MEDIA – Crozer Health Care System steadfastly denies allegations that its medical professionals were negligent, in failing to diagnose cancer in the late husband of a Delaware County woman suing it for wrongful death in state court.
Mary Cynthia King (Executrix of the Estate of Harry Hartman King III) of Chadds Ford first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 4 versus Crozer-Keystone Health System entities, Damon R. Soeiro, M.D., Southeast Radiology, Ltd. of Crozer-Chester Medical Center Department of Radiology, Pulmonary Consultants, Inc., Pierre G. Frederique, M.D., Wei Bin, M.D., Donna Delfin, D.O. and Prospect Health Access Network, Inc.
“Plaintiff’s decedent, Mr. King, had regularly engaged defendant Delfin as his primary care physician. As part of this treatment relationship, Mr. King advised defendant Delfin that he had formerly been smoker for over thirty years. Plaintiff’s decedent also had a medical history that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) on and required the use of a CPAP machine with supplemental oxygen at bedtime,” the suit said.
“In 2017, defendant Delfin referred Mr. King to defendant Pulmonary Consultants, Inc., for treatment of his COPD and OSA. From 2017 until 2019, Mr. King’s COPD and OSA was treated by pulmonologist, defendant Dr. Bin and defendant Pulmonary Consultants, Inc. On March 12, 2018, Mr. King was seen at defendant Pulmonary Consultants, Inc.’s office by defendant Dr. Bin. Mr. King presented with significant oxygen desaturation. His oxygen saturation level on room air at rest was 90 percent and with exertion was 83 percent.”
King added that Dr. Bin then admitted Mr. King to Crozer Chester Medical Center for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and subsequent tests revealed “a possible faint opacity within the right lower lobe”, interpreted by defendant Dr. Soeiro as “advanced centrilobular emphysema.”
“Notwithstanding, none of the defendants ordered any further tests or examinations of plaintiff’s decedent. No follow up or comparative tests or studies were ordered, including but not limited to a PET-CT scan. At no time following the March 12, 2018 CT scan did any of the defendant doctors advise plaintiff or plaintiff’s decedent that there was suspicion for malignancy in the aforementioned study,” per the suit.
“In the spring months of 2019, plaintiff’s decedent relayed to defendant Delfin increased complaints of pain in his left chest secondary to increased coughing and fear of a fractured rib. On or about May 8, 2019, plaintiff’s decedent underwent a Chest X-Ray which revealed a ‘left upper lobe opacification measuring 3.6 x 3.5 cm is likely a neoplasm’ and a CT scan of the rest was required for further evaluation. On or about May 10, 2019, plaintiff’s decedent underwent a Chest CT with contrast which revealed a ‘highly spiculated left upper lobe pulmonary parenchymal mass measuring up to 5.1 cm, most in keeping with primary bronchogenic carcinoma, and there is a broad base of contact along the pleural surface with possible extension into the left chest wall.”
Thereafter, plaintiff’s decedent commenced significant and painful treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy beginning in August of 2019.
The suit said that despite the aggressive attempts at treatment, the plaintiff’s decedent’s cancer metastasized and spread to his lymph nodes and ribs. The plaintiff’s decedent ultimately perished from stage 4 squamous cell carcinoma of the lung on Feb. 26, 2020.
UPDATE
The Crozer defendants filed an answer along with new matter on Nov. 24, charging that the plaintiff’s various allegations of negligence were baseless and denying them as conclusions of law to which no response was required.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action as to unnamed and unidentified ‘agents, ostensible agents, servants and/or employees’ of answering defendants. Answering defendants acted, at all times relevant hereto, within the applicable standards of care and were not negligent. Any actions or omissions of answering defendants alleged to constitute negligence, the same being specifically denied with proof demanded at trial, were not the factual, legal or proximate cause of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages,” the filing’s new matter stated, in part.
“Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred, in whole or in part, or reduced by the contributory and/or comparative negligence of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of assumption of risk. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of contributory negligence.”
For counts of survival, wrongful death, negligence, vicarious liability and corporate negligence, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and severally, in excess of $50,000, plus interest, delay damages, costs of suit, as well as all damages legally appropriate at the time of jury trial.
The plaintiff is represented by James J. McEldrew III, Daniel N. Purtell and Marcus A. Washington of McEldrew Young Purtell, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Benjamin A. Post and Zachary R. Fowler of Post & Post, plus Frank A. Gerolamo, Daniel J. Divis and Joseph L. Garbarino III of Gerolamo McNulty Divis & Lewbart, all also in Philadelphia.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2021-008373
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com