James Grohmann and Joshua Davis successfully defended a family practice physician and its group in Jefferson Circuit Court.  Plaintiff alleged that the physician failed to ensure that orders of wound care specialists consulted for the treatment of plaintiff’s multiple pressure sores while she was a resident at co-defendant nursing home were carried out.  Grohmann and Davis defended the case by establishing that the family practice physician identified and consulted with appropriate physician specialists for all facets of plaintiff’s healthcare management.  Despite the best medical care, the plaintiff’s co-morbidities and repeated acts of non-compliance ultimately led to an infected pressure sore in her right heel which resulted in an above-knee amputation.  The jury agreed with the defense that the family practice physician acted appropriately and entered a defense verdict finding no fault against him.

Donald Brown and Mark Hammond successfully defended a Lexington based obstetrician in this medical malpractice action in Fayette County, KY.  Plaintiffs claimed that the physician negligently failed to recognize an obstetric complication known as vasa previa where fetal vessels cross the inner cervical os during pregnancy and result in fetal death.  Plaintiffs sought approximately $4 million for the loss of their child.  Brown and Hammond defended by submitting medical proof that vasa previa had been conclusively ruled out by ultrasound prior to delivery and that the physician appropriately relied upon the ultrasound report.  Further medical proof was submitted which indicated that the baby’s death actually resulted from either a placental abruption or a fetal-maternal hemorrhage, both of which were unpreventable.  Defense experts included a radiologist from Harvard University and obstetricians from Louisville, KY and Newport Beach, CA.  The jury agreed with the Defendant and found in his favor.

David Strite and  Joseph Klausing successfully defended a Newburgh, Indiana obstetrician/gynecologist during a six-day jury trial in Warrick County Circuit Court.  The patient’s estate alleged that the physician’s failure to appropriately address symptoms led to a delayed diagnosis of rectal cancer, and unfortunately, the death of a 41-year old married, mother of three.  Prior to trial, the case proceeded to a medical review panel where no panelist found in favor of the defendant.  Accordingly, the estate’s claims were supported by members of the medical review panel.  Moreover, a treating oncologist and the patient’s colorectal surgeon, a department chair at the Indiana University School of Medicine, both testified on behalf of the estate.  Strite and Klausing countered that the defendant’s treatment of the patient was appropriate given her clinical presentation.  The jury agreed, and returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendant, awarding none of the millions of dollars sought.

Gerald Toner successfully defended a serious brain-injured baby case for our obstetrician client.  Other defendants included a neonatologist and the hospital.  The case involved a vasa previa and the rapidity of its treatment. Plaintiffs’ counsel had sought over $40 million in damages, and the case proceeded for four and a half weeks in the Jefferson Circuit Court.  Plaintiffs contended that one of the vasa previa vessels ruptured not at home, 45 minutes before the plaintiffs arrived at the hospital, but during the hour and 15 minutes when they were in the hospital prior to the performance of a cesarean section.  The jury returned a unanimous verdict for all defendants after approximately one hour of deliberations.

James Grohmann successfully defended a head and neck surgeon and his practice group in Jefferson Circuit Court.  Plaintiff alleged that the head and neck surgeon improperly diagnosed the plaintiff with hyperparathyroidism and should not have performed surgery to correct the condition.  He alleged that complications from that surgery led to the permanent and incapacitating loss of both his thyroid and parathyroid function.  Plaintiff and his wife sought over $3 million in damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium.  Grohmann defended the case by establishing that the plaintiff’s symptoms and laboratory results did indeed suggest hyperparathyroidism, for which the proper treatment option was surgery to remove the parathyroid glands.  The jury deliberated for less than a half hour before returning a unanimous verdict for the defense.

David Strite, Joseph Klausing and Benjamin Weigel obtained a directed verdict on behalf of their client, a Madison, Indiana emergency room physician, following the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case in chief in a wrongful death case involving a four-year old child.  Plaintiffs alleged that the physician’s failure to instruct the child’s mother that she could become dehydrated after she was discharged from the emergency room contributed to the child’s death.  Strite, Klausing and Weigel countered that the physician acted appropriately and that the child had no signs or symptoms of dehydration when examined.  The court held that plaintiffs failed to prove that anything that the physician did, or failed to do, contributed to the child’s death and dismissed the claims against the physician.

