Clay Edwards and Katherine Kerns Vesely successfully defended an interventional cardiologist in Columbus, Indiana.  Plaintiff alleged that the cardiologist negligently performed a heart catheterization and stenting procedure and caused an intravascular ultrasound catheter to become lodged in the plaintiff’s coronary artery.  All efforts to dislodge the catheter were unsuccessful, so the patient underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery.  During the bypass surgery, the surgeon was also unsuccessful in his attempts to dislodge the catheter and, instead, amputated the catheter at its tip and bypassed around the affected artery.  Plaintiff alleged that the retained catheter tip caused him pain and suffering, emotional distress, and caused him to incur medical expenses to address ongoing medical problems. Edwards and Vesely defended the case by submitting medical proof that the cardiologist met the standard of care in performing the heart catheterization and stent procedures and simply encountered a known and recognized, though rare, complication.  The proof also demonstrated that many of plaintiff’s injuries resulted from his numerous other medical conditions and his failure to follow his physicians’ instructions after the heart procedures.  Further medical proof was submitted supporting the fact that the cardiologist took reasonable and appropriate steps to protect the patient against the recognized and known complication of catheter entrapment during a procedure.  Defense experts included an interventional cardiologist from Evansville, Indiana and an interventional cardiologist/panel member from Fort Wayne, Indiana.  The jury agreed with the Defendant and returned a unanimous defense verdict.

           Clay Edwards, Michael Dailey and Ashley Duncan successfully defended a general surgeon in Lexington, Kentucky. Plaintiffs, a surviving brother and son, alleged that the surgeon was negligent in his care by not performing an emergent sigmoid colectomy. The decedent was admitted to the hospital to stabilize her glucose levels, and during her admission she began experiencing stomach pain. A colonic obstruction was suspected and she was treated medically for this condition. One day after the surgeon saw the decedent, she passed away, despite resuscitative efforts. A limited autopsy revealed many anatomical diagnoses, most notably in the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular system. Plaintiffs alleged the surgeon did not establish a suitable treatment plan, and that the delay in surgery was a substantial factor in her death. Edwards, Dailey and Duncan defended the case by submitting medical proof that the surgeon met the standard of care by treating the condition medically, as emergent surgery was not indicated based on the physical examination and stable vital signs. Defense experts included a colorectal surgeon from Vanderbilt University and a general surgeon from Indianapolis, Indiana. Both experts agreed decedent’s death appeared to be a sudden death with no signs or symptoms of sepsis, which would be expected in a patient declining due to a bowel perforation. The jury unanimously exonerated the surgeon after 30 minutes of deliberation.

 Tracy Prewitt successfully defended an orthopedic surgeon against allegations of medical malpractice at trial in Columbus, Indiana.  Plaintiff arrived by ambulance to Columbus Regional Hospital with a chief complaint of extreme pain in her left thigh.  She had fallen while walking her dog and sustained a twisting injury to her left leg.  The leg was visibly shortened and she was completely unable to bear weight.  The on-call orthopedic surgeon examined her and diagnosed a severe, displaced fracture through the middle third of the left femur.  Treatment options were discussed and Plaintiff consented to proceed with surgery.  The orthopedic surgeon performed an open reduction and internal fixation procedure on Plaintiff’s left femur, which included intramedullary nailing of the left femur.  Plaintiff alleged that the orthopedic surgeon provided inadequate surgical care by failing to fully compress the severely fractured bone, claiming this eventually caused a nonunion.  Plaintiff claimed that, as a result of the orthopedic surgeon’s care, she incurred medical bills, endured pain and suffering, and had to undergo a second surgery to repair the nonunion.  The defense countered that the orthopedic surgeon’s evaluation and surgical treatment of Plaintiff was appropriate.  The significant risks and complications of the surgical repair of the severe fracture were discussed before the surgery and the surgeon carefully performed the open reduction and internal fixation procedure to the severely fractured leg.  Despite the best medical care for the severely fractured leg, Plaintiff experienced a well-known complication of the leg surgery, which subsequently was repaired.  The jury unanimously agreed with the defense that the orthopedic surgeon acted appropriately and entered a defense verdict finding no fault against him.

