovering at a different hospital when Mr. Jones was taken to St. Joseph’s, sued St. Josephs and both Dr. Powell and Dr. Skobeloff for the negligent care of her husband. The hospital and doctors argued to the jury that Mr. Jones had a complicated medical history, including high blood pressure and “chronic” failures to properly take his blood pressure medication. They also argued that even if they had learned that Mr. Jones suffered from a dissecting aortic aneurysm, they wouldn’t have had enough time to transfer him to another hospital for surgery. The jury apparently rejected these arguments and concluded that Mr. and Mrs. Jones deserved the opportunity for another hospital to try to save Mr. Jones’ life. The jury found Dr. Powell 48% responsible, Dr. Skobeloff 36% responsible and St. Joseph’s 16% responsible.

This case demonstrates why it is important to have a qualified lawyer who understands medicine review the medical records of a loved-one who dies unexpectedly while under medical care.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Emergency Room Care

Bookmark:

A Passaic County, New Jersey jury found for the plaintiff in a case involving an obstetrician's failure to diagnose placental abruption (separation of the placenta from the uterus). Sigismondi v. Greene, PAS-L-3055-05 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2007). Plaintiff, a husband whose wife and newborn son died as a result of the doctor's negligence, argued that the OB (Dr. Jennifer Greene) failed to perform tests to determine the cause of his wife's abdominal pain complaints. Plaintiff further argued that given his wife's history of a gallbladder surgery when she was 7 months pregnant, during which surgery her uterus was moved, required the OB to seriously evaluate his wife's report of pain and pressure in her pelvis, as well as nausea and vomiting, just 3 weeks after surgery. Dr. Greene did order some tests over the phone, but did not order an ultrasound or blood tests.

Plaintiff's wife died less than 24 hours after being sent home from the hospital after limited tests were run in response to her complaints. Plaintiff's son was delivered by an emergency caesarian section not long after his mother collapsed from bleeding caused by the separation of the placenta from the uterus wall. Unfortunately, the ruptrue of the placenta caused deprivation of oxygen to the newborn, who suffered from seizures and was significantly brain damaged and survived after birth for a few days only because he was on life support systems. When the life support was removed, Plaintiff's son died.

Dr. Greene argued that she ordered appropriate testing and that the Plaintiff's wife had normal findings that suggested it was reasonable to discharge her to home, including stable fetal monitoring results and no evidence that amniotic fluid was leaking or that she was bleeding vaginally. Dr. Greene argued that the placenta had ruptured suddenly just before the Plaintiff's wife collapsed, but an expert for Plaintiff testified that findings during the caesarian section were more consistent with a tear in the placenta occuring a day before she collapsed.

The jury deliberated only 2 days before awarding $8.8 Million to Plaintiff, including $2 Million for the loss of his wife and $5 Million for the loss of his son.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Obstetrics

Bookmark:

A Pittsburgh jury awarded the estate of 24 year old Michael Rettger $2.5 million for wrongful death damages, but refused to award any money to his brothers for survival damages after stating on the jury form that "no amount of money will adequately punish" the hospital for Mr. Rettger's death. The case began when Mr. Rettger was admitted to the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center at Shadyside for a large, swelling mass in his head that was found after he complained of vomiting and headaches. Three days into his hospital stay, Mr. Rettger showed signs of a brain rupture, which his attorneys argued was ignored by the night nursing staff and/or the doctor in charge of his care.

The medical records showed that the nurse on duty noted that Mr. Rettger had a dilated pupil, which is a warning of impending brain rupture, and then called the neurosurgeon in charge of Mr. Rettger's care. The testimony of the nurse and the neurosurgeon differed as to what occurred during the telephone call, with the nurse testifying that she told the doctor about the dilation and the doctor testifying that he was only told that Mr. Rettger's other eye was sluggish. The nurse aruged that she followed the doctor's instructions and the doctor argued that he would have come to the hospital immediately if the nurse had told him about the dilated pupil.

Mr. Rettger's attorneys argued that the nurse erred in not reporting the condition to her supervisors when the doctor did not do anything in response to her call and that the hospital's policy regarding the chain of command for nurses tending to neurosurgical patients was flawed. In addition, Mr. Rettger's attorneys presented evidence that if Mr. Rettger had survived, he would have earned between $4-$15 million in his lifetime. The jury concluded that they believed the hospital's "policies, culture and lack of competent supervision resulted in the death of Michael Rettger," but awarded no survival damages to his brothers because "no amount amoung of damages" would adequately punish the hospital. Although the jury awarded $2.5 million for wrongful death damages, Mr. Rettger's attorneys are appealing the jury's decision as against the weight of the evidence and the legal instructions it was given prior to deliberation.

