On October 18, 2019, partner Glen Pewarski obtained a unanimous defendant’s verdict in favor of our client in a strongly-contested medical malpractice trial in the Supreme Court, Queens County before Justice Cheree Buggs, J.S.C.
The case involved claims of failing to timely diagnose and treat a post-operative wound infection following surgery for removal of painful Haglund’s deformity and posterior calcaneal heal spurs involving a detachment of the Achilles tendon with a reattachment of the tendon using a knotless Speedbridge system with bone anchors. The plaintiff contended that our firm’s client failed to personally see the plaintiff during several post-operative visits and failed to properly a wound dehiscence by the application of steri-strips to close the dehiscence and antibiotics to prevent infection. It was claimed that as a result of the alleged negligence, the plaintiff developed a deep wound infection with osteomyelitis that required hospitalization with PICC line insertion and 6 weeks of IV antibiotic therapy that would have been unnecessary if the post-operative care had been appropriate. Ten days after the PICC line insertion, the plaintiff was readmitted with chest pain and shortness of breath complaints at which time a brachial vein deep vein thrombosis and a pulmonary embolism were diagnosed. Plaintiff claimed that she was required to ambulate with crutches and undergo treatment for 2 years following the infection.
Mr. Pewarski successfully argued that our client’s post-operative care of the plaintiff was in complete accord with good and accepted medical standards of care, that the plaintiff’s postoperative infection was timely diagnosed and aggressively treated, resulting in preservation of a good surgical result to the plaintiff’s heel and Achilles tendon. When plaintiff had shown up at her deposition ambulating with crutches and claiming that she was unable to ambulate without assistive devices, Mr. Pewarski was able to successfully obtain video surveillance of the plaintiff shopping and otherwise ambulating normally, without assistive devices.
In summation, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to return an award of $1,050,000, but the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of our insured on all departures.
- Attorney advertising. Prior successful results do not guarantee a similar outcome.