Allegations of Liability: Failure to rec- ognize cephalopelvic disproportion and shoulder dystocia; failure to perform nec- essary C-section.


Injuries/Damages: Mental retardation, communication disorder, mild right hemiparesis


Plaintiff’s Experts: Sandra Quartner, MD (OB-Gyn), Steven Shedlin (Vocational/ Life Care Planner); Dr. Thomas Borzilleri (Economist)


Verdict/Settlement: $1,860,000.00


Settled for


Plaintiff ’s Counsel: Roger J. Bennett (MTLA member) Horn & Bennett, P.A.; Baltimore, MD


Defense Counsel: Withheld at request ________


Stuart R. Kasdin v. George Washington University, et al. District of Columbia


Facts of Case: Stuart Kasdin was 36- years-old and, due to an unknown illness contracted in Mexico, went to see a phy- sician within the George Washington University Health Plan. Plaintiff was di- agnosed with a virus. A few months later, he was ill again and this time the doctor decided he might have pyelonephritis and sent him to a Plan urologist. After diagnosing an obstruction of the right ureter, the urologist performed an unsuccessful stent.


The urologist next


performed a dismembered pyeloplasty, in which a portion of the ureter is removed and the remaining section reattached to the kidney. The procedure went smoothly with only the common complication of a hematoma within the ureter. One week after discharge, he returned for follow-up and was seen by a resident instead of the urologist. The resident ordered Plaintiff to return as necessary and to have his stent removed. On his scheduled date, he re- turned to have his stent removed by the defendant urologist. Although a record was allegedly kept of the removal, it was never found. Following the removal, Plaintiff was never informed of a creatinine study which indicated a slight decrease in kidney func- tion.


Also, he was never given any


instructions about the necessity of having a scan of his kidney to be sure that there had not been any reobstruction. Because of the known complication of a reobstruction, a renal scan is standard procedure.


Summer 2001 Trial Reporter 47


Allegations of negligence: Plaintiff ’s al- legation was that the follow-up care was inappropriate in that a scan of some sort should have been done within four to six weeks after removal of the stent. Plaintiff further contended that, if it had been done, the reobstruction would have been diagnosed and successfully treated earlier.


Damages: In addition to the fact that Mr. Kasdin incurred a year of serious pain and numerous procedures, the primary damage was the loss of a kidney. The plaintiff did not present any evi- dence on medical expenses or lost earnings because it was decided that it would be dis- tracting to try to break down the medical expenses that would not have otherwise occurred and there was not a substantial amount of lost time from work. The de- fendant countered that, notwithstanding the lack of documentary proof, Plaintiff had been told to return for the scan and sug- gested he was therefore responsible for the death of his own kidney. Also, defendant claimed that the kidney was already dam- aged prior to the pyeloplasty, and that this was simply an unfortunate and unusual event without any negligence.


Several months later he returned to the


urologist with complaints similar his origi- nal symptoms. A urinalysis, creatinine and culture were done and the creatinine showed a further decrease in kidney func- tion but the urinalysis study was not seen at the time by the physician. It also indi- cated some abnormalities. About six weeks later, after urinating blood, he im- mediately returned to the doctor. The studies showed a nonfunctioning kidney and, after numerous attempts at repair, the diagnosis was permanent damage from a reobstruction.


Plaintiff ’s Experts: Arnold Melman, M.D., New York City, NY


Defense Experts: Stephen Jacobs, M.D., Baltimore, MD; Lawrence Holder, M.D., Baltimore, MD; Lindsey A. Kerr, M.D., District of Columbia defendant


Verdict/Settlement: Verdict $1,500,000.00


Special Remarks: After the trial, the court and counsel met with the jury. At that time it was learned that most jurors wanted to render a higher award and that they were most disturbed by the lack of documentation.


Plaintiff ’s Counsel: Barry J. Nace (MTLA member) and Brian Kim, Paulson & Nace; Washington, DC


Defense Counsel: Mary Lynn Reed, Jack- son & Campbell


________


Charles E. Swecker, II. v. Stanley Chung, M.D. Court/Docket No: Frederick County Circuit Court, Civil No. 10-C-99-002466 MM


Facts: In November of 1997, Mr. Swecker fell on the job and incurred loose bodies in his right elbow. Mr. Swecker under- went arthroscopic elbow surgery by Dr. Stanley Chung in February of 1998 and during that procedure, the median nerve in his right arm was severed when Dr. Chung improperly created the anteriomedial portal on the inside of Mr. Swecker’s right arm.


(Continued on page 48)


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56