Photo: Shutterstock

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has vacated a defense verdict and ordered a new trial in a medical malpractice lawsuit stemming from the death of a man following his anesthetization for a colonoscopy.

A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Anne Lazarus, Maria McLaughlin and Mary Murray granted plaintiff Gerald Lacattiva's request for a new trial, after he argued that the Luzerne County court gave improper jury instructions and allowed a defense attorney to operate without restrictions.

The case stems from the death of John Ford, according to Lazarus' opinion. Ford, who had a history of atrial fibrulation, went to Lehigh Valley Hospital-Hazleton for a colonoscopy. Dr. Rajamanickam Natarajan and nurse Albert Adomitis handled the anesthetization.

Following the procedure, Ford's heart rate fell below normal. Lazarus said Natarajan immediately responded and began resuscitation. Ford underwent a tracheostomy and was transferred to another facility. Ford remained on life support for four months until he died, according to Lazarus.

Lacattiva, the administrator of Ford's estate, subsequently sued, but a Luzerne County judge found that the defendants were not negligent in their care of Ford. Lacattiva appealed.

Lacattiva argued that the trial court erred in denying his request that the jury charge include the entirety of Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Civil Jury Instruction 14.40, Lazarus said. Lacattiva claimed inconsistencies and alterations to Ford's medical records that were not properly annotated merited the charge, and that its exclusion prejudiced him.

"Appellant established the evidentiary basis for the instruction. The instruction the court gave prohibited the jury from considering 'negligent recordkeeping' as substantive evidence of negligence or breach of the standard of care, or cause of injury; the jury was allowed to consider it for impeachment purposes only," Lazarus said. "Although we acknowledge the fact that an alteration or destruction of medical records instruction does not direct that an adverse inference be found, here the jury was precluded from making that permissible inference."

Lacattiva also argued that the court erred in letting the hospital's counsel participate at trial when all named defendants were represented by counsel and the claims against the hospital were limited to vicarious liability, Lazarus said. But the Superior Court disagreed on that point.

"Hospital was a distinct defendant, listed on the verdict slip, with interests not necessarily the same as the other defendants. Hospital, therefore, was entitled to its own representation," Lazarus said.

Marion K. Munley of Munley Law in Scranton represented the plaintiff.

"I felt that the jury instruction on alteration of medical records should have been given, so I'm glad the Superior Court agreed with me." Munley said. "I look forward to trying the case again."

Kimberly G. Krupka represents the hospital and did not respond to a request for comment.