A law firm was sued when it performed a title search and handled a real estate closing without picking up on an unreleased lien. Several years later, the bank foreclosed on the home. The homeowners, sued as part of the foreclosure action, turned around and sued the law firm, among others. Everyone settled except the law firm. The case was tried for three days before a judge. James Grohmann defended the law firm on the grounds that it had complied with the standard of care applicable to real estate attorneys. The court found in favor of the law firm and dismissed the homeowners’ claims.

A cosmetic surgeon was sued for allegedly failing to remove a cotton ball from the plaintiff's ear canal after completing a face lift procedure. Plaintiff maintained that she experienced a sensation of fullness in her ear following the surgery and that the fullness later became pain accompanied by hearing loss. The plaintiff sought compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses and travel related expenses. The defense countered that there was no proof that a cotton ball was ever left in the plaintiff's ear. In fact, the physician had performed the facelift by making a retrotragal incision along the plaintiff's ear. This type of incision is impossible to sew up without removing the cotton ball. Gerald Toner and Michael McDonner maintained that the plaintiff's ear complaints were more likely caused by the plaintiff inserting a q-tip into her ear or from infection. In a rather unheard of twist, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss her claims following conclusion of opening statements.

An orthopaedic surgeon was sued for allegedly failing to perform a total hip replacement properly which required revision surgery. Plaintiffs (husband and wife) maintained that the surgeon’s failure to implant the total hip prosthesis properly in the initial surgery caused a hip dislocation which caused a sciatic nerve injury and later developed into complex regional pain syndrome. In addition to damages for past and future medical expenses, Plaintiffs sought a loss of future earning capacity, past and future pain and suffering, and a loss of consortium claim on behalf of the patient’s wife totaling over $6 million. The defense countered that the initial and revision hip surgeries were performed appropriately, that a sciatic nerve injury was a known complication of this type of hip surgery, and that plaintiff was informed of this possible complication prior to surgery. After six days of trial, Gerald Toner and Katherine Vesely obtained a defense verdict in Fayette Circuit Court on behalf of the orthopaedic surgeon and her group.

A local general surgeon was sued for allegedly failing to timely diagnose breast cancer. Plaintiffs (wife and husband) maintained that the failure to timely diagnose the breast cancer permitted the cancer increase in size and spread to a sentinel lymph node resulting in extensive surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. In addition to damages for future medical expenses, Plaintiffs sought loss of consortium and increased risk of future harm due to the alleged chance of cancer recurrence and lost chance of survival over ten years. Despite Plaintiffs retained experts, renowned breast cancer surgeon Murray Seltzer and pathologist Ira Bleiweiss, James Grohmann and Joshua Davis obtained a 10-2 defense verdict in Jefferson Circuit Court on behalf of the general surgeon.

Clay Edwards and Joshua Davis successfully defended a general surgeon in Evansville, Indiana. Plaintiff alleged negligence relative to a colon resection which resulted in various complications including post-operative bleeding, infection, and leak in the anastomosis which led to a colostomy and incisional hernia. A medical review panel in this Indiana case unanimously determined that the surgeon deviated from the standard of care. However, two experts retained by the defense testified that the defendant physician complied with the standard of care and that his treatment was not a factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries or damage. After a four day trial, the jury deliberated for 45 minutes before returning a unanimous defense verdict.

David Strite and Andie Camden were successful in defending an out of state bank against a punitive penalty related to a delayed lien release in Whitley County Kentucky. Plaintiffs alleged that the bank failed to timely release a lien after the plaintiffs had refinanced their home in 2003. The plaintiffs sought to enforce a statutorily created punitive penalty against the bank that would have given the plaintiffs a windfall more than $25,000 in excess of the value of the unreleased mortgage. After plaintiffs put on their case, Strite and Camden successfully argued that the bank was entitled to a directed verdict as plaintiffs had not presented proof that the bank received written notice sufficient to trigger the statutory penalty. The Court granted the motion based on the lack of proof by the plaintiff and case law interpreting the statute to require more notice than plaintiffs had provided.

