Recent Verdicts and Settlements (Continued from page 52)
Adjustor: Anonymous Insurance Company: Anonymous Plaintiff ’s Counsel: Jonathan Schochor* Defense Counsel: Anonymous *indicates MTLA member ______
Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Anonymous Defen- dant Physician and Anonymous Defendant Professional Association
Court/ Docket #: Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Facts and Allegations of Liability: On March 2, 2000, the Claimant telephoned the Defendant’s office requesting an im- mediate appointment and was referred to the Defendant. At that time, the Claim- ant complained that he had a numbness and weakness in the right arm with a cold feeling.
On March 3, 2000, Defendant Physi- cian saw Plaintiff and performed a perfunctory, cursory examination, listened to the history as the Claimant related the new onset of his inability to use his arm, as well as the numbness he had experi- enced, and advised the Claimant that he was most likely suffering with some form of a brachial plexus injury which may in- volve a tumor or mass. It is alleged that the Defendant Physi- cian scheduled the Claimant for an MRI of the neck and a CAT scan of the chest the following Monday, March 6, 2000,
www.atla.org ATLA’s Ultimate Web Resource a r u s
Join Thousands of Your Colleagues Who Visit
atla.org Daily
Keep abreast of changing legislative and congressional news
Join one or more of the practice section, litigation group, and caucus list servers
Stay on top of breaking legal news with the weekly e-mail newsletter—ATLA L@w News Digest
Find an ATLA member in the easy-to-search, online membership directory
Access the Exchange and its multitude of litigation resources
Learn about upcoming 2002 education programs and colleges and register online
For more information, visit
www.atla.org
or e-mail
info@atlahq.org. 54 Trial Reporter
and discharged him from her office. On Monday morning, March 6, 2000, the Claimant had the tests and promptly telephoned the Defendant Physician re- questing an immediate appointment for a diagnosis because, as he informed the Defendant Physician, his right leg was now involved in addition to his arm. Con- trary to the standards of care, the Defendant Physician refused to see the Claimant even under these exigent cir- cumstances and, instead, set the appointment for the next day and assured Plaintiff the delay would cause no harm. Tragically, during the early morning hours of March 7, 2000, the Claimant suffered a massive occlusion of the inter- nal carotid artery (on the left side), rendering the Claimant totally disabled from virtually any activity. He was trans- ported to the Hospital where he was diagnosed with a stroke and remained confined from March 7, 2000 until March 14, 2000, at which time he was transferred for long term rehabilitation. The Claimant alleges that the Defen-
dant Physician violated the standards of care when she saw the Claimant on March 3, 2000. At that time, the Defendant mis- diagnosed his condition completely — attributing it to some “mass effect” or problem with a brachial plexus, when in fact, the Claimant was suffering an oc- cluded carotid artery which required immediate neurological assessment, diag- nosis and intervention. It is asserted that the condition’s onset coupled with the other signs and symptoms required the Defendant physiatrist to order appropri- ate tests and studies on an emergency basis and/or refer the Claimant on an emer- gency basis for a neurological work-up. Had the Defendant acted in conformity with the standards of care, studies would have been performed which would have absolutely diagnosed the complete occlu- sion of the internal carotid artery. Subsequent to the diagnosis, surgical in- tervention would have been provided by an appropriate surgeon, and the Claim- ant would never have suffered the massive stroke, which ensued. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant Physician, the Claimant has been rendered totally disabled and requires care 24 hours a day, every day, as he is unable to even accom- plish his most basic of daily needs. It is further alleged that he will require 24- hour care every day for his entire life.
Expert Witnesses: Plaintiff: Brian Zell, M.D.: Specialty: Orthopedic Surgery; Marlton, NJ; Fritz
Spring 2003
r s c i
f n r
o m
s
h c e e h s
i s
e
a
d r
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