The outcome of this case is an example of the complicated issues that arise in medical negligence cases and that require the counsel of an experienced medical malpractice attorney.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Hospital Care

Bookmark:

A New Jersey jury awarded a woman $6 Million and her husband $500,000 for injuries she suffered when her OB-GYN (obstetrician) cut her bowel during a routine caesarean section ("c-section") in 2001. The doctor testifed that a piece of Jane Bodell's small intestine was stuck to her uterus and that while trying to separate the bowel from the uterus, he unknowingly cut the bowel. He then failed to discover that he had cut the bowel until a subsequent exploratory surgery intended to determine why Mrs. Bodell was suffering from severe abdominal pain and fever after her c-section.

As a result of the bowel being cut, the contents of the bowel leaked into the stomach, which caused infections, organ scarring and blockages of the intestines. Mrs. Bodell now requires surgery on a regular basis to keep her condition manageable. The jury awarded Mrs. Bodell $6 Million for her pain and suffering and her husband $500,00 for his "loss of consortium" claim (his loss of Mrs. Bodell's companionship and marital services related to her injuries).

Surgical mishaps are a common source of medical malpractice cases. Although cutting the bowel or another organ during surgery is frequently a recognized complication of surgery, when detecting such a complication is delayed, it may be medical negligence.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Surgical Errors

Bookmark:

I recently filed a Medical Malpractice Complaint against Beebe Hospital on behalf of a woman who was declared dead, left on a guerney waiting to be taken to the morgue and then noted by a nurse (almost an hour later) to be breathing. In this case, Judith Johnson initially went to the hospital for severe indigestion and pains in her chest. In fact, she was suffering from a heart attack. During her evaluation in the emergency room, Mrs. Johnson became unresponsive and after attempts to resuscitate her, she was declared dead. Mrs. Johnson's body was then pushed against a wall until someone could take her to the morgue. However, almost an hour later, someone noticed that Mrs. Johnson, who still had a a breathing tube down her throat, was alive.

Although Mrs. Johnson survived the incident, she suffered brain damage that has resulted in memory loss, speech problems, seizures and personality changes. In addition to malpractice claims, Mrs. Johnson has also filed a claim for the Hospital's violation of the Emergency Medical and Active Labor Act ("EMTALA"), alleging that she was not provided the same medical screening examination as other patients with similar medical conditions and/or was not appropriately stabilized.

You can read more about this case at: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20081007/NEWS01/810070365 or http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,433830,00.html

Although I am not a Delaware lawyer, this case was filed in Federal Court in Delaware where I am handling it with the assistance of a Delaware attorney. I am licensed to handle cases in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but I occasionally will become involved in particularly interesting cases in other states if I am able to obtain permission to handle the case from the court in which the case is to be filed.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Hospital Care

Bookmark:

In a case strikingly (and frighteningly) similar to one I am currently handling, a patient's family filed suit in California for the family of a child who was pronounced dead by a hospital and then later found to actually be alive. In both my current case and the California case, the patient suffered brain damage from the delay in necessary treatment and was forced to sue the hospital and doctors to obtain compensation for the injuries and medical care caused by the obvious negligence of the medical providers.

In the California case, which settled in April, 2008, then 20 month old Mackayla Jespersen was rushed to the emergency room after being found floating facedown in her family's pool in November, 2003. Paramedics initially provided treatment to Mackayla at her home and then transported her to the emergency room of the Anaheim Memorial Medical Center where doctors pronounced her dead 39 minutes after arrival. Following the determination that Mackayla was dead, the doctors removed a breathing tube and left her unattended for over an hour despite the fact that Mackayla's parents and grandmother advised doctors and nurses that they saw her breathing.

Just over an hour after Mackayla was left for dead, a police officer who was photographing the body observed her chest moving and called for help. Mackayla's family argued in their lawsuit against the hospital and treating doctors that Mackalya should have been warmed upon arrival at the emergency room so that her vital signs could be properly monitored. The family further argued that if Mackayla had not been left unattended for over an hour, she would have recovered from the drowning event or suffered significantly less brain damage. The hospital and treating doctors argued that it was not the absence of treatment for the hour she was wrongfully declared dead, but rather the 15 minutes under water, that caused her brain injury.