The plaintiff alleged the surgeon was negligent in placing an inferior vena cava filter in anticipation of bariatric surgery. Plaintiff alleged the surgeon was negligent in measuring the vena cava prior to filter deployment. The filter migrated to plaintiff’s heart after deployment. The filter was successfully retrieved and plaintiff suffered no permanent injury. Plaintiff maintained that his vena cava was too large for the filter. Christopher O'Bryan and Andie Camden successfully argued that the surgeon acted appropriately in conducting his measurement of the vena cava, and that the plaintiff’s vena cava was the appropriate size at the level of deployment. Despite the lack of a permanent injury, plaintiff sought damages, in excess of $600,000.

Donald Brown and Michael Dailey successfully defended a Pike County anesthesiologist, with subspecialization in pain management, against allegations of medical malpractice. Plaintiff alleged that the physician mismanaged the administration of a chemical blood thinner culminating in a thrombotic event triggering allegedly significant permanent heart damage. Plaintiff sought a substantial award of damages accordingly. The defense denied liability challenging both the medical science proffered by the Plaintiff and her veracity in recounting pertinent medical history and interaction with the Defendant. The jury needed less than an hour to return a unanimous defense verdict.

Tracy Prewitt and Michael Reilly were successful in defending a general surgeon in a medical malpractice action in Bloomington, IN. The case proceeded to trial following a unanimous medical review panel decision against the general surgeon. The Plaintiff alleged that following surgery to remove two portions of his large intestine, the general surgeon delayed surgery to repair a possible leak. Plaintiff developed sepsis, multi-system organ failure and subsequently died following the procedure to repair the leak. Prewitt and Reilly defended asserting that the general surgeon, who was cross coverage over the weekend for the original surgeon and had no history of care with Plaintiff, diagnosed a potential pulmonary embolism or leak at one of the two surgical sites. Plaintiff’s evidence consisted of two general surgeons, one of which was a member of the medical review panel, who were critical of the delay in taking the Plaintiff back to surgery to repair the leak. Prewitt and Reilly produced expert testimony from a general surgeon and also a critical care specialist showing that the Defendant surgeon’s actions met the standard of care. The defense further showed that the general surgeon had asked Plaintiff to consent to return to surgery to repair the leak once it was confirmed through gastrograffin enema. The defense showed that Plaintiff elected to wait to proceed to surgery pursuant to the advice of his critical care physician who had advised Plaintiff to attempt treatment with Xigris and further stabilization of his condition. The defense experts further testified that Plaintiff had sustained a leak likely two to three days prior to the Defendant surgeon’s involvement in Plaintiff’s care and that severe sepsis had progressed beyond a point where Plaintiff could have had a reasonable chance of survival. The Plaintiff’s estate and estate of Plaintiff’s widow (who passed away before trial) sought damages for wrongful death, loss of consortium, medical and funeral expenses. The Monroe County, IN jury agreed with the defense and returned a unanimous verdict for the defense.

On July 25, 2003, Plaintiff underwent a bilateral thoracoscopic cervical sympathectomy to treat hyperhidrosis, a condition which causes excessive sweating. The Plaintiff suffered axillary and palmar sweating and had exhausted all conservative treatment. Immediately after surgery, Plaintiff complained of severe pain in the right neck, shoulder and arm and was later diagnosed as suffering from complex regional pain syndrome secondary to brachial plexopathy. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit, alleging that the Lexington vascular surgeon performed the surgery at the wrong level, thereby causing injury to the brachial plexus. The defense, led by Donald Brown and Michael Dailey, countered that surgery was performed at the appropriate level, and the resulting brachial plexopathy injury occurred due to positioning. More specifically, the defense maintained that despite the Plaintiff being positioned properly, she suffered a compression injury to the brachial plexus. After five days of trial, the Fayette County jury needed less than two hours to return a unanimous defense verdict in favor of the local vascular surgeon, awarding none of the $8 million sought.

