Nicholas Malfitano Aug. 25, 2015, 10:38am


PHILADELPHIA – A disagreement over the process of moving forward with a medical malpractice case has left the plaintiff in that action seeking new professional counsel.

Eric G. Zajac, of Zajac & Arias in Philadelphia, petitioned the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on July 17 to be removed from representing his client, plaintiff Ramon Liriano Sanchez.

Zajac explained a disagreement had taken place between himself and Sanchez, which implicated Rule 1.16 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly 1.16 (b) (4).

This subset rule explains that an attorney may withdraw from representing a client, if the client “insists on taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.”

A hearing in this matter was set for Wednesday at Philadelphia City Hall, in Court chambers.

Sanchez filed suit against Temple University Health System and Riyaz Bashir, M.D. in March, following up the initial filing with an amended complaint in June, alleging the defendants were liable for negligent care, and Temple University Hospital was vicariously liable for Bashir’s actions.

On March 23, 2013, Sanchez was admitted to the hospital with chest pain, and the hospital recommended he undergo a cardiac catheterization procedure to alleviate that pain. Bashir performed the catheterization two days later, on March 25, 2013.

Sanchez claimed he developed post-surgical complications before he even left the hospital, and that a note in his recovery room read: “Radial site with continued bleeding, despite celox patch and 20 minutes of manual pressure.”

Sanchez was eventually diagnosed with “damage to the distal portion of his interosseous artery, and/or radial artery thrombosis.”

Sanchez felt Bashir was negligent in not performing the cardiac catheterization correctly; failing to assess risk of complications; failing to consider non-surgical treatment; failing to take measures to avoid post-surgical complications; and failure to obtain informed consent from Sanchez, for the risks associated with the procedure.

Sanchez claimed to suffer physical and mental pain and suffering, embarrassment, loss of life’s pleasures and compensable damages, resulting from the surgery. 

The plaintiff is seeking judgment jointly and severally from each defendant, in excess of $50,000, plus interest, court costs and other relief.

The defendants are represented by Mary E. Reilly, of Post & Schell in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 150302586

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nickpennrecord@gmail.com

More News