DEFENDANT'S VERDICT - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - PLASTIC SURGEON NEGLIGENCE - DEFENDANT PLASTIC SURGEON FAILS TO PROPERLY TREAT PLAINTIFF'S ONGOING POST-OPERATIVE INFECTION RESULTING IN ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES, MEDICATIONS AND SEVERE SCARRING - FAILURE TO REFER PLAINTIFF TO INFECTIOUS DISEASE SPECIALIST - DISFIGUREMENT - EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

• Pages: 5-6

dant facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On

August 28, 2018, the decedent sustained thermal

burn to her legs that were likely caused by hot water.

The estate maintained that the defendant facility was

negligent failing to prevent harm to a resident, failing

to prevent severe burns to the plaintiff’s decedent

comma failing to recognize and report to the physi-

cian that the burns were likely thermal in nature and

failing to promptly transfer the plaintiff’s decedent to

the hospital. Consequently, the decedent underwent

multiple surgical procedures including cadaver graft-

ing at the burn sites. She remained in the hospital for

2 and a-half weeks.

The parties settled the survival claim for $295,000.

REFERENCE

The estate of Tiffany Johnson by Elizabeth Johnson vs.

Forbes Center Rehabilitation. Case no. GD-20-

008312; Judge Christine Ward, 04-14-22.

Attorney for plaintiff: Ernest Pribanic of Pribanic &

Pribanic in Pittsburgh, PA.

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – PLASTIC SURGEON NEGLIGENCE

– DEFENDANT PLASTIC SURGEON FAILS TO PROPERLY TREAT PLAINTIFF’S ONGOING

POST-OPERATIVE INFECTION RESULTING IN ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES,

MEDICATIONS AND SEVERE SCARRING – FAILURE TO REFER PLAINTIFF TO

INFECTIOUS DISEASE SPECIALIST – DISFIGUREMENT – EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

Allegheny County, PA

The plaintiff in this medical malpractice action

maintained that she suffered from ongoing

infection, malaise, scarring and emotional distress

when she developed a post operative infection

that the defendant plastic surgeon failed to

properly treat. The defendant argued the infection

was properly treated and that the plaintiff healed

well with treatment despite adhesions from a

procedure performed 20 years prior that

compromised blood flow to the wound.

On December 22, 2017, the 56-year-old female

plaintiff underwent liposuction abdominoplasty and

grafting procedures performed by the defendant. On

January 8, 2018, the defendant diagnosed the plain-

tiff as suffering from a non-healing surgical wound

and an abdominal wound culture swab was per-

formed demonstrating Provotella, the defendant per-

formed a debridement. On January 10, 2018, the

plaintiff was admitted to the hospital and the defen-

dant determined that the plaintiff was suffering from

a non-healing surgical wound of the lower abdomen

with infection and he administered intravenous

Clindamycin and also performed an incision and

drainage of the wound, abscess with debridement of

the skin and subcutaneous tissues and muscles.

On January 12, 2018, the defendant performed an-

other debridement of skin and subcutaneous tissues

and muscle along with high pressure irrigation with

sterile injectable saline and triple antibiotic solution

along with application of a wound vac. The plaintiff

also received IV antibiotics and hydration. On Janu-

ary 13, 2018, the defendant discharged the plaintiff

from the hospital with home health consult for chang-

ing the vac every 3 days. At this time, cultures and

sensitivities concerning the January 10th specimens

were still pending. The plaintiff continued to treat with

the defendant for over a year regarding her non-

healing abdominal wound. Revision procedures were

attempted in February of 2019 and April of 2019. The

plaintiff was hospitalized on several occasions in May

and June requiring IV antibiotics and hydration. Com-

plications continued until September of 2019 when

the plaintiff presented to a wound center and

underwent debridement that finally resolved the

abdominal wound.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant plastic sur-

geon failed to properly evaluate and monitor the

plaintiff’s infection, failed to properly treat the plaintiffs

infection, failed to have the plaintiff evaluated and

monitored by an infectious disease specialist, failing

to refer the plaintiff to an infectious disease specialist,

and failing to administer the proper amount and type

of antibiotics to eradicate the organisms identified

from the cultures in January of 2018. Consequently,

the plaintiff suffered substantial scarring and disfigure-

ment which is now permanent, along with multiple

procedures and hospitalizations and severe

emotional distress.

The defendant denied all allegations of negligence

and injury and maintained that during the initial oper-

ation he discovered an unexpected and large

amount of internal scarring of plaintiff’s abdomen

caused by a liposuction procedure the plaintiff had

undergone 20 years prior. The existence of these ad-

hesions impacted the ability of the wounds to heal

due to decreased blood flow. This is a known risk of

the operation for which the plaintiff gave her

informed consent.

The jury found no negligence on the part of the de-

fendant doctor.

REFERENCE

Defendant’s infectious disease expert: Princy Kumar,

M.D. from Washington, DC.

Brenda Miller vs. James Fernau, M.D. and Accent on

Body Cosmetic Surgery, PC. Case no. GD-19-017548;

Judge Mary McGinley, 09-22-22.

Attorney for plaintiff: Tyler Smith of Bordas & Bordas

in Pittsburgh, PA. Attorney for defendant: Brett Shear

of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in

Pittsburgh, PA.

FEATURED CASES 5

Pennsylvania Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now