Case Results
Gordon & Silber, P.C. Obtains Defense Verdict in Medical Malpractice Case Involving Claim of Stroke in 36 Year Old Male Due to Alleged failure to Administer Correct Blood Thinner — November 2009.
Type of Case: Medical malpractice
Venue: New York Supreme Court, New York County
Background Facts: Background Facts: In 2002, the plaintiff, a then 32 year old male, underwent mitral valve repair. Thereafter, he was followed by various physicians who all ordered that the plaintiff continue to take Aspirin daily to prevent blood clots. In 2006, the plaintiff, then 36 years old, presented to our insured cardiologist with a right eye embolus. Although he would deny it at trial, he told our insured he had been taking the aspirin as prescribed. Following an extensive workup, the source of the embolus could not be definitively diagnosed. However, based on the plaintiff's history, our insured (and other consulting physicians) determined the likely source was his mitral heart valve and ordered plaintiff to comply with his anti-platelet therapy (i.e., aspirin) to prevent future clots.
Three months later, the plaintiff suffered a massive stroke resulting in permanent right sided hemiparesthesia.
Special Problems: The plaintiff adamantly testified that he was taking aspirin when he suffered the eye embolus and as such, he should have been considered an "aspirin failure". Plaintiff's apparent contention was that while aspirin would have been the proper therapy if the eye embolus originated from the mitral valve, since it was not clear this was the case, our client should have instead prescribed anticoagulation therapy (i.e., Coumadin), to prevent future clots. This contention was bolstered by our insured's records where he repeatedly indicated that he merely "assumed" the eye embolus came from the mitral valve. There was also the problem that since his stroke, the plaintiff had been on Coumadin without any further adverse events. Plaintiff's age, physical disability and presence in the courtroom were all factors we were concerned with.
Our Strategy: Our primary defense was that aspirin was the appropriate medication to prevent blood clots from the mitral valve. We argued that had the plaintiff taken aspirin as ordered following his 2002 surgery, his 2006 eye embolus would most likely not have occurred. We further argued that had the plaintiff correctly taken aspirin as ordered by our insured after his eye embolus (our insured ordered 325 mg and the plaintiff testified he only took 162 mg), the massive stroke would most likely not have occurred either. We also pointed out that aspirin was considerably safer than Coumadin which can result in brain hemorrhages.
Result: After only a 15 minute deliberation, the jury found that our insured did not commit a deviation by failing to prescribe Coumadin.
|