Medical Malpractice Settlement (Loss of Tip of Finger):
In a confidential settlement agreement reached with a Hospital in Southern New England, we argued that its medical staff repeatedly failed to properly diagnose and treat our client, resulting in the loss of the tip of one of the client’s fingers. The identities of the parties, exact allegations and amount of settlement must be kept confidential under the terms of a settlement agreement reached with the Hospital and its insurer. Nevertheless, the six figure monetary settlement was satisfying to our client and we are pleased to have successfully resolved another medical negligence case. (Anonymous Plaintiff v. Anonymous Hospital, et al – further details withheld by agreement) (December, 2008)
Medical Malpractice Settlement (Wrongful Death):
In a confidential settlement agreement reached with a Hospital in Southern New England, we argued that faulty, inattentive nursing decisions resulted in the untimely death of our clients’ decedent who was found unresponsive on the floor and as to whom resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful. The identities of the parties, exact allegations, and amount of settlement must be kept confidential under the agreement that was reached with the Hospital’s insurer (this type of agreement is not unusual). We can say, however, that the six figure monetary conclusion to the matter was satisfying to our clients and all parties seem pleased that the matter has been resolved. (Anonymous Estate v. Anonymous Hospital, et al – further details withheld by agreement) (June, 2007)
Federal Tort Claims Act: Wrongful Death – Veteran’s Administration Hospital – Unreasonable Delay in Performing Surgery on Veteran Needing Triple Bypass Surgery:
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. During an inpatient stay at the Veteran’s Administration (“V.A.”) in West Roxbury, Massachusetts in August, 1981, our client’s husband was diagnosed with severe coronary artery disease requiring triple coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Due to an alleged “lack of beds” he was sent home with instructions to return in October to undergo this surgical procedure. Unfortunately, his condition mandated immediate attention and he died at home following orders and waiting for his appointment. This type case fell within the Federal Tort Claims Act (“F.T.C.A.”) which required a written notification to the V.A. to allow them to review the claim. The V.A. denied it had acted improperly and denied that it had failed to comport with the standard of care required in such circumstances. The F.T.C.A. allows persons who are denied by federal agencies to sue the United States in federal courts, but these cases are heard by judges (without juries). After the V.A. denial, we filed a complaint in the federal court. The V.A. continued to refuse to negotiate and the action proceeded to trial before Chief Judge Francis Boyle. We supported our claims with the V.A.’s own records and the expert testimony of Leland Jones, M.D. and the V.A. changed its position and settled the case during trial. Piacente v. United States of America, C.A. No. 84-0604-B.