Mackayla, who is now 6 years old, has regained most of her brain functioning and appears about to learn to walk, but she continues to suffer from spastic movements and requires medical care from her injuries. The settlement amount is confidential.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Emergency Room Care

Bookmark:

The family of a 48 year old woman who died after being given Sotalol by her cardiologists for atrial fibrilation ("afib") was awarded $1.6 Million by a Delaware Jury on Monday, June 16, 2008. In 2003, Sandra Koch had been a dialysis patient for less than a year when she developed afib. On her third episode of afib (a very common irregular heart rhythm), Mrs. Koch was admitted to the hospital where her treating cardiologist started her on Sotalol. Evidence at trial revealed that Mrs. Koch was not told at the time the drug was prescribed that the Physician's Desk Reference, the hospital's drug formulary and the package insert written by the manufacturer of Sotalol all warned against using Sotalol in dialysis patients. Trial testimony further established that although patients are to be kept in the hospital and closely monitored until Sotalol is fully effective in the body (a process that takes on average 3 days in a patient who is not on dialysis and longer for dialysis patients), Mrs. Koch was discharged less than 2 days after starting Sotalol. Mrs. Koch died without warning just 6 days after her cardiologists started her on the drug.

At trial, the cardiologists did not present any expert testimony from other physicians that their use of Sotalol in Mrs. Koch while she was on dialysis was acceptable medical practice. Mrs. Koch's family (her husband and now grown children, who were 17 and 21 at the time of her death) presented the testimony of 2 medical experts (a cardiologist and a nephrologist, or kidney specialist) that the use of Sotalol was unacceptable in her case. The defendant cardiolgoists did present expert testimony that Sotalol was not the cause of Mrs. Koch's death, instead attempting to blame it on a variety of other medical conditions from which Mrs. Koch suffered or had suffered previously (but admitting at the same time that Sotalol was a "possible" cause of her death). The medical experts testifying on behalf of the Koch family testified that they could exclude all other causes of death because she was being successfully treated for these conditions, none of which would cause sudden death. Further, the cardiology expert who testified for the Kochs explained to the jury that Mrs. Koch had evidence of a deadly heart rhythm known as Toursades de Pointes (or "turning of the screw") on the heart monitor strips taken by the paramedics just prior to her death. He explained that this arrhythmia occurs in patients having an adverse reaction to Sotalol.

After 5 1/2 days of trial, the jury deliberated for 2 1/2 hours before returning a verdict of $1.6 Million for Mrs. Koch's husband and 2 children.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drugs

Bookmark:

A 13 1/2 hour delay in the delivery of a baby girl who was stuck in the birth canal resulted in brain injuries from both the delay in delivery and from the mother's uterus repeatedly contracting on the baby's head because of medications given to the mother to encourage labor. Testimony during the 5 week trial demonstrated that the treating OB/GYN knew prior to delivery that the mother had a narrow pelvic arch and that the baby was approximately 9 pounds. Notwithstanding these two contradictory facts, the doctor allowed the mother to attempt a vaginal delivery when a cesarean section was indicated. The doctor not only attempted a vaginal birth, but then allowed it to continue for 13 1/2 hours, during which the mother was having contractions every 1-2 minutes for many hours.

Because the baby's head was squeezed so many times during the long delivery by the frequent contractions, the now-10 year old suffered brain damage that resulted in permanent injuries. She has been diagnosed as spastic guadriplegic, which means she has only limited use of her arms and legs. She is limited to walking short distances and only with the use of a walker, she can ee but because the part of her brain that processes what she sees was damaged, she can't interpret what she is seeing, she is mildly retarded and she has difficulty utilizing her hands.

After hearing all the testimony, the jury in this Ohio case awarded almost $8M for future medical care, over $7M for the inability to perform normal activities, and $3M for pain and suffering. Grow v. Yang, Hamilton County, Ohio.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Obstetrics

Bookmark:

Brandon, a 10 year old boy who suffers from cerebral palsy, severe brain damage and blindness as a result of an obstetrician delaying in the diagnosis of his mother's pregnancy complications in 1997 was awarded $19M by a Monmouth County Jury after 2 days of deliberations. The jury heard evidence that Brandon's mother, Bonnie, was 30 weeks pregnant when she began complaining of abdominal pain. Bonnie called her OB/GYN after the pain started and was instructed to go to Riverview Medical Center in Red Bank, where her OB/GYN concluded she was likely suffering from appendicitis. The OB/GYN requested that a general surgeon remove the appendix before the OB/GYN ran tests to determine the cause of her abdominal pain and despite readings on a fetal monitor attached to Bonnie that showed the baby was in distress.

