Law Office of Victoria Wickman

$3M

Medical Malpractice

This death action involved a 54-year-old patient who was a transit worker and the married father of three who visited the emergency room of a nondefendant hospital with a history of back pain of approximately one month duration as well as decreased urinary output, weakness and fatigue of several days’ duration. The plaintiff contended that although appropriate testing led to the timely and accurate diagnosis of endocarditis and a decision that emergency surgery was necessary, the operation was not performed and that the patient died at approximately 8 p.m. five days after he was first seen and some 12 hours after cardiac enzyme testing showed that the patient was suffering a cardiac infarct. The evidence disclosed that the patient first presented to the emergency room on Wed. Oct 19, 2011, and a correct diagnosis was made shortly thereafter. The patient was admitted, and antibiotics were administered. The decision was made that emergency cardiothoracic surgery was necessary, and since this initial institution did not have a cardiothoracic unit, the patient was transferred to the defendant hospital on Fri, Oct 21. The surgeon who was scheduled to perform the surgery was called into service because of two unrelated emergencies, and since the patient was then stable, a decision was made to transfer him to a second defendant hospital for expedited surgery. This transfer was done on Saturday morning. The plaintiff contended that upon arrival at this third hospital, a cardiothoracic surgeon lifted the order precluding food by mouth and recorded that he would not be having surgery over the weekend, but only monitored. The plaintiff asserted that although the patient remained stable over the weekend, his status changed dramatically by 8 a.m. Monday. The plaintiff contended that records reflected that his BP was 80/40, that he was complaining of chest pain that was 8 out of 10 and had increased respiratory rates and that his blood work showed abnormal cardiac enzymes. The plaintiff contended that the defendant nonetheless failed to bring the patient to the operating room, and the plaintiff pointed out that in addition to describing his signs and symptoms, the records also reflected that no intervention was contemplated at that time and that the patient would be transferred back to the second hospital. The patient was transferred back to the second hospital at approximately 3:30 p.m. on Monday. The plaintiff maintained that although the patient was then clearly in extremis, the defendants kept the surgery scheduled for Tuesday morning. The patient coded at approximately 7 pm on Monday and died as the defendants were scrambling to assemble an OR team for surgery. The plaintiff maintained that it was clear that the defendants failed to act appropriately and perform surgery that it previously realized was necessary. The plaintiff also maintained that the Monday transfer was in violation of federal law that precludes the transferring of unstable patients. The plaintiff would have contended that it was clear that the patient’s heart was slowly giving out and that the pain and suffering from 8 a.m. on Monday until his death that evening was extensive. The defendant contended that in view of the extensive damage to the heart valves caused by the endocarditis, it was doubtful if the patient would have survived, irrespective of the time of the surgery. The plaintiff’s expert cardiothoracic surgeon would have testified that although this was a difficult surgical case, it was more probable than not that the patient would have survived. The expert would have also maintained that if he survived, the patient would have fully recovered. The decedent was earning $75,000 per year. The plaintiff also maintained that since he generally worked from 7-3 and his wife, a nurse, had two jobs, he would usually be the primary caregiver to the three daughters, age 9, 12 and 14. The plaintiff would have argued that the loss of parental nurture and guidance was particularly profound.

