Philadelphia Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

A jury in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania awarded Lynn and James Flaherty a total of $3 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Lynn Flaherty was treated for severe headaches by her physician, who prescribed only pain medications. The physician never prescribed any antibiotics for the sinus infection that was actually causing the headaches. Because the infection went untreated, it progressed and went into Ms. Flaherty's brain causing a brain abscess. The brain abscess required surgery and resulted in serious neurological problems, including interfering with Mrs. Flaherty's ability to reason, as well as emotional and behavioral disorders. Additionally, Ms. Flaherty, who is only 61, can no longer work as a real estate agent.

The trial lasted eight days in Allegheny County and the $3 million award must serve to fully compensate Mr. and Mrs Flaherty for the permanent brain injury, which will last her lifetime. A Physician's Assistant (P.A.) and two physicians were all found to be negligent. Part of the award was for Mr. Flaherty's loss of consortium, which is his marital relationship. This is a very large verdict for Allegheny County and represents and excetpional result for this family.

This case is a typical one concerning complications that can arise from a delay in properly treating an infection. In this case a common and easily treatable infection, sinusitis, was allowed to go untreated and resulted in a devastating brain abscess. I have personally represented clients who have had improperly treated infections that then progress to a brain abscess, including one case that resulted in a $5.5 million settlement in Philadelphia. If you or someone you know has had serious complications from an infection, you should immediately consult an experienced attorney to have the potential case evaluated.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Infection

Bookmark:

A 27 year old man from Delaware county, who was injured from an electric shock he sufferred after a cherrry picker struck power lines, was awarded $1.25 Million by a Jury. Although plaintiffs are generally prohibited from suing their employer, the injured man was argued not to be a regular employee, but instead was argued to be a temporary worker, who could recover for his injuries. The plaintiff's attorney insisted that the injured man was only a temporary worker (Independant Contractor) because he worked for the company just 5 days over a three period of time. Therefore, he should not be covered by the general prohibition concerning suing his employer. Because there was no clear law on this issue in Pennsylvania, all parties agreed to a binding high-low agreement, which will result in the plaintiff actually being compensated $900,000.

The cherrry picker was actually being operated by the company's owner at the time of the accident. Apparently, the owner/operator was maneuvering the cherry picker when his head came into contact with the live electrical wires. The plaintiff in the case was also exposed to the live current causing him to pass out. When the plaintiff awoke, he proceeded to pull the owner/operator off the live wires. Unfortunately, the owner/operator died from his injures. The co-worker (plaintiff) then sued the company for his own injuries, which included speech problems, inability to work in construction and post-traumatic stress disorder. An investigation of the incident by OSHA resulted in the company being cited for two violations, which were not contested.

This case involved complex and novel legal issues in Pennsylvania concerning when a worker is covered under a worker's compensation insurance policy and when a worker is actually functioning as an independant contractor. Such issues are central to determining a plaintiff's rights to recover for their injuries. These issues were never finally resolved in this case, but because the case did go through trial and verdict, an important precedent was set. This case demonstrates how only an experienced and qualified trial attorney, who is willing to fight for your rights, can ensure that your potential case is properly evaluated and litigated to a successful conclusion.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Work Injury

Bookmark:

A July 2006 verdict awarding the parents of a one-year who allegedly died from liver failure caused by an overdose of Infant Tylenol was upheld by a Philadelphia appeals Court this month. At trial, the parents alleged that their son died after an overdose of acetaminophen resulted in liver failure. The parents argued that the warnings on the medicine were defective in not stating that liver damage or death could result from the medicine. In response, the manufacturer had argued that the child's death was not due to an overdose of the medicine; that the parents had not followed the instructions and warnings on the medicine; and that if the child did suffer from an overdose of acetaminophen, it was because the parents combined the Infant Tylenol with other cold medicines that contianed acetaminophen. In upholding the verdict, the appeal's judge held that the manufacturer's appeal of 29 different legal rulings was excessive and not consistent with a litigant's obligation to act in good faith and fair dealing with the court.

The verdict and unsuccessful appeal in the Philadephia case may be a sign of things to come as more of these cases are filed around the Nation, not only against the manufacturers, but also against the drug stores that sell the medicines. In mid-November, a Chicago mother filed suit against the manufacturer of Tylenol and also Walgreens, alleging that the death of her 4 month-old son was caused by the combination of Infant Tylenol Cold Decongestant Plus Cough and Walgreen's Pediatric Drops-Cough Plus Cold. She argues that the defendants should have known the dangers of the key ingredient of the drugs and warned purchasers of the dangers. In response to allegations that she misused the medications, the mother asserts that she gave her son the two medications back-to-back and in the indicated doses over the course of 4 days and denied that she gave the child both drugs at the same time. An autopsy showed that the infant died of an overdose of dextromethorphan, which built up in his body over the 4 days of use. The mother argues that the defendants were aware of the dangers of dextromethorphan for years, but had not warned purchasers prior to the October, 2007 FDA hearings that resulted in manufacturers removing the products from stores.

Claims against pharmaceutical companies (drug manufacturers) are becoming more common. Also in the news recently, drug manufacturuer Merck has agreed to settle over 30,000 claims concerning the durg Vioxx for $4.85 billion. There have been similar claims concerning many other types and brands of defective medications. If you believe that you have been seriously injured as a result of a defective drug, you should immediately consult with a skilled trial lawyer concerning your rights.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Defective Products

Bookmark:

A Pennyslvania appeals court recently confirmed that the time limit for filing a legal malpractice claim (a claim alleging that a laywer mishandled a case) is strictly 2 years from the date the plaintiff should have reasonably learned about the malpractice. In Wachovia v. Ferretti, the Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that it should be able to file a legal malpractice claim for 2 years from the date it learned of the amount of damages it suffered as a result of the malpractice. In rejecting this argument, the Court acknowledged that forcing a plaintiff to file a legal malpractice case while also dealing with the original law suit may result in one party making inconsistent arguments at times; however, the Court concluded that to allow a party to wait until it knows the full amount of damages caused by a lawyer's malpractice (in other words, waiting until the original law suit is over) would result in stale claims.

