New York Verdicts

Type:

Verdict-Defendant

State:

New York

Venue:

New York County

Court:

New York Supreme

Injury Type(s):

Case Type:

Medical Malpractice – Neurosurgeon, Neurosurgery, Surgical Error, Delayed Treatment

Case Name:

Edward Tom v. Robert Holzman, Cabrini Medical Center, Narayan Sundaresan and Lenox Hill Hospital

Date:

April 26, 2013

Plaintiff(s):

Edward Tom (Male, 54 )

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Steven E. North;
Steven E. North, P.C.;
New York,
NY,
for
Edward Tom

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Les Seplaki Ph.D;
Economic Analysis;
Fort Lee,
NJ called by:
Edward Tom ■ James Macon M.D.;
Neurosurgery;
Framingham,
MA called by:
Edward Tom ■ Joseph Carfi M.D.;
Physical Rehabilitation;
Great Neck,
NY called by:
Edward Tom

Defendant(s):

Robert Holtzman, 

Narayan Sundaresan, 

Lenox Hill Hospital, 

Cabrini Medical Center

Defense Attorney(s):

Andrew S. Garson;
Garson & Jakub LLP;
New York,
NY,
for
Robert Holtzman, Narayan Sundaresan, Lenox Hill Hospital, Cabrini Medical Center ■ None reported;
;
for
Robert Holtzman, Narayan Sundaresan, Lenox Hill Hospital, Cabrini Medical Center

Insurer(s):

Physicians’ Reciprocal Insurers

During the afternoon of April 9, 2005, plaintiff Edward Tom, 54, an analyst who was employed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was transported to Cabrini Medical Center, in Manhattan. Tom, who suffered achondroplastic dwarfism, reported that he was experiencing a severely painful condition of his back, incontinence of his bladder and substantial impairment of his ambulation. A neurosurgeon, Dr. Robert Holtzman, noted that Tom’s symptoms were typical of cauda equina syndrome, which is caused by damage or compression of spinal nerves. Holtzman also noted that Tom’s spine was compromised by stenosis: narrowing of the spinal canal. Holtzman opined that Tom’s condition could have been better addressed at Lenox Hill Hospital, in Manhattan. Tom was transferred to that facility, and Holtzman prescribed a battery of tests. Holtzman also requested the evaluation of a neurosurgeon, Dr. Narayan Sundaresan. During the morning of April 12, 2005, Holtzman and Sundaresan performed surgical decompression of the L4-5 level of Tom’s spine. Tom claimed that the surgery was ineffective. His symptoms persist, and they are permanent. He contended that earlier surgical intervention could have produced a full recovery. Tom sued Holtzman, Sundaresan, Cabrini Medical Center and Lenox Hill Hospital. Tom alleged that Holtzman and Sundaresan failed to properly treat his condition, that their failures constituted malpractice, that Cabrini Medical Center was vicariously liable for Holtzman’s actions, and that Lenox Hill Hospital was vicariously liable for Sundaresan’s actions. Tom’s counsel ultimately discontinued the claims against Cabrini Medical Center, which had become bankrupt, and Lenox Hill Hospital. Judge Alice Schlesinger severed the claim against Sundaresan, whose attorney had become ill. The matter proceeded to a trial against Holtzman. Tom’s expert neurosurgeon opined that cauda equina syndrome’s symptoms must be addressed during the 48 hours that follow their appearance. Tom’s counsel noted that 60 hours separated Tom’s surgery and the initial examination that Holtzman performed. Tom acknowledged that his pain had persisted through the week that preceded Holtzman’s examination, but he claimed that his incontinence emerged within hours of the examination. Tom’s expert neurosurgeon also opined that Holtzman did not properly perform the decompressive surgery that was intended to relieve the cause of Tom’s symptoms. The expert opined that Holtzman ignored an acutely herniated intervertebral disc that was contributing to the symptoms. The expert concluded that Holtzman departed from accepted standards of medical care, and he opined that the departures eliminated any possibility of Tom having achieved a full recovery. Holtzman contended that he compiled detailed notes that chronicled the symptoms that Tom reported when he was admitted to Cabrini Medical Center, and he claimed that the notes indicated that several days had separated the admission and the onset of Tom’s incontinence and other symptoms. Thus, the doctor contended that Tom’s cauda equina syndrome could not have been addressed during the 48 hours that followed the onset of the condition’s symptoms. Holtzman also contended that Tom’s dwarfism and stenosis necessitated presurgical consultations and tests that justifiably delayed the surgery. Holtzman further contended that he properly performed the decompression of Tom’s spine. He acknowledged that he did not address one area of stenosis, but he claimed that that area did not need to be addressed. Sundaresan agreed that the surgery was properly performed.

Tom suffers cauda equina syndrome. He claimed that Holtzman did not promptly address the condition, and he contended that Holtzman’s failure prevented reversal of the condition. Tom underwent extensive therapy, but he did not regain a significant amount of functionality. On Nov. 7, 2005, he underwent fusion of a portion of his spine’s lumbar region. The procedure was not effective. Tom suffers pain, incontinence of his bladder and bowel, and severe impairment of his ambulation. He also claimed that he experienced residual depression that included thoughts of suicide. He contended that his condition limits his socialization. He also contended that he cannot resume work. Tom sought recovery of a total of $6.6 million for past medical expenses, future medical expenses, past lost earnings and future lost earnings. He also sought recovery of damages for past and future pain and suffering.

The jury rendered a defense verdict.

Judge:

Alice Schlesinger

Demand:

$2,300,000 (from Holtzman)

Offer:

None

Trial Length:

3
 weeks

Trial Deliberations:

4
 hours

Jury Vote:

5-1

Jury Composition:

1 male/ 5 female

Post Trial:

Plaintiff’s counsel has moved to set aside the verdict.

This report is based on court documents, information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel and information that was provided by Holtzman’s counsel. The remaining defendants’ counsel was not asked to contribute.