|
News- Verdicts/Successes
Announcements
|Verdicts/Successes
Jury
clears Bloom doctor.
By MICHAEL REICH - Press Enterprise Writer
BLOOMSBURG
— Urologist Raj P. Chopra hugged his lawyer and
wiped away tears Thursday after a jury found he was
not negligent in his care of Jesse Carr.
"I'm
glad it's over. The jury did the right thing. I expected
the decision," said the 66-year-old doctor, a Bloomsburg
urologist who practices in Shamokin and formerly saw
patients in Berwick.
Jurors
deliberated an hour before delivering a verdict. Carr,
a 72-year-old from the Danville area, declined to comment
after the verdict was read. Carr and wife Mary Ruth
sought unspecified monetary damages in their civil suit
against the doctor.
Carr's
attorneys, Alice Corba and Frank Kepner of Berwick,
argued during the three-day trial that Chopra performed
an invasive surgery on Carr in September 1998 that left
Carr in pain. The operation was done about one week
after Chopra removed a kidney stone from Carr's urinary
tract.
Carr's
medical expert testified Wednesday that Chopra did not
need to cut Carr open. Instead, Chopra only needed a
needle to place a protective stent inside Carr's ureter.
The ureter channels urine from the kidneys to the bladder.
That's where Carr's stone was lodged. Carr claimed the
effects from his second surgery have ruined his sex
life and limited his ability to care for his handicapped
son and tend to his cattle farm.
Defense
expert
Chopra's lawyer, Mark Perry of Scranton, called his
own medical expert to testify yesterday. Dr. Keith N.
Van Arsdalen, director of a urology clinic at the University
of Pennsylvania, told jurors Chopra acted properly.
"I think that Dr. Chopra should really be commended
for how attentive he was. I think he did a very good
job in taking care of Mr. Carr," Van Arsdalen testified.
He
said Chopra had no choice but to cut open Carr because
so much fluid had leaked into Carr's body. Carr's expert
said the urine could've been extracted with a needle
or been reabsorbed into the body.
Van
Arsdalen, countered that a needle wouldn't have taken
out all the fluid. He added that the fluid couldn't
be left inside Carr to reabsorb because there was too
much and there was a significant chance for scarring
damage and infection. Van Arsdalen said an infection
could've led to the removal of Carr's kidney. He called
Chopra's decision to cut into Carr the "most efficient
and most effective" way to remedy his post-operative
problems.
Perry
told jurors in his closing statement that his expert
reviewed a CAT scan that showed an extensive amount
of fluid leaked outside Carr's kidney. Perry argued
that since the plaintiff's expert did not see that test,
he could not adequately determine what Chopra should
have done.
"An
expert is only as good as the information provided,"
Perry told jurors.
To
test or not
Carr's
lawyers contended that Chopra violated proper standards
of care a second time by not ordering tests to see what
was wrong with Carr when he complained of pain five
days after the first surgery. But Dr. Van Arsdalen said
Chopra didn't have the indications he needed to request
the testing. Van Arsdalen said the doctor could have
thought Carr's pain was related to the stone removal.
Instead
of the testing, Chopra prescribed Vicodin for Carr's
pain. When he returned to see Chopra two days later,
Carr's pain was gone even though he wasn't taking the
medication, the defense argued.
Van
Arsdalen also testified that Chopra's work on Carr couldn't
have led to any sexual dysfunction. Throughout the trial,
the defense tried to link Carr's impotence to prostate
medication.
Juror:
Decision clear
Juror
Derek Carl of Catawissa said the jury argued little
in reaching a verdict, and the decision was fairly clear
to everyone. "All felt (Chopra) showed he wasn't
negligent," said Carl. The jury consisted of five
men and seven women and included a registered nurse
from Bloomsburg. Carr's case was initially tried in
January but ended in a mistrial after less than a day.
President
Judge Scott W. Naus ended that proceeding when Carr
testified he was still seeking pain treatment —
something neither the defense nor the plaintiff's attorneys
knew then.
|