$2.9M

Motor Vehicle Accident

Limo driver failed to see Plaintiff crossing in the crosswalk. Kings County, NY. This motor vehicle accident involved an 18-year-old freshman who was crossing the intersection of Water Street and Fulton Street at approximately midnight when she was struck by a Black Chevy Suburban limousine. The plaintiff maintained that she had the green light, looked both ways and did not see the vehicle as it was approaching prior to being struck. Defendant argued that the plaintiff was running across the street against the light, was not able to be seen since she was wearing dark clothing and was intoxicated. At trial, the plaintiff presented a witness who testified that the plaintiff crossed with the green light, was not running and was not intoxicated. Plaintiff also called an expert witness toxicologist to testify that the plaintiff was not intoxicated based upon blood toxicology obtained at the hospital, an expert witness to testify that the lighting conditions were more than bright enough to see the plaintiff crossing the street and an expert accident reconstructionist who testified that the defendant driver had ample time to apply his brakes to avoid hitting the plaintiff and the accident was 100% the fault of the driver. Defendants called no witnesses other than the defendant driver. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on liability finding the defendant 90% at fault and the plaintiff 10%. The case settled prior to the damages trial for $2.9 million. Had the case not settled, the plaintiff would have presented the following injuries to the jury: Loss of consciousness; Fractured right clavicle; Lateral compression fractures of the bony pelvis with right iliac, left sacrum, right acetabular, right pubic rami and left inferior pubic ramis fractures associated with small pelvic hematomas; Disruption of pelvic circle; Right posterior eighth rib fracture; Right pneumothorax with lung contusions/lacerations; Multiple grade 1-2 liver lacerations; Blood loss; Need for blood transfusion; Surgical implantation of device used for skeletal traction; Surgical removal of device used for skeletal traction; Open reduction internal fixation of pelvic fractures with placement of plate and screws; Placement of chest tube; Surgical placement of vena cava filter; Scarring; Need to undergo extensive physical therapy; Need to undergo extensive occupational therapy; Inability to deliver future pregnancies naturally due to disruption of the pelvic circle; Need for cesarean section for all future deliveries due to disruption of the pelvic circle; Pain and suffering from cesarean sections; Increased risk of pelvic adhesions and all the complications stemming therefrom as a result of inability to deliver naturally due to disruption of the pelvic circle; Conscious pain and suffering

$2.2M

Medical Malpractice

Family physicians failed to investigate the presence of a unilateral inverted nipple for at least four years. Rockland County, NY. This case involved a plaintiff who had been a patient of the defendant family practice for many years undergoing routine physical exams every approximate six months. Plaintiff contended that the initial defendant, who had been his physician until going to a different practice negligently failed to investigate and ignored the sign of a unilaterally inverted left nipple - a red flag for breast cancer. The plaintiff further contended that when he first saw the second physician in May 2015 for a rash above the left nipple - which was a red flag for breast cancer - the physician negligently misdiagnosed him with ringworm. The plaintiff would have maintained that the one nipple had been inverted since at least 2012 when photographs were taken while on a cruise showed the inversion. The plaintiff contended that the nipple would have been in sight by the physician at least once every six months until he changed practices since this was the left nipple where the physician would have to place his stethoscope to listen to the patient’s heart at every visit and was therefore readily apparent for the physician to visualize. The plaintiff contended that this defendant failed to consider the inverted nipple as cancer. The plaintiff would have asserted that the failure to diagnose breast cancer when it first presented deprived him of a chance for a total cure. The plaintiff would have maintained that there was still a substantial chance for successful treatment when first saw the second defendant in May 2015 with complaints of a rash above the nipple. The second defendant diagnosed ringworm, gave him a cream and told him to return if there was no improvement. The plaintiff maintained that since there was some improvement from the cream, he did not return until he had a routine exam in December 2015. During that visit, the second defendant noted a normal breast exam. The plaintiff returned approximately one month later, complaining of severe back pain and asked the doctor to look at his nipple since it was black. The second defendant palpated a large mass behind his left nipple. Plaintiff underwent a sonogram followed by a mammogram that revealed the cancer. It was also determined that the cancer had spread to the lilac bone, the acetabulum, the proximal femur, the thoracic and lumbar spine. The plaintiff suffered a fracture to the femoral neck and needed a hip replacement and also suffered several lumbar compression fractures because of the metastasis. The plaintiff maintained that the metastasis to the bone causes especially severe pain. Plaintiff was 68 years old at the time of diagnosis. The plaintiff asserted that once the cancer spread to the bone, there was a 0% chance of long-term survival. The plaintiff continues to take chemotherapy, tamoxifen therapy and radiation treatments. The evidence also disclosed that the plaintiff developed a molar abscess, and the cancer treatments rendered treatment of the molar abscess very difficult, irrespective of the administration of IV antibiotics. The defendants would have maintained that they did not note the inverted nipple because the plaintiff never took off his shirt at any of the office visits from 2012 until 2016. The plaintiff testified that he unbuttoned his shirt at every visit to be examined by the defendants. The plaintiff would have also argued that the records documented high-level physical examinations that could not be possible if the patient did not remove his shirt. Further, performing such high-level examinations with a shirt on would constitute deviations in and of itself.

