Defense Verdict Ends Trial Over Claims That Doctors Misdiagnosed Heart Tumor
The case was complicated for a number of reasons, including an appeals court ruling that the jury must address a statute of limitations claim.
June 03, 2019 at 03:30 PM
6 minute read
A jury cleared two doctors of liability in the case of a woman whose blurred vision and headache were diagnosed as a migraine, only to suffer a recurrence several months later that left her semi-blind from what was found to be a stroke.
The plaintiff, a neonatologist, had sued the physician who made the initial diagnosis, as well as the doctor who treated her for migraines—a colleague at the same medical practice. According to attorneys on both sides, a confidential high-low agreement reached after the close of evidence in the two-week trial means there will be no appeal.
The case was complicated for a number of reasons, not the least of which was a Court of Appeals ruling decreeing that a statute of limitations issue should be decided by the jury.
“This was really interesting case for a couple of reasons,” said Huff Powell & Bailey partner Scott Bailey, who represented one of the defendants.
“It was very complex medically, and there were big causation issues, and there was this Court of Appeals issue looming over everything,” he said. “We thought there was a good chance that—no matter what happened—we'd be back before the Court of Appeals.”
“The high-low was primarily about our clients' wanting to finally put and end to this case,” said Bailey, who represented neurologist Edward McDonald along with firm attorneys Lindsey Costakos and Weymon Forrester.
The co-defendant, neurologist Laroy Penix, was represented by Thomas Cole and Jeremy Panter of Gainesville's Whelchel, Dunlap, Jarrard & Walker. They did not respond to a request for comment.
The plaintiffs, Kelly Adams and her husband, were represented by Matthew Cook of Gainesville's Cook Law Group and Jonathan Parrish of the Parrish Law Firm.
“We were disappointed,” said Cook, “but the case had significant legal issues that made it difficult to try for our side.”
The high-low “reflected the uncertainty on both sides, I think,” Cook said.
According to the lawyers and court filings, the case began in January 2013 when Adams, then 38, was at work in the neonatal intensive care unit at the Northeast Georgia Medical Center in Gainesville.
She was speaking to a nurse when she got dizzy and experienced a burning pain in her head, blurry vision and difficulty speaking.
The nurse put her in a wheelchair and took her to the emergency room, where the attending physician asked Penix to evaluate her.
Penix called for an MRI and other testing for Adams circulation and ultimately diagnosed her with benign positional vertigo and migraine, and ordered her to follow up with an eye, ear, nose and throat doctor.
She also began consulting with McDonald who—like Adams—worked for Longstreet Clinic P.C.
McDonald treated Adams for migraines for several months until September 2013, when she had another spell of dizziness, headache and blurred vision, along with tingling and numbness on her right side.
She once again went to the ER at Northeast Georgia, where the attending physician suspected she might have had a stroke and ordered an echocardiogram that revealed a tumor in the left ventricle of her heart.
The tumor was surgically removed, but Adams' stroke caused brain damage, leaving her with only half her vision in each eye, memory and processing difficulties, headaches and a seizure disorder.
Cook said that Adams eventually returned to work at Longstreet part-time but was only able to put in about 20 percent of the hours she had formerly worked. In what Cook conceded was an awkward arrangement, she remained there until early this year, even as her case against her employer and co-worker was pending.
Adams sued McDonald and his practice, Longstreet, along with Penix and his employer, Northeast Georgia Physicians Group, in Fulton County State Court.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice barred the lawsuit.
State Court Chief Judge Diane Bessen agreed and dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals ruled last year that there was “conflicting evidence” as to whether Adams had suffered a brain injury from the earlier event and whether she might have, indeed, been experiencing migraines until she had the stroke.
“A jury must decide the cause of the intervening symptoms Kelly Adams experienced between the January and September [incidents] to ascertain whether or not the statute of limitations bars her claims,” the opinion said.
During the trial that began May 20, Bailey said the co-defendants presented a united defense and argued there was no violation of the standard of care.
Key plaintiffs' experts included neurologist John Rothrock of the George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, cardiologist Tom Thomas of Vanderbilt University and economist Frank Adams, formerly of Kennesaw State University, Cook said.
Defense experts included neurologists Jay Schecter with the Harbin Clinic in Rome, and Robert J. Adams from Charleston, South Carolina.
During closing arguments, Cook said he asked for damages between $9 million and $15 million.
“We gave then a range of special damages for her lost wages claim; she was only a year into her practice when this happened,” he said.
Evidence closed Thursday afternoon, and the jury returned Friday morning to begin deliberations.
They returned with a straight defense verdict after about three hours.
“That was pretty fast for a complex medical malpractice case,” Bailey said.
Afterward, jurors said they were “troubled” by the fact that Adams kept working for Longstreet for so many years and they had indicated that 10 of the 12 panelists voted for the defense from the outset, Bailey said.
He also said the bottom end of the high-low struck while the jury was out “was about the same amount we had offered in an offer of judgment a couple of months before trial, so we felt very good about the outcome.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUpcoming Changes to Medicare Secondary Payer Reporting: What WC Insurers and Attorneys Need to Know
5 minute readBiden Administration Tells Justices That Bans on Gender Care Are Sex Discrimination
11th Circuit Allows Florida Transgender Health Care Ban to Continue Pending Full Appeal on Constitutionality of Law
Trending Stories
- 1Former McCarter & English Associate Fired Over 'Gangsta Rap' LinkedIn Post Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
- 2First-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
- 3The end of the 'Rust' criminal case against Alec Baldwin may unlock a civil lawsuit
- 4Solana Labs Co-Founder Allegedly Pocketed Ex-Wife’s ‘Millions of Dollars’ of Crypto Gains
- 5What We Heard From Litigation Leaders This Year
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250