$6M Verdict for Delayed Liver Cancer Diagnosis
A Philadelphia jury on March 6 awarded $6 million to the estate and wife of a 65-year-old man who died of liver cancer after his doctors disregarded two separate recommendations for MRIs by radiologists.
March 15, 2018 at 04:59 PM
5 minute read
Garrett v. Mercy Health System
$6 million verdict
Date of Verdict: March 6.
Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 150803956.
Judge: Michael Erdos.
Type of Action: Medical malpractice.
Injuries: Wrongful death.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Emmanuel O. Iheukwumere, Emmanuel Law Firm, Philadelphia.
Plaintiffs Expert: Dr. Daryl R. Fanney, board-certified gastroenterologist, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Dr. Gerald Salen, gastroenterology, Newark, New Jersey; Dr. Mark S. Johnson, family medicine, Newark, New Jersey; Dr. Andrew Schneider, oncology and palliative medicine, Florida.
Defense Counsel: Medford J. Brown III, Goldfein & Joseph, Philadelphia.
Defense Expert: Dr. Richard M. Gore, liability and causation, Evanston, Illinois; Dr. Navena Damjanov, causation, Philadelphia.
Comment:
A Philadelphia jury on March 6 awarded $6 million to the estate and wife of a 65-year-old man who died of liver cancer after his doctors disregarded two separate recommendations for MRIs by radiologists.
However, the exact portion of the verdict that is actually recoverable is unclear. Two of the three defendant doctors named on the verdict sheet settled for confidential amounts before trial, leaving only Dr. Eugene Choi, whom the jury found to be 32 percent liable. While that would typically leave Choi on the hook for $1.92 million, that's not necessarily the case here because the estate and Choi entered into a confidential high-low agreement just before the jury came back with the verdict.
The 12-member jury handed up the unanimous verdict in Garrett v. Mercy Health Systemn after six days of trial and about two-and-a-half hours of deliberations in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Erdos' courtroom. The award comprised $1 million under the Survival Act and $5 million under the Wrongful Death Act. The jury found the two settling defendants, gastroenterologist Dr. Steven Lichtenstein and primary care physician Dr. Harvey Soifer, 38 percent and 30 percent liable, respectively.
According to the plaintiffs' pretrial memorandum, plaintiff Harry Garrett Jr. was diagnosed with hepatitis C and cirrhosis in 2007.
In 2009, Garrett became a patient of both Lichtenstein and Soifer. In November 2010, Garrett also became a patient of Choi, who specializes in hematology and oncology and began treating Garrett for anemia and other conditions. All three defendants were physicians with Mercy Health System, the plaintiffs' memorandum said.
In December 2010, Garrett underwent an ultrasound ordered by Soifer, after which the radiologist recommended an MRI of the liver, noting that it was a better method than ultrasound for detecting liver cancer, according to the plaintiffs' memorandum.
Between Dec. 8, 2010, and April 27, 2013, the decedent met with the three doctors multiple times, but none of them ever ordered the recommended MRI, according to the plaintiffs' memorandum. On April 27, 2013, after Garrett was admitted to Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital with blood in his stool, he underwent a CT scan of his abdomen and pelvis to rule out gastrointestinal bleeding. The radiologist who performed the CT scan again recommended an MRI, but none of the defendant doctors ordered one.
In June 2014, the Lichtenstein ordered an ultrasound for screening, which did not show a mass, according to the plaintiffs' memorandum. But on Oct. 5, 2014, Garrett was admitted to the emergency room at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital with severe abdominal pain. A CT scan was performed the same day, showing a suspected ruptured liver mass, which was confirmed by an enhanced MRI the following day. On Oct. 8, 2014, Garrett was deemed to be a poor candidate for surgery and a subsequent biopsy confirmed the mass had originated from liver cancer. Garrett died Nov. 9, 2014, at age 65.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendant doctors failed to timely diagnose Garrett's cancer because they disregarded the two prior MRI recommendations.
Choi, however, argued in his own pretrial memorandum that, prior to the MRI performed on Oct. 6, 2014, Garrett had undergone several other types of radiology studies, including the June 6, 2014, ultrasound, and none showed signs of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Choi also argued in his pretrial memorandum that Garrett had “outlived his life expectancy” based on his medical history, which, in addition to hepatitis C, cirrhosis and anemia, included thrombocytopenia, atrial fibrillation, diabetes and obstructive sleep apnea.
Counsel for Choi, Medford J. Brown III of Goldfein & Joseph in Philadelphia, said that despite the fact that the jurors heard testimony from two experts on each side, they deliberated only “very briefly” from about 11:10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., during which time they were also given lunch.
“In my view, the award is a joke, actually,” Brown said. “The reason I say that is the decedent was 65 at the time of his death, had a very extensive medical history and there was expert testimony from the defense that he basically had lived out his life expectancy because of his numerous comorbidities.”
But when asked what he thought might have swayed the jury in his clients' favor, counsel for Garrett's wife and estate, Emmanuel O. Iheukwumere of the Emmanuel Law Firm in Philadelphia, said Choi's ”failure to act was pretty obvious” and that the defendant doctors ignored “clear-cut recommendations” by radiologists.
Iheukwumere tried the case with Fabio A. Sciarrino of his firm.
Counsel for Lichtenstein, Daniel Divis of Gerolamo Mcnulty Divis & Lewbart in Philadelphia, said he had no comment on the verdict because he and his client were not involved in the trial.
Counsel for Soifer, E. Chandler Hosmer of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in King of Prussia, could not be reached for comment.
—Zack Needles, of the Law Weekly
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
© 2025 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 AllNo Pa. Case Has Ever Adjudicated a Claim to Enforce an Environmental Covenant Imposed Under 'Act 2'—Does That Matter?
7 minute readSuperior Court Rejects Pa. Hospital's Challenge to $7.3M Med Mal Judgment
3 minute readPittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute readDe-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
Trending Stories
- 1The Appropriate Exemption in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
- 2DOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
- 3New Partners at Cummings & Lockwood, Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey
- 4'Extra Government'?: NY Top Court Eyes Ethics Commission's Constitutionality
- 5South Texas College of Law Houston Selects New Dean
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