Media

Ailing Woman Settles Suite

North Jersey Metro, The Herald News
October 18, 2024

By: Diane Haines

PATERSON - A Clifton woman critically ill with cancer, and her family accepted nearly $1 million to settle a medical malpractice trial against two Montclair doctors.

The settlement was agreed to just before jurors were shown the videotaped testimony of Carol Geyer, 35, of Lyall Road. She was diagnosed as having breast cancer one year after she first complained of lumps to Dr. Richard DeMarsico and Dr. Gary DeGrande of the Greater Montclair Group. She is willing to testify in court.

Geyer and her husband Glenn were awarded $375,000 in cash. Starting December 10, Glenn Geyer will be awarded $500 a month for the next 25 years.

Between 1999 and 2003 the couple's three children, Gary, Matthew and Megan, will be awarded $268,000. Also between 1993 and 2018, Glenn Geyer will be awarded $195,000.

The settlement ended the trial, which started last week before Superior Court Judge Thomas R. Rumana.

It was alleged Carol Geyer had a benign cyst removed from her breast in 1977. She claimed she first consulted the Greater Montclair Group for a pregnancy in 1980.

During a subsequent pregnancy in 1985, Carol Geyer noticed three lumps on her left breast. She said she visited DeMarsico in April 1985 and told him about the lumps but that he failed to do a mammography or ultra-sound test.

The suit claimed this deviated from accepted medical practices and cause the cancer to go unchecked and reach a life-threatening stage.

Carol Geyer alleged that in June 1986 she was feeling discomfort in her breast and visited Dr. J. Beall Rodgers who diagnosed the cancer and performed a radical mastectomy. The suit alleged that the delay of 12 to 14 months in diagnosing the cancer caused it to spread to Geyer's lymph nodes.

$988,000 Awarded in Malpractice

The Star Ledger - Newark
October 18, 2024

A 35-year-old cancer patient and her family received a $988,000 settlement yesterday in a medical malpractice case in which she accused two Montclair doctors of failing to treat cancerous cysts in her breast.

Carol Geyer, her husband and three children were awarded $375,000 in lump sum payments, with the remainder to be paid over 30 years.

Geyer's chances for survival are poor, a doctor testified during the civil trial in Passaic County Superior Court.

The woman could not testify because cancer has afflicted her vertebrae and she is confined to bed.

Attorneys had videotaped her testimony, but it was not played to the jury because the case was settled after several days of testimony by medical experts.

Geyer accused Drs. Richard DeMarsico and Gary DeGrande of repeatedly failing to treat three lumps she discovered in her left breast.

DeMarsico and DeGrande at the time were associates in the Greater Montclair Obstetrics-Gynecology Group, which is now defunct.

According to testimony, Geyer found three lumps in her left breast in March 1985 and notified DeMarsico, the doctor who was treating her during her pregnancy.

In a deposition, she said DeMarsico told her that the cysts were benign and that she should not be concerned.

DeMarsico and DeGrande failed to conduct a biopsy or mammography over the next 14 months, according to testimony. A New York doctor performed breast removal surgery on Geyer in July 1986.

In the settlement, the Geyers' children - Garret, 7, Matthew, 6, and Megan, 3 - will receive from $20,000 to $25,000 when they turn 18, in addition to other incremental payments.

Malpractice Arbitration: Is Pennsylvania's System Dead or Alive?

Legal Aspects of Medical Practice
Publication of the American College of Legal Medicine
July 1981

By: Gayle R. Lewis, Esq.

The Arbitration Panels for Health Care (APHC) and its legislative mandate in the Health Care Services Malpractice Act, referred to as Act III, were dealt a serious blow on September 26, 1980, by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Mattos v. Thompson. That decision declared unconstitutional Section 309 of the Act, which had granted original, exclusive, and mandatory jurisdiction to the APHC over all medical negligence cases involving health-care providers, if the alleged incident giving rise to the claim occurred (or the patient first learned of it) after January 13, 1976. Since that date, 3,925 claims had been filed statewide. As of September 30, 1980, four days after the decision was rendered, there were still 2,879 claims pending disposition. Measured in sheer numbers, the effect of the decision is staggering.

The Attorney General's Office responded quickly to the decision. On October 14, 1980, it issued an opinion declaring that the Arbitration Panels system was voluntary, stating:

While the courts declared unconstitutional the systems original, exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide health care malpractice claims, it is our opinion that it left intact the remaining section of the act relating to the arbitration systems (emphasis added).

The resulting voluntary system required that all parties consent to an arbitration panel's jurisdiction or elect to transfer out of the system to the appropriate court of common pleas. The deadline for election was December 15, 1980.

As of January 31, 1981, 2,157 cases had been transferred to the courts leaving 357 cases in the office of APHC.

The nine-county area surrounding and including Philadelphia had 2,312 claims filed since January 13, 1976; 545 had been filed in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh); no claims had ever been filed in 7 rural counties and 1,068 claims arose in the remaining 53 counties of the state.

The Mattos decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has jeopardized the entire concept of arbitrating medical malpractice claims. It follows a trend noted in several other states whose high courts have declared their programs unconstitutional. Medical arbitration programs, to be sure, have had their share of problems. However, it is debatable whether they are the "resounding flop" portrayed by the courts or, alternatively, a viable framework, which with certain modifications will ultimately reduce medical negligence litigation.

Gayle Lewis was formerly deputy administrator of the Arbitration Panels for Health Care in Pennsylvania. She is now in private practice in Philadelphia. The opinions expressed in this article are solely hers. Ms. Lewis wrote a similar article for the March 1981 issue of Pennsylvania Medicine