Clay Edwards and Mark Hammond were successful in defending two Evansville podiatrists in this medical malpractice action in Vanderburgh Co., IN. Plaintiff maintained that the two podiatrists had negligently recommended and performed plantar fasciotomy procedures on both feet without implementing sufficient conservative care prior to surgery. Prior to trial, a medical review panel unanimously found that both podiatrists breached the standard of care. Plaintiff's medical proof at trial consisted of four separate standard of care experts, all critical of the Defendants. Those four experts included two members of the medical review panel, the former head of the Indiana State Podiatry Association, and a local subsequent treating podiatrist. Plaintiff sought damages of $1.5 million. Edwards and Hammond defended by submitting medical proof from two separate podiatrists, who disagreed with Plaintiff's experts and opined that the surgeries at issue were appropriate given Plaintiff's debilitating pain. An orthopedic surgeon also testified that the care provided by the Defendants was appropriate, and that Plaintiff's current problems were related to a psychological condition known as somatoform pain disorder, and not foot or ankle injuries. Finally, the defense attacked inconsistencies in Plaintiff's disability claim by noting alternative causes of Plaintiff's inability to work and function. The jury agreed with the Defendants and unanimously found in their favor.

David Strite and Katherine Vesely were successful in defending a Shelby County dentist in this dental malpractice action in Shelbyville, KY. Plaintiff alleged that the dentist was negligent in failing to obtain informed consent for the surgical procedure, causing a post-operative complication to occur during the surgical extraction of his third molars, and in failing to communicate to the Plaintiff post-surgery the nature of this complication and the need for follow-up treatment. According to the Plaintiff, he was not aware that this complication could occur as a result of this surgery, and he did not discover the need for follow-up treatment for this complication until four years later when he next saw a dental practitioner. Plaintiff claimed that in the 4-year interim, he suffered severe sinus headaches which caused him to miss substantial time from work and family activities. Plaintiff’s counsel requested the jury return with a verdict for the Plaintiff’s lost wages, past medical bills, and pain and suffering. Strite and Vesely defended by submitting proof that the Plaintiff was aware of the risks and benefits of this procedure as evidenced by his signing three informed consent forms, that this was a known complication of the procedure, and that the dentist adequately communicated the complication and need for follow-up treatment to the Plaintiff after the procedure on the day of surgery and later that evening in a phone call to the Plaintiff. Although informed of the need for follow-up treatment, the Plaintiff simply chose not to return for the scheduled follow-up treatment. The Shelby County Circuit Court jury agreed and returned with a defense verdict awarding nothing to the Plaintiff.

On March 22, 2005, the Plaintiff underwent implantation of an intrathecal catheter and programmable infusion pump to control low back pain from a failed back surgery syndrome. During the placement of the catheter, it appeared the catheter had gone intra-medullary, into the spinal cord at the lower aspect of the cord. A local physician recognized this immediately and repositioned the catheter. After the procedure, the Plaintiff complained of significant weakness in her right leg, which persisted up to the date of the trial. Plaintiff alleged that the leg was still weak, her right knee gives out unexpectedly causing her to fall, and it is hard for her to walk more than 5 or 10 feet at a time. The Defense, led by Tracy Prewitt, maintained the type of injury experienced in this case is a recognized complication of the procedure. Plaintiff asserted that the placement of the catheter was improper and, as such, represents negligence. The Jury needed little time to return a verdict in favor of the local physician and award Plaintiff none of the over $1.6 million sought.

Clay Edwards and Mark Hammond were successful in defending an Evansville orthopedic surgeon in this medical malpractice action in U.S. District Court in Evansville, IN. Plaintiff alleged that the physician negligently repaired a burst fracture at the L-1 vertebra and then failed to discover and treat fusion failure. According to the Plaintiff, the orthopedic surgeon should not have used coralline hydroxyapatite as a bone graft substitute in the back fusion procedure. The Plaintiff also alleged that the surgeon negligently removed spinal instrumentation in a second procedure. Plaintiff's allegations were supported by a Stanford University affiliated neurosurgeon and a Yale University associated orthopedic surgeon. Edwards and Hammond defended by submitting proof that the back fusion procedure was appropriately performed and that kyphosis and fusion failure were recognized complications of the procedure. Defense counsel retained a renowned orthopedic surgeon from Indiana University who supported the Defendant's care. The U.S. District Court jury agreed and returned a unanimous defense verdict.

March 27, 2007

A Jefferson County jury needed less than 45 minutes to return a defense verdict in favor of a local transportation company. Plaintiff was at a standstill in her vehicle at Fourth and Muhammad Ali when her vehicle was struck on the right front passenger side by an automobile driven by the defendant. Her right thumb impacted the steering wheel and her right knee struck the dashboard according to the Plaintiff. At trial, the Plaintiff sought medical expenses in the amount of $10,613.00, $8,500.00 of lost wages and past and future mental and physical pain and suffering was valued at $25,000.00. Interestingly, the Court directed fault against the defendant driver prior to closing arguments. Nevertheless, Andrew Clooney, through an effective cross-examination of the plaintiff, was able to convince the jury that the defendant was not at fault. The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict and awarded nothing to the Plaintiff.