$2M

Medical Malpractice

Primary Care Physician failed to inform patient of elevated PSA score. Richmond County, NY. This medical malpractice action involved a plaintiff in his mid-50s who underwent routine PSA testing in May 2013. The PSA was found to be elevated at 8.2, which requires further investigation. The physician read the report and noted on the labs were “very good.” In June 2014 he went to another physician who ordered his PSA. At that time, his PSA was 14. He was diagnosed with an aggressive prostate cancer yielding a Gleason score of 9 with invasion into the seminal vesicle and extraprostatic extension. He required nine weeks of transrectal radiation, estrogen therapy causing him to gain weight and become depressed. Last and most importantly, the delay caused his prostate cancer to advance to a less curable stage. The plaintiff contended that his primary care physician should have immediately sent him for further testing and failed to do so resulting in a one year delay in diagnosis. Plaintiff alleged lost earnings from his business and his wife alleged loss of consortium.

$1.6M

Medical Malpractice

Physician Assistant failed to timely investigate the plaintiff’s decedent’s complaints. Kings County, NY. This medical malpractice action involved the plaintiff’s decedent, an immigrant, married father of one teenage daughter, who presented to a physician assistant complaining of mid-epigastric pain and bloating since 2010. Plaintiff contended that the complaints were ignored for about one year. Eventually, the decedent was sent to a gastroenterologist who prescribed anti-reflux medication and performed an endoscopy only. Plaintiff alleged that the biopsy results were benign and did not explain the decedent’s continued complaints despite being on anti-reflux medication. Decedent returned to the physician assistant and the decedent requested a colonoscopy however the physician assistant advised him he was too young. By February 2012, the decedent began bleeding rectally. The physician assistant sent him to a different gastroenterologist who immediately diagnosed the decedent with Stage IV colon cancer with metastasis to his liver. Following his diagnosis, the decedent could no longer work as a janitor. The decedent expired on July 13, 2013. The plaintiff maintained that the decedent’s complaints were not timely investigated. The defendants argued that the complaints were not consistent with colon cancer and the standard of care was followed. Plaintiff would have called an expert gastroenterologist to testify that the biopsy results did not explain his ongoing complaints despite proper medication and that in that setting, the standard of care required a colonoscopy and/or CT scan for further investigation. During the discovery phase of litigation, it was discovered that the day after the defendant physician assistant received the complaint, the decedent’s medical record was altered 72 times. Following the denial of summary judgment to all defendants, the parties mediated a settlement against the physician assistant and the supervising physician for $1.65 million.

$1.6M

Medical Malpractice

Radiologist failed to diagnose signs of breast cancer on mammogram. Queens County, NY. This medical malpractice action involved a plaintiff in her mid-60s who underwent routine mammograms at a local radiology facility from 2009 through 2012. The plaintiff contended that the radiologist negligently failed to see and document suspicious breast calcifications. Plaintiff further contended that these calcifications required further investigation to rule out the very real probability of the plaintiff having breast cancer. When the plaintiff was ultimately diagnosed with breast cancer in 2012, she was Stage IIIB. Her tumor had grown to 6.5 cm and had spread to her axillary lymph nodes. She required a double mastectomy, chemotherapy (before and after surgery) and radiation therapy. Plaintiff claimed that had she been diagnosed timely, she would have had a better chance of survival and would not have needed all of the therapy she ultimately had, including the double mastectomy.