This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Recent Verdicts and Settlements (Continued from page 51)


ogy, New York, NY; Steven Rosenoff, M.D., Oncology, Roanoke, VA; Michael Levy, M.D., Cardiovascular Surgeon, Manhassett, NY


Defendant: Anonymous Settled prior to filing: $1,500,000.00 Adjustor: Anonymous Insurance Company: Anonymous


Special Remarks: Case settled prior to fil- ing


Plaintiff ’s Counsel: Jonathan Schochor* and Phillip C, Federico* Defense Counsel: Anonymous * MTLA Members


______


Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Anonymous Defen- dant Hospital (#34)


Court/ Docket #: Circuit Court for Bal- timore City


Facts and Allegations of Liability: It is alleged that the Plaintiff ’s Decedent, who was 30 years of age, had an abnormality known as primary sclerosing cholangitis — a condition that ultimately leads to cir- rhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant As a result of the Plaintiff ’s Decedent’s otherwise superb health, he rapidly moved to the top of the transplant list, receiving a new liver at the Defen- dant Hospital in April of 2000. It is asserted that the transplant was success- ful, and that the Plaintiff’s Decedent was recuperating well post-surgery. Because of his excellent health, the


Plaintiff ’s Decedent was gainfully em- ployed and actively working up to the day before the liver transplant took place. It is alleged that post-surgery, the De- fendant Hospital’s negligence killed Decedent. Specifically, on May 28, 2000, due to Decedent’s difficulty breathing, a portable chest film was ordered to be brought to his bedside and completed. He was not to be moved to the area of the hospital where radiology was housed. Contrary to the order for the portable chest film, nursing personnel sent the Plaintiff ’s Decedent to radiology where he


52


suffered a cardiorespiratory arrest. To compound this negligence, hospital per- sonnel failed to institute an appropriate emergency resuscitation, thereby signifi- cantly delaying initiation of any effective resuscitative measures. As a direct and proximate result of sending the Plaintiff ’s Decedent down to the radiology depart- ment rather than performing the portable chest film, and as the direct result of the Defendant personnel’s failure to institute proper resuscitation, the Plaintiff’s Dece- dent suffered hypoxic injury and also sustained organ failure and/or shut down including, but not limited to, his kidneys. Additional negligence followed. As the


direct and proximate result of this ongo- ing negligence, the Decedent required dialysis at the Defendant Hospital. Incred- ibly, when hospital personnel passed an internal jugular catheter for the institu- tion of dialysis, they negligently pierced the right ventricle and lodged the cath- eter in the heart. Furthermore, these personnel negligently failed to recognize that they had placed the catheter directly into the heart and permitted it to remain. Subsequently, they again compounded their negligence by utilizing the catheter thereby inflicting additional damage such that the Plaintiff ’s Decedent’s heart ceased functioning. Under these circumstances, with the catheter piercing the heart wall and actu- ally entering the right ventricle, resuscitative measures proved ineffectual and the Plaintiff’s Decedent died on July 4, 2000. The Plaintiff’s Decedent is sur- vived by his wife and minor son.


Expert Witnesses: Plaintiff: Dennis Bordan, M.D., Port Washington, NY, General Surgery


Defendant: Anonymous Settled: $1,900,000.00 Adjustor: Anonymous Insurance Company: Anonymous


Plaintiff ’s Counsel: Jonathan Schochor* and Kerry D. Staton* Defense Counsel: Anonymous *indicates MTLA member ______


Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Anonymous Defen- dant Hospital (39)


Trial Reporter


Court/ Docket #: Presuit Settlement


Facts and Allegations of Liability: Plaintiff ’s Decedent, who was only 44 years of age, was admitted through the emergency department with a diagnosis of pneumonia, which proved to be a strep pneumoniae bacteremia. In fact, the bac- teremia meant that this gentleman had the strep pneumoniae in his blood stream. Additionally, a chest x-ray was interpreted to show a dense left lower lobe infiltrate with an elevated hemi-diaphragm. In point of fact, the overwhelming probabil- ity was that the density was an empyema at that time. Further, Plaintiff ’s Decedent had decreased oxygenation, tachypnea, and a fever of 104.2º. In sum, this gentle- man had a pneumonia, which required intensive and ongoing treatment. Tragically, Defendant Hospital person- nel discharged this man in two days. First, it is significant that the patient was not even seen by a physician on the date of discharge — which is a breach in the standards of care. Second, there was no repeat chest film ever performed on the patient prior to his discharge. Third, the Defendant Hospital violated its own written criteria for discharge of a pneumonia patient in two significant areas: first, the patient’s oxygen saturation level had to be 92% or better on room air, while Plaintiff ’s Decedent documented oxygen saturation at the time they sent him home was only 90%; and second, the Plaintiff ’s Decedent was suffering with pleuriti chest pain upon discharge when the criteria indicate that he must not be suffer- ing from any chest pain prior to discharge. Further, Plaintiff’s Decedent suffered with shortness of breath and was tachycardic at the time of discharge. However, Defendant Hospital personnel never even took a sec- ond blood culture to be sure that the bacteria in the blood on admission, was eradicated. Tragically, due to the negligence of the


Defendant Hospital personnel, Plaintiff ’s Decedent collapsed and died at his home within two days of the time that the De- fendant Hospital personnel negligently sent him home. An autopsy confirmed death due to the pneumonia.


Injuries and Damages: Death


Expert Witnesses: Plaintiff: Robert Hines, M.D., Specialty: Pulmonary Medicine: Akron, OH


Defendant: Anonymous Settled: $800,000.00


(Continued on page 54) Spring 2003


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  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64