More disturbing, the jury heard testimony that a nurse on duty at the time the appendix removal surgery was being planned and performed warned the OB/GYN that the monitoring strips showed a problem with the baby. Further, the nurse felt so strongly that the baby was in danger that when the doctor refused to listen to her concerns, she went to to her charge nurse and then to the hospital's nursing supervisor seeking to have an emergency Cesarean section performed on Bonnie to save the baby. Instead of listening to the nurse, the OB/GYN and the general surgeon removed the appendix, only to find that it was normal, but Bonnie's abdomen was filled with 3.5 liters of blood, which is half the amount of blood an average woman has in her entire body.

Ultimately, a c-section was performed to deliver Brandon more than one and a half hours after the appendix surgery began. At birth, Brandon had no muscle tone and required extensive medical intervention to live, including a four month hospitalization in the neonatal intensive care unit. An expert medical witness testified to the jury that if Brnadon had been delivered even half an hour sooner, he would have been medically normal. The OB/GYN continues to assert that his care was appropriate and that Bonnie's complication was "incredibly rare" and is seeking a new trial and possibly an appeal.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Obstetrics

Bookmark:

Delaware has become the third state in the nation that will not bill patients or their insurance companies for certain medical errors. Delaware hospitals identified 9 serious mistakes for which they will no longer bill:

(1) performing surgery on the wrong body part;
(2) performing surgery on the wrong patient;
(3) performing the wrong surgery on a patient;
(4) sending a newborn infant home with the wrong family;
(5) unintentionally leaving a foreign object in the body;
(6) medication error that results in serious injury or death;
(7) using wrong artificial donor for insemination;
(8) causing injury by giving patient the wrong blood type; and
(9) air-embolism injury.

Interestingly, the "no pay" rule adopted by the Delaware Healthcare Association applies only to hospitals, which means that patients may still see a bill from their doctor for these types of errors. It is unclear how many errors occur in Delaware's hospitals because Delaware (unlike many states, including Pennsylvania) does not require hospitals to report medical errors to the public. However, one study, performed by the Institute for Medicine in 1999, reported that nationwide, between 44,000 and 98,000 patients die in hospitals each year because of preventable medical errors.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Hospital Care

Bookmark:

A Philadelphia jury unanimously found in favor of a woman who alleged that 2 doctors at 2 hospitals failed to timely diagnose breast cancer and awarded her $12 Million as compensation. Sutherlin v. Magilner. At trial, the jury heard testimony that 2 doctors at 2 different hospitals - Fox Chase Cancer Center and Albert Einstein Medical Center - missed suspicious findings on mammograms that required follow-up evaluation and would have diagnosed Stage 1 breast cancer that could have been cured with a mastectomy. The jury heard that because of the errors, the woman was not diagnosed until she had Stage 4 cancer that had spread to her bones and organs.

The woman received a screening mamogram in June 2003 from a Fox Chase mobile mammography unit that was read as showing a dilated duct unchanged from a 2001 mammogram. The jury heard testimony that the woman's 2001 mammogram did not show a dilated duct, which meant that the 2003 mammogram should have been reported as showing a suspicious change that required further evaluation. The woman then had a 2004 mammogram at the Albert Einstein Medical Center and the physician who read that report noted several small nodular densities that were stable when compared to prior mammograms. Again, the jury heard evidence that the doctor mis-read the mammogram because the woman's prior mammograms had not reported nodular densities. The woman's lawyers argued that doctors again missed a chance to instruct the woman to obtain follow-up medical care that would have diagnosed the cancer. Ultimately, the woman was found to have Stage 4 metastatic breast cancer in the location where the 2003 mammogram showed a dilated duct.

Prior to trial, the Albert Einstein Medical Center and the doctor who read the 2004 mammogram settled with the woman for a confidential amount of money. Fox Chase and its physician had refused offers to settle along with Albert Einstein for a total of $2 Million (which was the maximum amount available under the doctors' insurance coverage), offering only $125,000. The woman's lawyer had warned Fox Chase that if a jury ultimately awarded more than $2 Million, the woman would be eligible to pursue bad faith claims for failing to settle.

This case demonstrates that any woman diagnosed with breast cancer even though she has been receiving regular screening mammograms should have the films and reports reviewed by a competent medical malpractice attorney who can have medical experts determine if suspicious findings were actually present on the studies, but not identified.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Cancer

Bookmark: