Media

Philadelphia Jury Awards $30,000,000.00

In 2006, a Philadelphia jury awarded $30 million the largest verdict seen in the First Judicial District in years - to the family of a 5 month old boy whose severe cognitive and developmental deficiencies were alleged to have resulted from the misadministration of a specific medication.

The boy was treated with the medication several years ago while a patient at a well known Philadelphia hospital.

Plaintiff attorneys, Gayle Lewis and associate, Matthew Schelkopf, of the Lewis Law Firm located in Bryn Mawr, handled the case.

According to Ms. Lewis, the plaintiffs stuck to a $50 million dollar demand during the early phases of the litigation, with no official offers from the defense. The demand was later brought down to about $28 million shortly before trial.

The trial lasted approximately 15 business days over the course of three weeks. The 12-member panel reached its verdict after five days of deliberations over the course of one week.

The jury's breakdown on its $30 million verdict called for $5 million in past medical costs, $10 million in future medicals, and $15 million in pain and suffering, Lewis said. The jurors were polled at 10-2 as to the liability finding against the hospital.

The actual jury verdict in this case was the largest reported by The Legal as having been awarded to a med mal plaintiff by a Philadelphia panel in recent years.

According to statistics maintained by the state Supreme Court, there were no medical malpractice verdicts for more than $10 million in Philadelphia county during 2005, and only three in that category in 2004. As a result, it stands as the highest medical malpractice award in Pennsylvania for 2006.

If you believe you have wrongfully injured by a medical provider, please contact the Lewis Law Firm at (877) LAW-9969.

Decoding Disease

AARP Bulletin - June 2008
Volume 49 No. 5 - Page 10

By: Barbara Basler

In the last year and a half alone, scientists have discovered more than 100 genetic variations associated with many of the medical conditions that affect older people, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, asthma, osteoporosis, high blood pressure and heart disease.

Indeed, genetic science is moving so swiftly that, experts say, people now in their 60s, 70s and even 80s will see medical breakthroughs that will touch their lives. "What's happened in just this short period of time is dizzying to contemplate," says Francis Collins, M.D., the scientist who directed the international Human Genome Project for the National Institutes of Health - and made news around the world.

Just five years ago Collins' team completed the monumental project - mapping and sequencing all the genetic information encoded in DNA, the "instruction manual" for humans. Using this astonishing guide, researchers can now compare the genes of groups of people who have a particular condition with groups of people who don't, surveying the entire genome to find where the genetic-difference lie. Such a research is vital: Virtually every human ailment, except trauma caused in accidents, has some genetic basis.

The Human Genome Project, experts agree, is a watershed achievement in science. It was Collins, a guitar-playing, motorcycle-riding geneticist, who brought the project in two years early and under budget. In an interview with the AARP Bulletin, the affable 58-year-old talks about the avalanche of information triggered by the genome, particularly in relation to older people.

To see the power and quickness of genomic science, he says, look at age-related macular degeneration, an eye disease that has left nearly 2 million Americans visually impaired. "We've come a huge distance with this disease in the last few years," Collins says. "Using new genomic tools, we've discovered two genes that account for about 60% of the risk - the rest is smoking. But we were surprised. These genes are involved in inflammation, and everybody was thinking macular degeneration was caused by aging in the back of the eye."

Now, doctors are testing for ways to prevent the disease with anti-inflammatory drugs that "have been around for a long time," Collins says. "Even something as simple as aspirin might have value. This is the best insight into this disease we've ever had, and it had completely changed the way we look at it."

Scientists are optimistic that they'll find similar breakthroughs for a host of other conditions. "We knew many common diseases had hereditary links because we knew they tend to run in families," Collins says. Over the years, scientists have pinpointed some 1,700 genes linked to disease, many of them powerful mutation of single genes. Each variation is responsible for a rare disease, such as Huntington's, a degenerative brain disease. "But with the genome we are learning the underlying causes at work in complex diseases like diabetes or high blood pressure,which involve many genes, each with a modest effect," Collinssays. "It's with these more common diseases that we'vehad the recent deluge of discoveries."

A lanky Virginian, Collins earned a doctoratein chemistry at Yale and his M.D. at he University of NorthCarolina. He became a dedicated hunter of disease genesas a faculty member at the University of Michigan. Since1993 he has worked at the epicenter of the genomic revolution,on the leafy NIH campus in Bethesda, Md. The National HumanGenome Research Institute is tucked into a suite of beige-coloredoffices that look more like a dentist's practice than theheadquarters of a world-renowned research center. Fromhere, Collins, who led a team that found the gene for Huntington'sand the gene for cystic fibrosis, oversees 500 scientistson the NIH campus and others at universities.

"Our best hope for curing diseasescomes out of genomics," Collins says, because it pointsto the problem of disease at the molecular level, ratherthan at symptoms or secondary effects. Genomic discoveriesare already pointing the way to new drugs that disruptprocesses at the molecular level and to tests that predictone's risk for a disease. The research is also openingthe way for a new "personalized medicine" thatallows doctors to test a patients to determine which drugswill work most effectively with the patient's genetic makeup.Last year the Food and Drug Administration recommendedgenetic test for patients taking the blood thinner warfarin(also sold as Coumadin, Jantoven, Marevan and Waran) tohelp doctors prescribe the right dosages.

Studies show 40% of those who take thedrug have genetic variations that make them more sensitiveto its effects and so need smaller doses. The genetic testcan identify those at risk for bleeding complications fromthe drug. "Soon, this kind of testing will be happeningfor asthma medications, antidepressants and cholesterol-loweringstatins," Collins says. "We should be able todo better with genetic evaluations of these drugs withinthree to four years.

"And boy, do we need moreof this," says Collins, who in September will begiven the Andrus Award, AARP's highest honor, for hiscontributions to science. "Most of the time yougo to the doctor, and the drug you're given is one wearrived at empirically - we tried something and it seemedto work," he says. "it's one-size-fits-allmedicine, and that's not ideal. Now, with the genome,we have a whole new paradigm. It's very exciting."

Court:HIV patient's sex partner can sue

South JerseyCourier Post
August 11, 2024

By: Richard Pearsall

A hospital or physician who fails tonotify a patient of a positive HIV test result can be suednot only by the patient, but by a sexual partner who contractsthe virus, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.

In a case involving Cooper UniversityHospital in Camden, the three-judge appellate panel ruledthe hospital's liability for damages for failing to notifythe patient extends to "all reasonably foreseeableindividuals who contract the virus from the HIV-positivepatient."

It returned the partner's claims to SuperiorCourt, which ruled them invalid.

The hospital has 30 days to file an appeal.Officials declined to comment.

The case started Aug. 5, 1994 when a29-year-old man, identified in court papers as C.W., wasadmitted to Cooper Hospital complaining of confusion andlethargy. An HIV test was ordered by a resident physician.C.W. was discharged before the results were known.

In a report dated Aug. 13, 1994, a privatelab, Smith Kline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, notifiedthe hospital's central receiving laboratory C.W. testedpositive.

High-LowPact Upheld in Med Mal Verdict

The LegalIntelligencer
April 20, 2024

By: Melissa Nann Burke

The Superior Court has upheld a $1.15million judgment entered after the third trial in a Philadelphiamedical malpractice case, rejecting the plaintiffs' requestto strike a high-low agreement among the parties and enterthe jury's 9 million award. The three-judge panel alsorejected the arguments of the defendants and their insurersfor a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trialin Miller v. Ginsberg.

Prior to the jury's announcing its verdictin Miller in February 2004, the parties placed their high-lowagreement on the trial court record before Common PleasJudge Victor J. DiNubile, Jr. According to the opinion,the defendants' primary insurer was limited to paying noless than $50,000 and no more than $150,000 toward theaward (with no delay damages). The excess insurer was limitedto paying $1 million.

The jury awarded the plaintiffs $9 million.In June, DiNubile granted the defendants' motion to enforcethe high-low agreement and entered judgment for the finalamount of $1.15 million, according to the opinion. Bothsides appealed.