      Clay Edwards and Benjamin Weigel successfully defended a board-certified cardiothoracic surgeon against allegations of medical malpractice in Pulaski County Circuit Court in Somerset, Kentucky.  Plaintiff alleged that her 41-year old husband died as the result of improperly performed mechanical aortic valve replacement surgery.  Plaintiff further argued that the surgeon placed the mechanical valve such that it occluded blood flow to the left coronary artery and caused an intraoperative myocardial infarction.  This theory of liability was supported by autopsy findings from the University of Kentucky as well as by a prominent cardiothoracic surgeon from St. Louis, Missouri.  Edwards and Weigel argued that the surgeon complied with the standard of care and that the autopsy findings were not supported by adequate evidence.  The defense theory was supported by a senior partner in the largest cardiothoracic surgery practice in Greater Cincinnati.  The jury unanimously exonerated the surgeon after 35 minutes of deliberation.

       Christopher O’Bryan and Andie Brent Camden successfully defended a Paducah based bariatric surgeon in McCracken County, KY.  Plaintiffs alleged that the surgeon negligently performed laparoscopic Roux en Y surgery causing the development of recurrent internal hernias.  Plaintiffs sought approximately $6 million in damages.  O’Bryan and Camden defended the case by submitting medical proof that the standard of care was met in the surgery and many of plaintiffs injuries resulted from medical conditions other than the bariatric surgery.  Further medical proof was submitted which indicated that the surgeon took all appropriate steps to protect the patient against the recognized and known complication of internal hernia.  Defense experts included a bariatric surgeon from Florida and a bariatric and general surgeon from Nebraska.  The jury agreed with the Defendant and returned a defense verdict.

Clay Edwards and Joshua Davis successfully defended a general surgeon in Evansville, Indiana.  Plaintiffs, surviving spouse and daughter, alleged that the surgeon negligently failed to resect a section of bowel which suffered from obviously diminished blood flow in the course of a complicated 8-hour gallbladder removal and ventral hernia repair surgery. The decedent patient appeared well in the first two post-operative days following the surgery, but on the third day the patient’s status quickly declined as a result of a perforated bowel. The perforated bowel led to sepsis and ultimately systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). A surgery to repair the perforated colon was undertaken on the third post-operative day from the initial surgery which was successful. The decedent patient did not regain consciousness after the surgery and passed away within a day thereafter. Defense experts from Indianapolis and Kokomo, Indiana, and Columbus, Ohio, testified that it was reasonable for the surgeon to have found the section of bowel which perforated viable at the close of the initial surgery, and that it was not a deviation from the standard of care to have failed to recognize that blood flow to that portion of bowel had been interrupted in the first surgery. The jury unanimously found in the surgeon’s favor.

This marks the ninth unanimous defense verdict obtained by O’Bryan, Brown and Toner in Evansville, IN since 2007.

Mark Hammond and Joseph Klausing obtained a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of their client, a family physician practicing in Evansville, Indiana. Plaintiffs alleged that the physician’s failure to perform adequate screening examinations led to a delayed diagnosis in developmental dysplasia of the hip in a one year old. Unfortunately, the child has undergone significant surgeries and subsequent medical treatment related to the hip. Hammond and Klausing countered that the physician acted appropriately and that the child had no signs or symptoms of hip dysplasia during examinations. The Vanderburgh County jury needed less than an hour to return a unanimous defense verdict, awarding none of the damages claimed.

