Pa. Justices Let $10M Verdict Against CHOP Stand
A more than $10 million verdict against Children's Hospital of Philadelphia over a failure to promptly diagnose an infant's bacterial meningitis remains in place after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to take up the hospital's appeal.
October 10, 2017 at 06:01 PM
3 minute read
A more than $10 million verdict against Children's Hospital of Philadelphia over a failure to promptly diagnose an infant's bacterial meningitis remains in place after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to take up the hospital's appeal.
The justices denied allocatur Tuesday in Tillery v. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, letting stand a unanimous three-judge Superior Court panel's ruling to uphold the $10.1 million verdict a Philadelphia jury awarded in 2015. That ruling affirmed a decision from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, which had declined to overturn the verdict.
According to a news release issued Tuesday by plaintiffs counsel, the award is now worth about $12.4 million after factoring in delay damages and post-judgment interest.
CHOP, which had been found 60 percent liable for Shamir Tillery's injuries, and Dr. Monika Goyal, who the jury found 40 percent liable, had challenged the lower court's rulings regarding the qualifications and testimony of the plaintiff's experts, but Superior Court Senior Judge William H. Platt, writing for the majority, rejected those arguments.
“Based on the foregoing, as well as our thorough review of the entire substance of appellee's experts' testimony, appellants' claim that the opinions were speculative, based entirely on their personal conjecture and expertise, and not on science of empirical evidence, is belied by the record,” Platt said.
In November 2015, a jury found the hospital and Goyal liable for failing to timely diagnose Tillery's bacterial meningitis despite multiple trips to the hospital. Specifically, they contended that the defendants should have expanded their potential field of diagnoses beyond simply respiratory concerns, and should have ordered blood work and eventually a lumbar puncture after Tillery was brought to the emergency room by ambulance on two consecutive days in 2009.
Kline & Specter attorney Andy Stern, who, along with Elizabeth Crawford, represented the plaintiffs in the case, said in a news release following Tuesday's allocatur denial, “We are very pleased that the courts of this Commonwealth have confirmed the jury's verdict that CHOP is responsible for Shamir Tillery's profound deafness and brain injury, and that efforts to delay payment on this verdict have finally come to an end.
Attorney Maureen McBride of Lamb McErlane, who handled the case for the defendants, could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon.
The delayed diagnosis allegedly caused injuries including hearing loss, central language disorder, developmental and learning delays and a loss of balance due to bone growth that affected his vestibular nerve.
The defendants' post-trial arguments focused mostly on the fairness of the expert testimony during trial, contending, among other things, that the testimony was cumulative, or outside the scope of the experts' reports.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Denis P. Cohen had said that the defendants' arguments that the jury should have been given a “two schools of thought” instruction was “little more than a red herring,” and Platt said the argument “mischaracterized” the theories in the case. The Superior Court judge determined that the requested instruction would have been inappropriate.
The defendants had also sought to reduce the verdict and medical expenses to present value, but Platt said the award was reasonable, and the request to reduce the future medical expenses went against the way the medical damages are usually calculated.
Zack Needles can be contacted at 215-557-2373 or [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @ZackNeedlesTLI.
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 AllJudges Push for Action to Combat Increasing Threats Against Judiciary
3 minute readPeople in the News—Dec. 16, 2024—Barnes & Thornburg, Rawle & Henderson
3 minute readPhila. Anesthesiologist Wins Defense Verdict in Multimillion-Dollar Case Over C-Section Complications
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Increased Costs Proved a Drag on Profits for PA's AmLaw 200 in 2024
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-81
- 3Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 4'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 5FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
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