The plaintiffs told the Superior Courtthat DiNubile had erred in enforcing the high-low agreementbecause the deal was never "consummated," saidGayle Lewis, plaintiffs' counsel. Lewis claimed that theexcess insurer, the state MCARE Fund, had agreed - offthe record - not to appeal the verdict. Since the fundappealed, the high-low agreement was void, Lewis argued.

The Superior Court disagreed, in partbecause the MCARE Fund never waived any appellate rightson the record. "We may not ignore the clear languageof this agreement," Senior Judge Peter Paul Olszewskiwrote. "As we would not have overturned the clearterms of the agreement had a lower verdict been returned,we will not now upset the clear and unambiguous terms ofthe settlement agreement now that a higher verdict hasbeen returned." Olszewski was joined by Judges SusanPeikes Gantman and Jack A, Panella.

Frank Gerolamo III, counsel for the defendants,said, "The MCARE Fund instructed me to appeal the[trial level] verdict." Gerolamo is with GerolamoMcNulty Divis & Lewbart. He was pleased with the court'sdecision to affirm the high-low agreement, but said hewasn't sure whether the fund will ask him to appeal asto the defendants' arguments on evidentiary and statuteof limitations issues.

Lewis of Gayle R. Lewis & Associatesin Bryn Mawr said she is considering an appeal.

The defendants, urologist Philip C. Ginsbergand his practice group, claimed that plaintiff KimberlyMiller knew shortly after a surgery in January 1996 thatshe had been injured. But Miller and her husband didn'tfile suit until nearly two-and-a-half years later, accordingto the opinion. By then the statute of limitations hadrun out, Gerolamo contended.

But the jury determined that Miller'sclaims weren't barred by the statute of limitations because- as she argued - she didn't know of her injuries untila different doctor treated her later that year.

The Superior Court agreed with DiNubilethat the jury should have decided the statute of limitationsissue because it was a question of fact when Miller shouldhave known about her injuries.

Millers lawsuit alleged that Ginsberg'snegligently cut one of her ureters during one operationand, days later, negligently failed to repair the severedureter, resulting in reflux or urine to her right kidneythat ultimately necessitated its removal, according tothe opinion.

Miller suffered from a congenial defectcalled double ureter and had undergone several surgeriesto address this problem and other maladies. Ginsberg saidbuilt-up scar tissue from previous surgeries made impossiblethe identification of Miller's ureter, and, thus, he wasnot negligent in severing it, according to the opinion.

The Superior Court panel rejected thedefendants' arguments that DiNubile improperly instructedthe jury on the statute of limitations issue. The panelsaid the instruction "accurately reflected the lawand was sufficient to guide the jury in deliberations onthis point."

Gerolamo also objected to several ofDiNubile's evidentiary ruling - foremost the admissibilityof one of Miller's experts, John Shane. Defendants wereprecluded from cross-examining Shane "through theuse of his past testimony, and three of his prior reportsfrom separate cases." The defendants alleged thatShane "perjured himself by inadvertently writing andtestifying to conflicting reports from both parties tothis action, by introducing his testimony in three previous,unrelated cases in which it was alleged the same conflictoccurred," according to the opinion.

The Superior Court concluded that theevidentiary determinations did not affect the verdict andwere not prejudicial to the defendants. Thus, DiNubiledid not abuse his discretion.

In 2000, the jury in the first Millertrial found Ginsberg was negligent but this negligencewas not a substantial factor in causing Miller's injuries.The Superior Court reversed the first verdict due to thetrial judge's "prejudicial criticism" of Lewisand his "extensive interruptions" of her examinationof witnesses, according to the opinion.

The trial judge then was not DiNubilebut Judge Richard B. Klein, who now sits on the SuperiorCourt.

In January 2004, the second trial endedwith a hung jury. The third trial, which was at issue inthis appeal, was held the following month.

(Copies of the 12 page opinionin Miller v. Ginsberg, PICS No. 05-0569, are availablefrom The Legal Intelligencer. Please call the PennsylvaniaInstant Case Service at 800-276-PICS to order).