March 2, 2007

David Strite and Michael Reilly successfully defended a local trucking company from a million dollar lawsuit filed by a Louisville driver. The accident occurred on the Watterson Expressway where I-65 North merges at Poplar Level Road. Plaintiff alleged that the truck driver merged into her lane and caused substantial damage to her vehicle as well as her body. As a result of the alleged injuries she sustained in this accident, the Plaintiff maintained that she was forced to undergo two life changing neurosurgical procedures: a cervical fusion and a lumbar fusion. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserted that this traumatic incident caused the recurrence of her depression. The defense denied liability, offering that the plaintiff caused the accident. The Jefferson County jury needed approximately one hour to find in favor of the trucking company and award the Plaintiff none of the 1.4 million dollars in damages sought.

February 16, 2007

David Strite and Mark Hammond were successful in defending a Henderson County family practice physician in this medical malpractice action in Henderson, KY. Plaintiff alleged that the physician negligently allowed a patient with hypothyroidism to undergo a laparoscopic cholecystectomy without testing the patient's thyrotropin. According to the Plaintiff, removal of the patient's gallbladder caused myxedema coma and resulting encephalopathy. Plaintiff's allegations were supported by a internist associated with Harvard Medical School. Plaintiff's counsel requested the jury return with a verdict for more than $16 million against the defendant physician. Strite and Hammond defended by submitting proof that there was no reason to test the patient's thyrotropin, as patient's TSH level had been tested some thirteen days prior to the surgical procedure. The patient had utilized synthroid, a thyroid replacement drug, since that time. The experts retained by the defense expressed to the jury that the patient actually suffers from Wernicke Korsakoff syndrome, a degenerative brain disorder caused by the body's lack of thiamine. The Wernicke Korsakoff encephalopathy could not be diagnosed by the defendant physician, who otherwise appropriately recommended removal of the patient's acute gallbladder. The Henderson Circuit Court jury agreed and returned with a unanimous defense verdict for the defendant in approximately forty-five minutes.

January 26, 2007

Christopher O'Bryan and Emily Faith successfully defended a Jefferson County family practitioner. Plaintiff alleged that the physician incorrectly prescribed steroids to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff maintained that the family practitioner prescribed the steroids at a dosage that was higher than recommended by the manufacturer . As a result of the alleged incorrect steroid dosage level, the Plaintiff developed a severe, and debilitating case of steroid myopathy. Plaintiff, now confined to a wheelchair, presented a substantial claim in excess of $5 million. Although the trial lasted for 2 weeks, the jury needed less than 30 minutes to return a unanimous defense verdict in favor of the physician.

January 25, 2007

In this medical malpractice action, an Owensboro orthopedic surgeon correctly performed an open reduction with internal fixation of a broken right hip using a Synthes compression hip screw. In August of 2004, the Plaintiff fell approximately 20 feet from a ladder while painting a house in the course and scope of his employment. The surgeon successfully fixed the hip and discharged the patient with instruction to bear weight on his right hip as tolerated. After his discharge, the Plaintiff suffered sciatic nerve damage in his right leg. The defense responded by stating that the orthopedic surgeon's discharge order was appropriate. The Daviess County jury agreed with Gerald Toner and Michael McDonner and awarded the local surgeon a defense verdict.

David Strite and Joseph Klausing successfully defended an orthopedic surgeon in a medical malpractice case in Southern Indiana. The Plaintiff alleged that the physician completely transected a median nerve when performing an open carpal tunnel release. Plaintiff's allegations were supported by world renowned surgeon, Harold Kleinert, M.D. Dr. Kleinert performed the subsequent surgery and documented a completely transected median nerve. The defense was successfully able to argue that the orthopedic surgeon did not completely transect the median nerve. Quite simply, Plaintiff's subjective complaints of sensation in the hand did not correlate with a completely transected median nerve. The Clark County jury needed less than two hours to deliberate and return a unanimous defense verdict in favor of the orthopedic surgeon.