Photo: Shutterstock

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld a defense verdict that a doctor's alleged negligence in a delayed diagnosis lawsuit was not the factual cause of the sepsis that killed a woman suffering from ovarian cancer.

A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Correale Stevens, Jack Panella and Victor Stabile affirmed denial of plaintiff Louis McFeely's request for a new trial after a Philadelphia jury found in favor of defendant Dr. Sushrut Shah.

The case stems from the death of McFeely's wife, Kathleen. McFeely alleged that a delayed diagnosis of ovarian cancer increased the risks from surgery she underwent seven months later, and contributed to her death from sepsis contracted after a debulking operation in which her colon was perforated, according to Stevens' opinion.

On appeal, McFeely argued that the finding that the delay of diagnosis was not the factual cause of Kathleen McFeely's death was against the weight of the evidence, Stevens said. Louis McFeely further claimed that medical experts on both sides agreed that the debulking surgery to remove masses from his wife's abdomen caused the colon perforation that led to her death.

Stevens pointed to the trial court's reasoning to support the affirmance: "'Despite [appellant's] contention, although the experts may have been in agreement on some aspects of [the decedent's] care, their opinions and conclusion[s] were clearly diverse to one another. As to which opinion carried more weight and credibility was clearly within the purview of the jury as the finder of fact.'"

Stevens said, "The trial court found nothing about the verdict shocked its sense of justice or required a new trial. Mindful of our limited scope of review of a weight of the evidence claim, our obligation is to respect the fact finder's credibility determinations and the weight it accords the evidence; consequently, we find no basis to challenge the trial court's denial of a new trial."

McFeely also claimed that the court erred in allowing the expert testimony of radiologist Dr. Seth Glick, arguing that he was not qualified to opine on the cause of McFeely's wife's bowel perforation.

The Superior Court disagreed, pointing to the trial court's recitation of the doctor's qualifications.

"Dr. Glick testified he has specialty training in abdominal CT scanning and gastrointestinal radiology, and he testified he has performed 'thousands' of barium enemas," Stevens said. "Moreover, Dr. Glick was a clinical professor of radiology at the Hahnemann University from 1991 to 2001, as well as at the University of Pennsylvania from 2001 to the time of trial in 2017. Additionally, he has published on the issue of gastrointestinal radiology. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Dr. Glick demonstrated that he has a 'reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on the subject matter in question.'"

Albert Evans of Fanelli, Evans & Patel represents the plaintiff and did not return a call seeking comment.

Shah is represented by John Shusted of German, Gallagher & Murtagh.

"The case was well-tried by all parties and Judge [Angelo] foglietta made the proper decision at the time of trial," Shusted said. "Those decisions were affirmed which is also correct. Both Judge Foglietta's opinion in the lower court and the Superior Court's opinion are well-reasoned, and we're hopeful this brings a resolution to this case."