$2.468m for pain and suffering, lost earnings, and loss of service to spouse

TOPIC: MEDICAL LIABILITY

RESULT: Plaintiff Verdict In Suit Alleging Negligent Diagnosis And Treatment Of Cord Compression. Inadequate Follow Up Care. A jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded $ 2,468,000. The jury held NYCHHC 40% liable, and the chiropractor 60% liable. The award consisted of $ 1,000,000 for past pain and suffering; $ 800,000 for future pain and suffering; $ 200,000 for past loss of earnings; $ 168,000 for future loss of earnings; and $ 300,000 to plaintiff’s spouse for past and future loss of services. Both sides moved to set aside the verdict;. defendant New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation as against the weight of evidence and on proximate cause grounds, inconsistency and excessiveness; plaintiffs as against the weight of evidence on the apportionment of liability as to the chiropractor. All post-trial motions were denied by the court.

INJURY: Plaintiff is disabled with leftsided, neck and lower extremity pain and weakness.

SUMMARY: A 50-year-old porter was treated on four occasions by a chiropractor for complaints of a stiff neck. The chiropractor performed chiropractic manipulations without performing x-rays. X-rays would have revealed that plaintiff had cervical spondylosis secondary to osteophytic degeneration of the cervical spine. Following these manipulations, plaintiff suffered the onset of spastic quadriparesis with attendant pain and difficulty walking, secondary to cervical spinal cord compression.

The plaintiff presented to the Emergency Room at Kings County Hospital (NYCHHC), and was immediately admitted to rule out cervical spinal cord compression. NYCHHC performed a CT Scan which demonstrated spondylosis, a cervical myelogram which showed spinal cord compression by obstruction of dye flow, and an MRI, which provided results compatible with the myelogram.

NYCHHC’s attending physicians claimed at trial that the myelogram was negative, showing “no block.” Plaintiff was diagnosed as having suffered a spinal artery infarction (a “stroke”), an untreatable condition, and was discharged to follow up as an outpatient with physical, rehabilitative therapy.

At a Neurology Clinic visit to Kings County Hospital one week after discharge, plaintiff was examined and told to return in two months. At a Kings County Hospital physical therapy appointment several weeks postdischarge, plaintiff was told to return in six weeks for treatments.

Thereafter, plaintiff deteriorated. His pain and disability worsened. He developed a tight, band-like sensation around his abdomen.

He presented to the Hospital for Joint Diseases in New York City, whose physicians were advised by NYCHHC that plaintiff suffered a stroke. After work-up, which included review of the Kings County Hospital films and the performance of a new, confirmatory MRI, cord compression was diagnosed and a multi level decompressive laminectomy was performed. Plaintiff never fully recovered, remaining disabled with left-sided, neck and lower extremity pain and weakness.

Suit was brought against the chiropractor and NYCHHC. Plaintiff’s neurological expert opined that the staff at Kings County Hospital improperly failed to adhere to their clinical diagnosis of cord compression, failed to diagnose cord compression by misinterpreting the myelogram and MRI results, failed to appropriately follow the patient after discharge, and failed to timely schedule and perform surgery. The expert testified that such treatment caused a delay in diagnosis and surgical treatment, causing plaintiff’s condition to worsen and to become unamenable to correction and repair.

Defendant’s neurosurgical expert admitted under cross-examination that the Kings County Hospital myelogram showed a “partial” block and that it was a departure from accepted medical practice to follow the patient as an out-patient with such an extended physical therapy and clinic visit schedules. However, he testified that the plaintiff did not deteriorate, that his condition did not worsen, and therefore, there was no cause of injury.

NOTE: Alan H. Figman comments that the jury was asked as its first question to decide whether the evidence showed that plaintiff had in fact deteriorated following his discharge. Plaintiff produced in evidence three blow-ups from the subsequent medical records (from Rusk Institute where plaintiff rehabilitated following his surgery) wherein a history of deterioration following the Kings County Hospital discharge was documented, thus confirming plaintiff’s testimony.

SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS: Demand: $ 1 million. Offer: $ 400,000.