Tracy Prewitt and Andrew Pellino successfully defended a pain management physician and his practice group in Jefferson Circuit Court.  Plaintiff alleged that the pain management physician failed to diagnose and treat a MRSA infection of the programmable infusion pain pump and intrathecal catheter that the physician had implanted in the plaintiff to manage his chronic pain condition.  Prewitt and Pellino defended the case by establishing that the plaintiff knew of the risk of infection when he elected to have the intrathecal pain pump implanted.  Unfortunately, despite vigilant medical care and treatment by the physician, the plaintiff did in fact contract an aggressive MRSA infection that quickly lead to the formation of a spinal abscess.  However, once the plaintiff’s symptomology was indicative of infection the physician immediately prescribed appropriate antibiotics and acted reasonably in obtaining a neurosurgical consult.  The jury agreed with the defense and returned with a verdict finding no fault with the pain management physician.

Gerald Toner and Melissa Calabrese successfully defended a neonatologist and his practice group against allegations of medical malpractice related to the 2003 use of a powdered infant formula product in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).  The plaintiffs, parents on behalf of their brain-damaged infant, alleged that the physician negligently entered an order for a phenylalanine-free diet in light of a significantly elevated level on a newborn screening test for phenylketonuria (PKU).  Part of such a diet was the use of a specialty powdered formula product called Phenex-1, which was recommended to the physician by way of a genetics consult.  Approximately 24 hours after the institution of the powdered formula to the baby, his twin brother began to develop symptoms of respiratory distress, and ultimately died of bacterial meningitis, later learned to be caused by the rare pathogen E. sakazakii.  Several days after first receiving the formula, the original baby for whom the powder was ordered began to develop similar symptoms, and was ultimately diagnosed with E. sakazakii meningitis.  Although he survived, he is severely brain-damaged.

Plaintiffs claimed that the powdered formula was the cause of both babies’ illnesses, and asserted that the formula should not have been ordered for a mere screening test for PKU as opposed to a confirmatory test.  Moreover, Plaintiffs claimed that the genetics consultant had not actually recommended the formula, and that the neonatologist should have known in 2003 that powdered infant formulas were not commercially sterile and were prone to contain certain dangerous bacteria.

Toner and Calabrese defended the case by establishing that there were no warnings applicable to the use of powdered formula products in the NICU in such a situation in 2003, and that the use of Phenex-1 formula in this instance was particularly reasonable given the geneticist’s endorsement of the product.  Moreover, they established that the formula had tested negative for E. sakazakii, and the fact that both babies contracted the disease in an unusual timeline made it more than likely that powdered formula was not the source of the babies’ illnesses.   After a two and a half week trial, the jury deliberated for several hours before returning a verdict in favor of the defense.

Tracy Prewitt and Katherine Vesely successfully defended an obstetrician/gynecologist from Columbus, Indiana against allegations of medical malpractice.  Plaintiff alleged that the physician failed to diagnose a pregnant patient with severe preeclampsia (or pregnancy-induced hypertension) and failed to transfer that patient to a specialist for her immediate delivery.  Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital for maternal and fetal monitoring and extensive testing.  After a full workup and testing that confirmed that the mother and 32-week-old fetus were doing well, Plaintiff was released from the hospital on strict bed rest and with plans for twice weekly follow-up visits with her physician for the duration of her pregnancy.  Unfortunately, despite appropriate medical care, Plaintiff presented to the hospital emergently several days later having suffered an acute placental abruption, which resulted in the stillborn delivery of the baby.  The patient went on to develop HELLP syndrome, a rare but severe complication of her disease that affects the patient’s kidneys. Prewitt and Vesely defended the case, which had a unanimous adverse medical review panel against the physician, by establishing that the patient did not have severe preeclampsia on her initial admission to the hospital.  The defense also established that delivery at that time, considering the baby’s gestational age and the patient’s mild disease, would have been inappropriate.  Moreover, in light of the reassuring maternal and fetal monitoring and testing that occurred while she was in the hospital, it was reasonable to release the patient home on bed rest with plans for regular, frequent follow-up visits with her physician for the remainder of her term.  After a week-long trial, the jury deliberated for an hour and a half before returning a unanimous verdict for the defense.