In general, stale ("old") claims are disfavored by the courts because witnesses' memories begin to fade and evidence is lost or difficult to find. The problems inherent in prosecuting old claims is the reason that virtually all claims in the law (with the most notable exception of murder) have "statutes of limitations" or dates by which a claim must be filed or it is forever lost. In Pennsylvania medical negligence claims, the statute of limitations requires careful analysis by an experienced lawyer because although it is simply stated as "2 years," it is actually highly dependent upon the facts of the case. In some instances, the 2 years begins to run on the date the doctor committed the negligence, in other cases it begins to run on the date the patient discovered that he/she was the victim of malpractice, and in the case of minors it does not expire until the minor's 20th birthday. Although these "rules" sound simple, in practice each case must be carefully evaluated and legal claims ("complaints") thoughtfully and artfully crafted to protect a patient's legal rights. As with many areas of the law, the statute of limitations for similar types of cases varies widely state to state, which means that it is crucial to consult with an attorney who not only handles a particular type of case, but also one who is familiar with the laws of the state in which the case can be filed.

The state (jurisdiction) and county (venue) in which a case can be brought is another area of the law that seems simple at first blush ("my surgery was in Buck's County, so my lawsuit will be in Buck's County"). While this is generally true in medical malpractice cases, in other types of cases, such as motor vehicle accidents, the decision of where to file a lawsuit also often requires thorough legal analysis so that the appropriate place for the lawsuit is chosen to best protect the legal rights of the injured victim. For instance, even if an injured victim's car accident was in Buck's County, he/she may be better off filing a lawsuit in Philadelphia if the owner of the other vehicle lives in Philadelphia. As you can see, almost without exception a person's choice of a lawyer in a medical negligence or other serious injury case can have a significant impact on the outcome of the case. At the Law Office of Leon Aussprung M.D., the facts of your case will be carefully evaluated to determine both the date by which your claims must be filed and the location in which your lawsuit should be filed, as well as all other crucial details such as the identity of appropriate witnesses and experts and the types of evidence that should be used at trial to explain your case to the jury.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Legal Malpractice

Bookmark:

Two Bucks County prison inmates were awarded a total of $1.2 million by a federal jury in Philadelphia for contracting flesh-eating bacteria (MRSA or methicillin-resistant staphlococcus aureus, also known as "staph"). After a six day trial, the jury found that both prisoners' civil rights were violated by being jailed in unsanitary conditions causing them to become becoming infected with dangerous bacteria of MRSA. The jury awarded $800,000 to one inmate and $400,000 to the second inmate, who developed serious staph infections on their skin and muscles, including their scrotum, and developed abscesses. MRSA is frequently a very destructive bacteria that can eat away at the skin and other tissues causing devastating injuries. This bacteria is resistant to most commonly used antibiotics and can be a very agressive infecttion resulting in permanent disability and death.

In 2002, 31 inmates tested poitive for MRSA infection at the Bucks County prison in Doylestown, Pennsylvania when a federal magistrate judge ordered over 1,000 prisoners to be tested for the infection. Problems surrounding MRSA infections have become numerous in institutions, including prisons, around the country. In Bucks County, their are still 17 additional court cases concerning prisoner MRSA infection that are pending with the Court. In the State of Delawarem there have also been complaints in the prisons surrounding MRSA infections and proper health care for prisoners.

This case was brought as a civil rights lawsuit, under section 1983, in federal court, because of the involvement of the state in running an unsanitary condition. There can also be cases involving MRSA infections for delay of diagnosis of this condition and not instituting approrpiate and timely medical care for the life-threatening infection. Such cases are usually brought in state court under medical malpractice theories.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Infection

Bookmark:

A Philadelphia couple was awarded $10 Million by a jury for a brain injury (closed head injury) caused when the husband was struck in the head by a piece of a falling door. During 10 days of trial, the jury learned that the 36 year old man was leaving a halloween costume store with his wife and daughter when the metal piece hit him in the head. As a result of the accident, the man suffered from headaches, an inability to sleep, dizziness, decreased concentration skills, trouble with processing words, depression and emotional instability. He became a loner who experienced emotional outbursts and a short temper with his family and employers. He lost his job developing computer software and was fired from the next three jobs he tried to hold, ultimately resulting in unemployment. His entire family was suffering from his injuries and a vocational expert testified that he was unemployable.

Before trial, the couple was offered $25,000 to settle his case, although this offer was increased to $500,000 during trial. The couple had demanded $5 Million, in part because expert testimony in the case demonstrated that the man would lose between $2.6 Million and almost $4 Million in future earnings because of the injury. Although the settlement offers were low, the defendants admitted responsiblity for the accident, but argued that the man was not seriously injured and could have continued in the job he had at the time of the accident. The jury's verdict was $8 Million for the man and $2 Million for his wife.

This case demonstrates the importance of hiring a skilled trial attorney who will not simply settle your case at the first chance. Experienced trial counsel will prepare a case for trial, hire competent experts, and be willing and able to go through a lengthy trial to get an excellent result. At the Law Office of Leon Aussprung MD, LLC, you will get an experienced trial attorney who stands ready to try cases when a fair and reasonable settlement cannot be reached.

Posted by Leon Aussprung | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Premises Liability

Bookmark: