Eppolito and Beitz Obtain Defense Verdict in a Jury Trial in Medical Malpractice Case
Chuck Eppolito and Edward Beitz obtained a defense verdict in a jury trial in a medical malpractice case. It was tried in Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff was a 42-year-old with severe coronary artery disease and aortic stenosis who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement at Hershey Medical Center.
The patient experienced a complication during the surgery, which was recognized while attempting to take the patient off of cardiopulmonary bypass. The surgeons were successful in stabilizing the patient, who was admitted to the surgical intensive care unit after surgery. However, due to the injury to the heart sustained during surgery, the patient was critically ill, sustained multi-system organ failure, suffered from invasive aspergillosis (a fungal infection), and died 25 days post-operatively while still admitted to the hospital.
The parties agreed that the patient's death was due to a series of medical events which were caused by the initial poor cardiac function during and after surgery.
Defendants included Hershey Medical Center, the attending surgeon/physician, the first assistant during the surgery, and two physicians who were involved in the post-operative care. Three of the surgeons/physicians were dismissed prior to trial. The attending physician during the surgery (as well as during the post-operative care in the ICU) and Hershey Medical Center remained defendants in the case throughout the trial.
Plaintiff submitted reports from three different experts who criticized the performance of the surgery as well as many aspects of the post-operative care. Defendants countered with reports from six experts in various fields. White and Williams attorneys were successful in securing the dismissal of all post-operative claims through numerous motions prior to trial. As a result, the case proceeded to trial as a surgical negligence case.
Plaintiff's trial witnesses included a cardiothoracic surgeon who criticized the surgical technique. These criticisms were based on alleged negligence in connection with cannulation, cooling and myocardial protection, which he contended were inadequate and led directly to the patient's myocardial injury and death.
The defense witnesses at trial included the attending and assisting surgeons during the procedure as well as a cardiothoracic surgery expert. The defense witnesses testified that the techniques utilized and the overall performance of the surgery (specifically including myocardial protection) were reasonable, appropriate, and in compliance with the standard of care. The defense maintained that, even though an insult to the heart indisputably occurred during the surgery, it was a known risk and a risk about which the plaintiff was told and consented. Therefore, the plaintiff's injuries and death were not related to any alleged acts or omissions on the part of any of the defendants.
The case was submitted to the jury for determination after nearly one week of trial. The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict, specifically finding no negligence (and not reaching the question of causation), in less than 30 minutes.