James Grohmann and Brittany Asher successfully defended a Louisville surgeon in Jefferson Circuit Court.  Plaintiff alleged that a sponge was left by the surgeon during a 1989 procedure.  The sponge was removed after it was discovered on x-ray in 2008.  Plaintiff sought damages for nineteen years of pain and suffering and medical expenses associated with the removal of the sponge. Grohmann and Asher defended on the grounds that the surgeon acted appropriately in relying on the nursing staff’s representation of a correct sponge count, thus avoiding the increased risk of infection and injury to internal organs that would result from a prolonged manual search of the abdominal cavity.

Clay Edwards and Brittany Asher successfully defended a Lexington, Kentucky surgeon against allegations of medical malpractice.  Plaintiff alleged that the physician failed to diagnose the patient with pneumonia upon presentation, resulting in her death two days later.  Edwards and Asher defended by establishing that the patient did not demonstrate the classic signs and symptoms of pneumonia upon presentation; rather, she appeared to be suffering from profound dehydration and malnutrition.  Once a chest x-ray was indicative of pneumonia, the physician timely prescribed appropriate antibiotics and acted reasonably in obtaining a pulmonary consult.  Unfortunately, despite continuous and appropriate medical care, the patient succumbed to a very virulent form of streptococcal pneumoniae characterized by high mortality rates.  The jury deliberated for less than a half hour before returning a verdict for the defense.

Clay Edwards and Joshua Davis successfully defended an Evansville gynecologist in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff alleged that a hysterectomy and oophorectomy were performed without her informed consent.  Plaintiff also alleged that the gynecologist’s recommendation of a hysteretomy was a deviation from the standard of care.  Plaintiff’s experts, including a unanimous medical review panel, argued that results from a vaginal, instead of cervical, colposcopy would have precluded a recommendation of hysterectomy.  This marks the 7th unanimous defense verdict for O’Bryan, Brown & Toner in Evansville since 2007.

Clay Edwards and Andie Camden successfully defended a Lexington surgeon in a medical malpractice action.  Plaintiffs alleged an unreasonable delay in diagnosing and treating a leak after a laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure.  Plaintiff sought more than $800,000 in past medical expenses and millions for more pain and suffering.  Defense experts, including a past president of the ASMBS, defended the care provided by our client.   After a six day trial the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of our client in just over an hour.

Mark Hammond and Joseph Klausing successfully defended an Evansville podiatrist in a medical malpractice action.  Plaintiff claimed our client negligently treated her plantar flexed metatarsals as well as Morton’s neuroma in the second and third interdigital space.  The defense maintained that all treatment provided by our podiatrist was well within the standard of care, and that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff were not the result of actions or inactions of our client.  After five days of testimony, the jury found unanimously in favor of the podiatrist.  This marks the sixth time O’Bryan, Brown & Toner has obtained a unanimous defense verdict in Evansville since 2007.

Melissa Calabrese recently defended a real estate agency in a negligence case in Clark County, Indiana.  The Plaintiff homebuyers alleged that their real estate agents did not properly inform them as to a potential property tax increase on their new home prior to closing.  Plaintiffs sought damages in the amount of the after-closing year’s property taxes, of which they claimed they had not been property advised.  The defense established that tax assessment was solely the duty of the county government, and the duty to dispense information regarding potential tax increases to the homebuyer was that of the closing agent.  Moreover, the buyers’ agents performed their duties properly.  After a one-day bench trial, the judge agreed with the defense and the plaintiffs took nothing.