MEDIA – A New Jersey woman has reiterated medical malpractice claims against a number of Delaware County healthcare entities and professionals, for their alleged negligence which caused her late husband to die of a pulmonary embolism.
Sharon B. Lee, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas F. Lee, Jr. of Swedesboro, N.J. first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 14 versus Mukesh A. Patel, M.D. of Prospect Park, Prospect CCMC, LLC of Ridley Park, Prospect Health Access Network, Inc. and Prospect Crozer, LLC (c/o CT Corporation), of Harrisburg.
“On or about June 19, 2020, Mr. Lee was transferred from Penn Medicine to Taylor Rehabilitation Hospital for intensive rehab treatment after undergoing two surgeries on his neck. Patrick Murphy, D.O., was the attending physician in the rehabilitation unit at Taylor Rehabilitation Hospital. On or about June 20, 2020, Mukesh Patel, M.D., performed an internal medicine consult for Mr. Lee,” the suit said.
“On June 23, 2020, the physical therapist documented that Mr. Lee exhibited shortness of breath during his treatment that day, however, upon information and belief, the therapist did not communicate this finding to any physician. On June 23, 2020, in the morning, Lacey O’Hara, PA-C from cardiology, documented that Mr. Lee had sinus tachycardia likely secondary to pain. On June 24, 2020, in the morning, it was again documented that Mr. Lee was reporting shortness of breath. On June 24, 2020, Lacey O’Hara, PA-C documented that Mr. Lee had sinus tachycardia -multifactorial and to check ECHO and a pulmonary VQ scan.”
According to the complaint, Mr. Lee underwent an ECHO which revealed that the “right atrium was mildly dilated, the right ventricular systolic function was mildly reduced, the right ventricle size was mildly enlarged, there was mild to moderate tricuspid regurgitation and mild pulmonic valvular regurgitation and there was mild pulmonary hypertension.”
On June 24, 2020, Mr. Lee also underwent a pulmonary VQ scan which revealed a high probability of pulmonary embolism, leading his radiologist to contact Dr. Murphy about the nature of the test results – who then, in turn, notified Dr. Patel, who has admitting privileges at Taylor Hospital.
“Dr. Patel advised Dr. Murphy that he would contact the pharmacy for the correct dose of Xarelto for Mr. Lee. Xarelto is used to treat and prevent blood clots. Additionally, Mr. Lee’s Heparin was placed on hold and Dr. Lander, a pulmonary specialist, was consulted. On June 24, 2020, at or about 5:30 p.m., Dr. Murphy documented that he spoke with Dr. Lander and then at or about 6 p.m., Dr. Murphy sent a request for consult to Dr. Lander,” the suit stated.
“On June 25, 2020, at or about 3 a.m., the Rapid Response Team was called to Mr. Lee’s bedside. On June 25, 2020, at or about 4 a.m., Mr. Lee succumbed to his pulmonary embolism and could not be resuscitated. Mr. Lee was pronounced dead on June 25, 2020, at 5:11 a.m. The defendants’ negligence increased the risk of harm that Mr. Lee would suffer a pulmonary embolism associated with hemodynamic compromise, causing his death.”
Defendant Patel filed an answer along with new matter on March 7, denying all liability in the action as conclusions of law to which no official response was required.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has not sustained any injuries cognizable under Pennsylvania law as a consequence of the alleged action, or inaction, of answering defendant. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, or in part, because plaintiff’s alleged injuries, if any, were not caused by any actions by or on behalf of answering defendant. Answering defendant acted at all times in accordance with the standard of care,” the new matter stated, in part.
“Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Answering defendant reserves the right to raise the defense of release, if appropriate. Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to support the allegations of negligence against answering defendant. Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to support the allegations of derivative and vicarious liability against answering defendant. Plaintiff’s damages and/or injuries were not proximately caused by any action, or inaction, by or on behalf of answering defendant. Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and insufficiently pled under Pennsylvania law.”
According to Patel’s counsel, the tenets of the Fair Share Act, specifically 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7102, state that “each defendant is liable only for its proportionate share of liability, and the trial court must enter separate judgments against each defendant limited to that defendant’s assessed share of liability.”
UPDATE
The plaintiff responded to Patel’s answer and new matter in a March 25 filing, denying it in its entirety.
“The averments contained in the corresponding paragraphs are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph 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 of same is demanded at the time of trial,” according to the plaintiff’s counsel.
For multiple counts of negligence, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiff is seeking damages, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in excess of the arbitration limits in effect in Delaware County at the time this cause of action was commenced.
The plaintiff is represented by Steven G. Wigrizer, Mary T. Gidaro and Jason S. Weiss of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, in Philadelphia.
Defendant Patel is represented by Michael O. Pitt and Brett M. Littman of O’Brien & Ryan, in Plymouth Meeting.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2022-000281
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com