MEDIA – A trio of medical professionals deny that they failed to identify and diagnose a plaintiff’s perforated ulcer and bowel necrosis, which later led her to suffer permanent damage to her digestive tract.
Helen Pennington of Ridley Park initially filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on April 20 versus Taylor Hospital, Prospect CCMC, LLC, CCMC, Inc., Prospect Health Access Network, Inc., Dr. Douglas J. Brunner, deceased (through Executor Bryan J. Minner, CPA, PFS) Judith Guerisma, P.A., Kristen Vestigo, P.A. and John Does 1-2 of Ridley Park, Crozer Chester Medical Center and Crozer Keystone Health Network of Chester and John Does 3-4 of Reading.
On three occasions in April 2019, the suit said that Pennington sought treatment for a right knee arthroscopy and post-surgical complications, including foot swelling and right knee pain.
“On or about May 1, 2019, plaintiff, Helen Pennington, was transferred and admitted to Crozer Rehabilitation Center for inpatient rehabilitative services, under the care of Dr. Douglas J. Brunner, Judith Guerisma, P.A. and Kristen Vestigo, P.A. Throughout the admission, plaintiff, Helen Pennington, suffered constipation which was not properly treated by the defendants and their staff,” the suit stated.
“Thereafter, on or about May 16, 2019, plaintiff, Helen Pennington, experienced acute abdominal pain, which revealed, in a subsequent x-ray, to be a large pneumoperitoneum. She was then transferred to Crozer Chester Medical Center for emergency bowel surgery because she suffered a stercoral ulcer that required immediate surgery, resulting in an ostomy.”
However, the suit maintained that the defendants “failed to properly and completely administer a bowel program, along with the corresponding medication, to relieve and prevent further constipation onto plaintiff, Helen Pennington, and as a result, further complicated plaintiff’s severe constipation.”
Additionally, the defendants “failed to accurately monitor plaintiff, Helen Pennington’s, intake and output, administration of anti-constipation medicine and implement methods to prevent constipation.”
Due to the defendants’ “multiple failures and deviations from the acceptable standard of medical care and careless, negligent conduct, plaintiff, Helen Pennington, suffered from severe constipation, which caused a very dangerous and life-threatening stercoral ulcer perforation, and was forced to undergo emergency surgery to remove the necrosis within the bowel, which she will never fully recover from.”
“Defendants knew or should have known that failure to keep accurate medical records, administer the proper and complete medical procedures and the failure to provide necessary medication could lead to a dangerous condition,” per the suit.
“Defendants knew or should have known that the failure to monitor plaintiff’s intake and output levels, the inconsistent medical records, the incomplete administration of the bowel program, among others, would result in a stercoral ulcer and require immediate surgery resulting in an ostomy.”
UPDATE
Defendants Minner, Guerisma and Vestigo provided an answer with new matter on Sept. 29, denying the plaintiff’s allegations in their entirety.
“Plaintiff’s complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state causes of action cognizable under Pennsylvania law as against answering defendants. To the extent applicable, or to the extent that it may later prove to be applicable, answering defendants hereby plead the statute of limitations and the statute of repose referable to personal injury actions in Pennsylvania to preserve these affirmative defenses for the record,” the new matter stated.
“At all times and for all purposes relevant to plaintiff’s complaint, healthcare services were provided to plaintiff commensurate with the standards of care applicable under similar circumstances. Answering defendants in no way, directly and/or indirectly, negligently caused, negligently contributed to cause or negligently increased the risk of causing any injury or damage or plaintiff.”
The answering defendants further explained the plaintiff’s injuries were the result of acts or omissions of third persons other than answering defendants, and for whom answering defendants are in no way liable or responsible.
“Answering defendants hereby plead all rights and defenses available under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred and/or limited as against answering defendants by the provisions set forth in Pennsylvania Fair Share Act. At all times relevant hereto, answering defendants acted within and followed a respected school of thought and, accordingly, all professional conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care,” the answer stated.
“Evidence at trial may establish two or more schools of thought applicable to the issues presented in this case. To the extent that discovery reveals, answering defendants plead plaintiff’s contributory negligence, assumption of the risk and failure to follow professional medical advice as recommended. The provisions of Pennsylvania’s Dead Man’s Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 5930 applies to the assertions in plaintiff’s complaint.”
In an Oct. 4 response to the defendants’ answer, the plaintiff denied the new matter and demanded strict proof of its assertions at trial.
For three counts of negligence and corporate negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages, jointly, severally and/or separately, for an amount in excess of $50,000, including punitive damages, exclusive of interest, costs, and delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238.
The plaintiff is represented by Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Ara Richard Avrigian and K. Andrew Heinold of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Michael M. Badowski and Anthony J. Gabriel of Margolis Edelstein, in Camp Hill.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2021-003721
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com