$______ VERDICT - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE -AUTO/MOTORCYCLE COLLISION - NEGLIGENTMANAGEMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT -HEAD-ON COLLISION - BELOW-KNEE AMPUTATION -LUMBAR AND THORACIC VERTEBRAL FRACTURES.

• Date: 01 April 2012

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s anesthesiology expert: Robert Leckie from Boston, MA.

Plaintiff’s economic expert: Andrew Verzilli from Lansdale, PA. Plaintiff’s

endocrine surgery expert: Daniel Ruan from Boston, MA. Plaintiff’s life

care expert: Joseph Carfi from Long Island, NY. Plaintiff’s neurology

expert: Kenneth Brait from Ketchum, ID. Defendant’s anesthesiology

expert: Michael Goldberg from Camden, NJ. Defendant’s ENT experts:

Edmund Pribitkin from Philadelphia, PA, and Gregory Randolph from

Boston, MA. Defendant’s life care expert: Richard Zorowitz from

Baltimore, MD.

Stokes as Guardian Ad Litem for Sharon Phillips vs. Temple University Hos-

pital, Inc., et al. Case no. 2009-2053; Judge Mark Bernstein, 02-22-12.

Attorney for plaintiff: David Kuritz of Oxman, Goodstadt, Kuritz, P.C. in

Bensalem, PA. Attorneys for defendant ENT surgeon: Daniel P. Martz

and Marie C. Plyter of Christie Pabarue Mortensen & Young in

Philadelphia, PA. Attorney for all other defendants: George L. Young, Jr.

of Young & McGilvery in Philadelphia, PA.

COMMENTARY

The magnitude of this $12 million-plus verdict reflects the unquestionable catastrophic na-

ture of the plaintiff’s brain injury. Given her current vegetative state, all parties realized

that a finding of liability would result in extremely high exposure to the defendants in-

volved. Thus, the main battle ground at trial centered on how any negligence assessed

against the various defendants would be apportioned among them. Not unexpectedly, the

bulk of responsibility (70%) was placed on the attending anesthesiologist who was the first

physician to arrive at the plaintiff’s bedside and made a crucial decision to attempt to

intubate her rather than cut the surgical stitches in her neck.

The two defendant doctors, who performed the plaintiff’s surgery and then left the hospital,

were both assessed 15% negligence. Evidence established that the doctors used the hospital

computer to enter routine thyroidectomy orders, including Percocet, without restriction. The

plaintiff presented evidence that the computer permitted the ordering physician to make

changes, including how the standard medications were given. Thus, the plaintiff argued

that the doctors could have easily ensured that the Percocet was not given within eight

hours of extubation, on an empty stomach or that it was withheld until it was proven that

the plaintiff could withstand oral intake. The plaintiff contended that it was the Percocet,

given on an empty stomach, which induced the vomiting and set the entire scenario in mo-

tion; supporting plaintiff’s evidence established that vomiting is a known potential cause of

post-neck surgery bleeding.

The plaintiff’s plight can only be described as tragic. The plaintiff appeared at trial only on

videotape in a “Day in the Life” presentation which was broken up in to two separate parts.

One segment showed the plaintiff’s daily activities and was played while the head nurse of

her long-term care facility testified. The second part of the video showed a family visitation

and was played while the plaintiff’s sister was on the witness stand. The jury, no doubt, con-

sidered that the plaintiff entered the hospital for what is considered non-life threatening

surgery, but will never be able to enjoy life’s pleasures again.

$2,375,547 VERDICT – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE –

AUTO/MOTORCYCLE COLLISION – NEGLIGENT

MANAGEMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT –

HEAD-ON COLLISION – BELOW-KNEE AMPUTATION –

LUMBAR AND THORACIC VERTEBRAL FRACTURES.

U.S. District Court - Middle District of PA

The plaintiff was a 49-year-old bank executive from Tennessee who

was on a motorcycle tour of Central Pennsylvania with friends in

June of 2008 when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident

which resulted in the loss of his leg. The defendants in the case

included the driver of the vehicle which struck the plaintiff’s

motorcycle head-on, as well as the construction company which was

performing road work in the area. The plaintiff alleged that the

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS3

Pennsylvania Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Founder

IraJ.Zarin,Esq.

Editor in Chief

Jed M. Zarin

Contributing Editors

Brian M. Kessler, Esq.

Laine Harmon, Esq.

Cristina N. Hyde

Deborah McNally, Paralegal

Ruth B. Neely

Cathy Schlecter-Harvey, Esq.

Julie L. Singer, Esq.

Tammy A. Smith, Esq.

Kate Turnbow

Michael Bagen

Susan Winkler

Business Development

Gary Zarin

garyz@jvra.com

Production Assistant

Christianne C. Mariano

Assisted Search

Tim Mathieson

Court Data Coordinator

Jeffrey S. Zarin

Customer Services

Meredith Whelan

Circulation Manager

Ellen Loren

Proofreader

Cathryn Peyton

Web Development &

Technology

Juris Design

www.jurisdesign.com

Published by Jury Verdict Review

Publications, Inc. 45 Springfield

Avenue, Springfield, NJ 07081

www.jvra.com

Main Office:

973/376-9002 Fax 973/376-1775

Circulation & Billing Department:

973/535-6263

Pennsylvania Jury Verdict Review &

Analysis is a trademark of Jury Verdict

Review Publications, Inc.

Reproduction in any form with out the

expresswritten permission of the

publisher is strictly prohibited by law.

Pennsylvania Jury Verdict Review &

Analysis (ISSN 8750-8052) is

published monthly at the subscription

rate of $345/year by Jury Verdict

Review Publications, Inc.,45 Springfield

Avenue, Springfield, NJ 07081.

Periodical postage paid at Springfield,

NJ and at additional mailing offices.

Postmaster: Send address changes to:

Pennsylvania Jury Verdict Review &

Analysis , 45 Springfield Avenue,

Springfield, NJ 07081.

Subscribe Now