MEDIA – Three defendants deny liability for injuries a Ridley Park woman suffered, when medical professionals allegedly failed to identify and diagnose her perforated ulcer and bowel necrosis, leading her to suffer permanent damage to her digestive tract.
Helen Pennington of Ridley Park first 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 filed an answer to the complaint on Sept. 29, arguing it failed to state a cause of action.
“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. 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,” the answer’s new matter stated, in part.
“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. To the extent that plaintiff has sustained any injury or damages as alleged in his complaint as a function of any alleged negligence, any such negligence being specifically denied, any such negligently caused injury was 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.”
On Oct. 4, the plaintiff filed a response to the answering defendants, denying the veracity of their objections to the lawsuit.
“The averments contained in the corresponding paragraphs are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleadings are required, and to the extent the averments contained in the corresponding paragraphs are factual in nature, the same are denied and deemed to be at issue pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial,” the response said.
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 Benjamin A. Post and Zachary R. Fowler of Post & Post in Berwyn, plus 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