|
News - Verdicts/Successes
Announcements
|Verdicts/Successes
John
R. Hill Obtains Back-to-Back Defense Verdicts
John R. Hill of our Bethlehem Office recently obtained
back-to-back defense verdicts in two cases where the
allegations of negligence involved the failure of a
healthcare provider to timely diagnose cancer.
A Luzerne County Jury returned a defense verdict in
favor of a radiologist on December 5, 2006. The malpractice
suit filed by the plaintiff on behalf of her deceased
father, claimed that a radiologist failed to properly
interpret a barium enema study performed in September
2001, which study revealed a malignant lesion in the
colon. The patient was not diagnosed with cancer until
one year later. Due to the delay, the cancer spread
to the patient’s liver resulting in his death.
Counsel for the family argued by way of expert testimony
by a radiologist and oncologist that the films of the
barium enema study clearly showed the lesion and that
the delay in diagnosis allowed the cancer to spread
from the colon to the liver. Emotional testimony was
offered by family members, friends and the decedent
himself by way of videotaped testimony.
After six days of trial, the jury returned a unanimous
verdict in favor of the radiologist. The defense offered
by Attorney Hill centered on expert testimony by a radiologist
and oncologist that the films in question did not reveal
the presence of a lesion and that by the time the study
was performed in 2001 the cancer had already spread
to the patient’s liver.
Less than a week later, Attorney Hill was defending
a radiology practice before a Northampton County Jury
in a trial where the allegations again surrounded a
delay in diagnosing cancer.
The second malpractice suit alleged that in 2001 a
radiologist failed to properly interpret an MRI of the
plaintiff’s right foot and ankle, which study
revealed the presence of Synovial Cell Sarcoma in the
heel and ankle. The plaintiff was not diagnosed until
11 months later. The delay allegedly allowed the cancer
to spread requiring a below the knee amputation.
Counsel for the plaintiffs’ retained a leading
expert in the field of Oncological Reconstructive Surgery
who testified that due to the delay in diagnosing the
sarcoma in both the heel and ankle, the plaintiff was
left with only one option for cure and that was by way
of amputation. The plaintiff's expert testified that
had the diagnosis been made in 2001, then a salvage
procedure could have been performed to have saved her
leg.
After four days of trial, the Jury returned a verdict
in favor of the radiologist and his practice when it
came to light that the plaintiff’s expert based
his opinion concerning the salvage procedure on the
mistaken belief that the cancer found in the heel and
ankle where different cancers. On Cross-examination,
the expert conceded that he was not provided information
by the plaintiff's attorneys to confirm that the cancer
found in both the heel and ankle were the same.
|