Gerald Toner and Joshua Davis successfully defended a Versailles neurosurgeon in a medical malpractice action in Franklin Circuit Court. After receiving an injury to his cervical spine at work, the neurosurgeon performed a 2-level cervical discectomy fusion surgery at C5-6 and C6-7. Prior to surgery, Plaintiff had complained of severe right arm and neck pain. After surgery, Plaintiff’s symptoms included bilateral arm pain and paresthesia, right-sided hemiparesthesia from his nipple to the toes of his right foot, and alleged difficulty voiding, among other symptoms. Such symptoms waxed and waned over the next six years, ultimately worsening in severity. Plaintiff claimed that the neurosurgeon committed negligence during his surgery, injuring his spinal cord, and causing his current symptoms and inability to work. Toner and Davis defended by submitting proof that Plaintiff suffered from an ischemic injury surgery which is a known complication of the surgical procedure for which Plaintiff had provided informed consent. Alternatively, Plaintiff suffered from a progressive demyelinating disease wholly unrelated to the neurosurgeon’s surgery, but in fact triggered by the surgery. Overcoming the testimony of Plaintiff’s experts from Northern Kentucky, Georgia and Texas, the jury found the neurosurgeon committed no malpractice.

Tracy Prewitt and Casey Krill successfully defended an Owensboro based obstetrician in this medical malpractice action in Federal District Court. Plaintiffs claimed that the physician negligently failed to diagnose congenital heart defects which ultimately proved fatal twenty-seven days after birth. Plaintiffs alleged that had the physician referred the patient to a specialist, the fetal defects could have been diagnosed. Plaintiffs sought approximately $10 million for the loss of their child. Prewitt and Krill defended by submitting medical proof that reassuring images of the fetal heart had been obtained by ultrasound prior to delivery and that the physician appropriately relied upon the ultrasound images and report. Further medical proof was submitted which indicated that even if advanced testing had been performed by a specialist, the congenital defects would not have been diagnosed in utero. Defense experts included a fetal cardiologist from Tampa, Florida and an obstetrician from Louisville, Kentucky. The jury agreed with the Defendant and unanimously found in her favor.

Gerry Toner and Brent Asseff successfully defended a Louisville gynecologist in a medical malpractice action in Jefferson (Ky.) Circuit Court.  The Plaintiff claimed that the physician failed to timely diagnose her endometrial cancer during the summer and autumn of 2006.  The Plaintiff alleged that the physician should have performed a D&C biopsy as a stand alone procedure, which she contended would have revealed the presence of cancer, rather than recommend a hysterectomy with frozen section biopsy.  Despite consenting to a hysterectomy and biopsy in September 2006, the Plaintiff sought other treatment before finally undergoing surgery in December 2007, at which time the physician found Stage IV cancer.   The Plaintiff sought approximately $5 million in damages.  Toner and Asseff defended the physician by submitting medical proof that cancer was low on the differential diagnosis, that the patient needed a hysterectomy to treat known benign conditions, and that the patient refused to undergo a hysterectomy despite her doctor’s recommendations.  The defense also submitted medical evidence that a D&C biopsy performed in 2006 would likely have not revealed the presence of cancer.  A hysterectomy is the only procedure that could have and did detect cancer, but the Plaintiff delayed surgery by 15 months when she sought alternative treatment options.  Defense experts included a gynecologist from Orlando, Florida, a gynecologic oncologist from Cincinnati, Ohio, and an oncologist and pathologist from Louisville, Kentucky.  The jury agreed with the defense and found in the physician’s favor.

Gerald Toner and Brittany Asher successfully defended a general surgeon and his practice group in Jefferson Circuit Court.  Plaintiff, a Crohn’s patient, alleged that the defendant surgeon failed to discover a fistula between her ileum and sigmoid colon in the course of two abdominal operations to correct a naturally occurring stricture of her terminal ileum in June 2007. Plaintiff’s expert, a highly renowned local surgeon, testified that the failure to discover the fistula resulted in pain and suffering as well as an inordinate number of emergency room visits and medical bills until it was ultimately discovered by a colorectal surgeon (the expert’s wife) in July 2008.  Toner and Asher countered by establishing that fistula is a known complication of Crohn’s disease and could have arisen at any point in the thirteen months between June of 2007 and July of 2008.  Further, as the defense pointed out, Plaintiff’s complaints throughout that time period were largely inconsistent with a fistula but entirely consistent with recurrent Crohn’s disease.  In fact, her complaints between June of 2007 and July of 2008 were indistinguishable from her complaints prior to June 2007 and after July 2008, when the fistula was said to have been repaired. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the surgeon following approximately twenty minutes of deliberation.

