Firm Results

Keith Puya and Steven Lury represented an orthopedic surgeon in Palm Beach County in connection with a medical malpractice claim. It was alleged that the client was negligent in performing a diagnostic knee arthroscopy in the presence of a potential infectious process, i.e., a scab on the surgical knee. Post surgery, the Plaintiff developed a severe MRSA infection in the knee requiring several months of IV antibiotic therapy, followed by oral antibiotics. Plaintiff is now in need of a total knee replacement at the age of 30. Mr. Bamburg also had approximately 14 surgeries, including a major fasciotomy, a number of arthrotomies and manipulations under anesthesia as well as over $1.3 million in medical expenses. Both the plaintiff’s treating orthopedic and retained expert did not believe it was safe for him to have a total knee replacement, given his extremely high risk for developing a peri-prosthetic joint infection and the possible need for an amputation. The plaintiff is left with a significant flexion contracture, loss of extension and major scarring and deformity of his right leg.

The plaintiff requested the jury award damages in the range of approximately $19 million to around $28 million dollars give the fact that the plaintiff’s projected life expectancy was over 45 years. The defense centered around the fact that although there were numerous post operative pictures, there was no picture of any scab on the surgical knee, even though the Surgery Center nurses, pre-operatively noted in the records that the patient had ‘scabs on bilateral knees.’ The defense was successful in showing the jury that the client did not and never would perform an elective surgical procedure at or through a scab as suggested by the Plaintiff. The jury deliberated the case for 90 minutes and returned a Defense Verdict.

Lou La Cava obtained a defense verdict in Charlotte County Florida in a medical malpractice case against and ophthalmologist. The Plaintiff, who was 29 years old alleged the defendant was negligent for taking a biopsy of a mass in the orbit of his left eye causing permanent ptosis and double vision by damaging the Muller Levator muscle complex. It was plaintiff’s position that a CT of the orbit should have been performed which would have demonstrated the mass was a benign dermoid cyst which should be removed in its entirety and not biopsied. Plaintiff’s expert criticized the surgical approach utilized by the defendant which he stated caused damage to both the Muller and Levator muscles. He further opined the defendant failed to read the hospital chart which showed the Plaintiff had taken an aspirin two days prior to the procedure. He testified the procedure should have been postponed. Because it was not the Plaintiff suffered a hemorrhage during the procedure which contributed to the damage to the Muller/ Levator complex. The defense demonstrated that the mass itself contributed to the ultimate complications the Plaintiff developed and damages the Plaintiff claimed. It was also the defense position that the surgical approach used while uncommon, was appropriate due to the location of the mass. Medical evidence was uncovered during the work up of the case which damaged the Plaintiff’s credibility as to when he knew the mass was present resulting in a delay in treatment which contributed to his negative outcome. It was also shown that the Plaintiff suffered from ptosis and double vision prior to the biopsy. After a 4 day trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant after deliberating for an hour and eleven minutes.

William “Vito” Carcioppolo and Brett Scroggins were successful in obtaining a defense verdict for an emergency room physician, his employer, and the hospital in West Palm Beach. The plaintiff, a 60 y/o female presented to an Urgent Care facility with 8-day history of worsening headaches and hypertension, a history of migraines but hadn’t had one in years. No history of trauma or hypertension. She was told to go the hospital due to her “intractable headaches and hypertension”. Two hours later she presented to the emergency room where she was seen by the defendant physician presenting with the same history and having been referred by urgent care. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to order a CT of her brain leading to a delay in diagnosis. Six days later the plaintiff presented to a different emergency room where the history now included sudden onset severe right sided headache and the current headache feeling different then her migraines. A CT was done and revealed a 10mm subdural hematoma with mass effect and a 10mm shift. She was taken to surgery the next day and was recovering nicely until she suffered a re-bleed two days later. Plaintiffs treating neuropsychologist reported she suffers from higher level cognitive deficits, and she could no longer work as a Neonatal Nurse practitioner which she had done for years.

Plaintiff emergency medicine expert testified the standard of care required the defendant order a CT scan on a 60 y/o female who had worsening headaches and hypertension. Plaintiffs’ neurosurgery expert testified the failure to order a CT resulted in a delay in diagnosis which allowed her to continue to bleed causing increased pressure on her brain over the 6 days which he testified was the cause of her current neurocognitive deficits.

The defense emergency medicine expert testified her only complaint consistent with a SDH was her headache which was alleviated by the treatment rendered by the defendant. The standard of care did not require a CT scan be done. The defense neurosurgery expert testified her damages were the result of her re-bleed and not from the timing of the diagnosis.

Plaintiff sought a total of 6.8 million dollars in damages. After a weeklong trial the jury returned a verdict in just over two add a half hours finding no negligence.

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to both the Trial Court and the Sixth District Court of Appeal that the Plaintiff was not entitled to plead entitlement to punitive damages. At the Trial Court level, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Plaintiff’s proffer of evidence would not provide a reasonable basis for the recovery of punitive damages. One of the issues argued was whether the knowledge of one of the Defendant’s managers was sufficient to impute knowledge on the Defendant corporation. Mr. Azzarone argued that the manager’s conduct did not rise to the levels required for punitive damages and further argued that his position as a mid-level manager was not the type that would result in his acts being deemed those of the corporation. Mr. Azzarone also argued that the Plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence that the corporation had knowledge of the manager’s actions and condoned said actions. The Trial Court entered an Order denying the Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages. While the Plaintiff appealed this decision, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s decision was correct. The Sixth District Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed the Trial Court’s decision.