Because she was in her late 30s, the plaintiff's (wife) second pregnancy was treated as "high risk" which in this case meant close monitoring of the baby's size, particularly after the mother developed gestational diabetes. We argued that the delivering ob/gyn should have offered the mother a C-section because of the likelihood that the baby would be very big.
The ob/gyn proceeded with a vaginal delivery without even offering the mother a choice. Because of the baby was very large size (over 11.4 pounds) the baby suffered temporary injuries from which he quickly recovered but the mother suffered injuries which were permanent and have affected relations with her husband. In October 2011, the jury found that the defendant doctor breached her duty under New Jersey law to provide her patient with all information necessary to make a reasoned decision.
The jury awarded the mother/wife $250,000 and the husband $25,000.
We won a substantial jury verdict in Philadelphia against Temple University Hospital and individual doctors. The case arose from a tumor in the patient's head that went undiagnosed until it had grown to the size of a lemon and caused permanent injuries and impairments.
The patient's troubles began in the early 1990's when he noticed problems with hearing in his left ear. When he went to see his family doctor for the persistent problem a sequence of errors was set into motion which nearly cost the patient his life. What could have been diagnosed by means of a simple MRI, went undiscovered until 1998. At that point, the patient was finally found to have a tumor in his skull that had grown to approximately five centimeters in diameter. Although the tumor was not cancerous, it had grown so large that it was compressing the patient's brain within the limited space of the skull. The patient required multiple surgeries to relieve the pressure in his skull and remove the expanding tumor.
As a result of the tumor's growth and the complicated surgical procedures that were required after the tumor's late discovery, the patient has permanent hearing loss, as well as nerve damage in his face. He also must live the rest of his life with the very real possibility that the tumor will grow back again. The case was tried in front of a 12-member jury in Philadelphia and lasted more than a week.
After all closing arguments, the jury returned a verdict of $2.3 million dollars to compensate the patient for the doctors' failure to make a timely diagnosis.
We won a verdict which provides essential care and assistance to a young boy who suffered a catastrophic injury when he was only 6 months old. Under the then current law of New Jersey, the boy, now 14 years old, was entitled to have all medical necessities provided and paid for by his parents' auto insurance company for the rest of his life.
Despite New Jersey's clear law, the Allstate Insurance Company insisted that it did not have to pay for a wheelchair accessible van, essential modifications to the family's home and the services of a professional care coordinator who could oversee the boy's numerous medical needs. In order to provide these necessities for their son, the parents sued Allstate. The parents had previously been forced to transport their son, who is paralyzed, by lifting him out of his wheelchair and carrying him into a normal passenger car. As their son grew, this maneuver proved increasingly difficult and dangerous.
The insurance company argued that such a vehicle, despite the boy's quadriplegia, was not a medical necessity. The court found in favor of the family and ordered a van, with modifications, to be provided by Allstate. Although Allstate had previously provided some modifications to the family home, those modifications were, ten years later, falling into disrepair and, in some cases, never done right in the first place.
We obtained the services of a construction contractor with expertise and background in making homes accessible for people with disabilities. He identified nearly $90,000 worth of modifications that needed to be made right away. Despite Allstate's contention that it was responsible for less than half that scope of work, the Court ordered that the modifications be made in accord with the recommendation of the family's expert. The Court also awarded the family services of a care coordinator to help alleviate the burden on the parents. By means of the care coordinator's expert testimony, the determined that such a 'point person' was a medical necessity for a young boy with so many health complications.
We obtained a $300,000 settlement for the victim of a drunk driver who was served alcohol after becoming visibly intoxicated. Our client was leaving a local bar on foot when she was run down by a drunk driver who was leaving the same bar in his car. We alleged that the driver had been served alcohol even after he had become visibly drunk. Under such circumstances, the bar serving the alcohol is held accountable for injuries caused by the drunk patron.
On a summer evening, our client was standing in the parking lane well off the side of the road when the drunk patron came at her at a high rate of speed. As a result of being hit, our client suffered several serious fractures to her left leg, in addition to other injuries. She was rushed to the hospital and required surgery with placement of hardware in her leg. Since the incident, two additional surgeries have been performed and our client has been left with extensive scarring. She was twenty-six years old at the time of this incident.
A second pedestrian was hit at the same time and bar's limited insurance policy had to be apportioned between our client and the other victim. Not all auto crash injuries are the same. In this case, the cause of the injury was not just the driver, but the bar that plied him with alcohol over the course of the night.
Our team secured a settlement for a woman with severe disabilities, who was dropped on the ground as she and her wheelchair were being loaded into a van. The client suffered a severe spinal cord injury approximately 20 years ago that left her almost completely paralyzed.
On a December evening, she was coming out of a doctor's appointment and intended to use a transportation service to get her and her large motorized wheelchair back home. Network Ambulance dispatched a specially equipped van to pick up the patient. The van driver/attendant told the patient to put her wheelchair on the lift mechanism that was attached to the van, and the patient complied. The attendant then activated the lift and it began to raise the wheelchair and the patient above the ground. The attendant failed to activate the lift's safety sill, and when the weight of the chair tipped the lift toward the ground, the chair was allowed to roll off the lift and fall to the ground. If the attendant had activated the safety sill and applied the wheelchair's brakes, this accident would have been avoided.
As a result of her fall, the patient, who already suffered from severe disability, suffered a broken left hip and injuries to her knee. The hip required surgery with the permanent placement of plates and screw in the patient's bones. She continues to have significant pain and difficulty sleeping from the hip injury. The incident also created a massive setback for ongoing physical therapy that was intended to restore some function to her arms and hands.
We secured a a substantial jury verdict against Paoli Hospital, for a client who suffered a stroke when his blood pressure was allowed to become dangerously low during routine bypass surgery. Our client was suffering from severe leg cramps. He was referred for bypass surgery that would improve his circulation and help the cramps. The surgery was performed at Paoli Hospital. As part of his preparation, the patient was given an anesthetic. This caused a drop in his blood pressure, which the hospital staff attempted to treat with medicine that is designed to increase blood pressure. Even though the medicine raised his blood pressure a little, it was still dangerously low when the surgery began.
Because the patient's blood pressure was not properly regulated, he suffered a stroke during surgery. As a result of the stroke, the patient/client was left paralyzed on his left side and unable to speak clearly. At age 59 he was no longer able to work and completely dependent on his wife for everyday care. The defendants argued that the blood pressure was within safe limits and that the stroke was a recognized risk of surgery.
In short, they claimed that they did nothing wrong. The week-long trial took place in Chester County before a jury of twelve. When all the arguments had been made, the jury found in favor of our clients and awarded $600,000 to the patient for the permanent injuries he suffered, and $100,000 to his wife.