Gerald Toner and Katherine Vesely successfully defended an orthopedic trauma surgeon against allegations of medical malpractice during an eight-day trial in Jefferson County Circuit Court.  Plaintiff had jumped off of a falling ladder and fell twenty feet to the ground, breaking his wrist and severely breaking his leg.  Plaintiff was taken to a local hospital in Indiana and then transferred to University Hospital for definitive treatment.  Plaintiff underwent surgery to repair his wrist fracture and severe leg fracture.  Four days later, Plaintiff developed a compartment syndrome in his leg and had to have an urgent fasciotomy.  Plaintiff underwent several subsequent surgeries following the initial fasciotomy, including debridements, skin grafts, and a muscle transfer surgery.  Plaintiff alleged that there was a delay in diagnosis of the compartment syndrome by the team of physicians caring for him on the orthopedic service, including four residents and an attending surgeon.  Plaintiff alleged that the delay in diagnosis caused extensive damage to his leg necessitating numerous subsequent surgeries and extensive physical therapy, which, in the end, prevented him from being able to work as a machinist and firefighter as he did before his accident.  The defense countered that the team of residents and the attending on the orthopedic service followed Plaintiff closely following his initial surgery and they appropriately diagnosed a compartment syndrome in his leg in a timely manner.  The jury agreed, and returned verdicts in favor of the resident-physicians and the attending orthopedic surgeon.

James Grohmann and Benjamin Weigel successfully defended a University of Louisville-based urologic oncologist against allegations of medical malpractice during a five-day trial in Jefferson County Circuit Court.  Plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently removed her kidney after radiology studies indicated that the plaintiff likely had renal cancer.  The defense countered that the surgeon appropriately chose to remove the plaintiff’s kidney in light of the imaging studies even though subsequent pathology studies indicated that the patient’s kidney was benign.  The jury agreed, and returned a verdict in favor of the physician.

Christopher O’Bryan and Donald Brown successfully defended a Paducah based bariatric surgeon in McCracken County, KY.  Plaintiffs alleged that the surgeon negligently placed a removable vena cava filter prior to bariatric surgery, and that the filter failed to protect the patient against a fatal pulmonary embolus.  Plaintiffs sought approximately $15 million for their loss.  O’Bryan and Brown defended the case by submitting medical proof that removable filters were a recognized and state of the art method to prevent pulmonary embolus.  Further medical proof was submitted which indicated that the surgeon took all appropriate steps to protect the patient against pulmonary embolus and ultimately, the patient’s death was sudden and unpreventable.  Defense experts included a vascular surgeon from Vanderbilt University and a bariatric surgeon from Princeton University.  The jury agreed with the Defendant and returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendant in less than twenty minutes.

Michael Dailey and David Strite successfully defended a local surgeon against allegations of improper medical care stemming from a laparoscopic gallbladder removal operation. During the procedure, the plaintiff’s common bile duct was inadvertently transected and resected. With the benefit of hindsight, what appeared to the surgeon to be the cystic duct was in reality the common bile duct. Plaintiff criticized the surgeon for misidentifying her anatomy and failing to perform sufficient dissection to locate critical structures in the operation. The defense team countered by noting that all surgery has inherent risks and that the specific complication in this case was due to an anatomical abnormality of plaintiff’s biliary system, not surgeon inattention. A verdict in favor the surgeon followed shortly thereafter.