MEDIA – One company has been dismissed from litigation which claimed that a number of Delaware County health care entities improperly administered an epidural injection to a pregnant woman and caused her death.
Frederick M. Nice (as Administrator of the Estate of Margaret Bishop, deceased) of Wyomissing first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on July 22 versus Crozer-Chester Medical Center, CCMC, Inc., Prospect CCMC, LLC (doing business as “Crozer-Chester Medical Center”) and Alexander Lay, M.D., Associates In Anesthesia, Inc. and Associates In Anesthesia – Crozer of Upland, plus Prospect Provider Group PA, LLC, Prospect Health Access Network, Inc. (doing business as “Crozer-Keystone Health Network”), Prospect Crozer, LLC (doing business as “Crozer-Keystone Health System”) and Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., of Springfield.
“On Nov. 7, 2019, Bishop presented to Crozer-Chester Medical Center for elevated blood pressure during labor. Bishop was 39 weeks and 4 days pregnant,” the suit stated.
“The labor and delivery team assessed her and planned a repeat C-section for 10 a.m. the next morning on Nov. 8, 2019. Bishop also expressed that, if possible, she wanted a bilateral tubal ligation or placement of an intrauterine device during the operation. She was approved for both procedures. The plan for pain management for the C-section was spinal anesthesia.”
Before the C-section, defendant anesthesiologists Dr. Alexander Lay and Dr. Philip McClean performed a pre-op evaluation, where it was documented that Bishop had, among other things, morbid obesity. Nonetheless, she was cleared for the C-section procedure.
“The anesthesia administered in the spinal was a cocktail of tetracaine 1% 1.6 ml, bupivacaine 0.75% with dextrose 1.6 ml, epinephrine 200 mcg, fentanyl 20 mcg and hydromorphone 50 mcg. Lay administered an extremely high and potentially lethal dose of anesthetic for this morbidly obese patient in a knowing and grossly reckless deviation from the standard of care,” the suit said.
“Lay improperly administered this lethally high dose by administering it in the wrong place and/or in the wrong manner in a knowing and grossly reckless deviation from the standard of care. Within minutes of induction, Bishop became anxious, began flailing her arms, turned blue and complained that she “’can’t breathe.”
On Nov. 10, 2019, a brain MRI was reported as “diffuse cerebral ischemia” and Bishop was diagnosed with an anoxic brain injury after cardiac arrest, likely secondary to spinal anesthesia.
The suit said Bishop suffered agonizing pain and suffering, agitation and impending doom as her condition worsened during the time period between Nov. 8 through Nov. 21, 2019, when she was extubated and pronounced dead at or around 7:59 p.m.
The suit added that “administration of the excessive and lethal dose of epidural anesthesia and disregard for Bishop’s signs of impending arrest constituted reckless disregard for her continued health and safety, and put her at a substantially increased risk for life-threatening conditions, respiratory distress, cardiac arrest and death.”
“As a direct result of the negligence and knowing recklessness of defendants and each of them, as described herein, Bishop failed to receive proper anesthesia administration, intra-operative evaluation, surveillance, management and timely resuscitative measures, thereby increasing the risk of harm to her,” the suit stated.
“As a direct and proximate result of the negligent and knowingly reckless epidural administration and mismanagement of Bishop’s arrest, as more fully set forth in this complaint, by all defendants jointly and severally, Bishop died prematurely.”
Defendants Alexander Lay, M.D. and Associates in Anesthesia, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint along with new matter on Sept. 21, denying its assertions in their entirety.
“Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. Answering defendants plead the affirmative defense of release, to the extent the same or may become applicable. Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred in whole or reduced in part by the applicable doctrines of assumption of risk, comparative negligence and/or contributory negligence. Answering defendants raise all rights, immunities and damage limitations present in the MCARE Act. Answering defendants assert all restrictions on joint and several liability as provided in the Fair Share Act. Plaintiff lacks capacity to sue,” the new matter read, in part.
On Oct. 6, the plaintiff replied to the defendants’ answer and counts of new matter.
“Denied. By way of further answer, the averments of these paragraphs constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, or the averments of these paragraphs constitute allegations of fact, they are denied. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations of their complaint as if set forth in full herein. By way of further answer, plaintiffs allege all defendants are jointly and severally liable,” per the reply.
UPDATE
On April 26, a stipulation was filed to dismiss defendant Prospect Provider Group PA, LLC from the litigation.
“The parties to this action, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to dismiss without prejudice defendant Prospect Provider Group PA, LLC pursuant to pleading and asserted non-involvement with employment of co-defendant Anesthesia staff,” the stipulation stated.
“Dismissal of defendant Prospect Provider Group PA, LLC is without prejudice to its potential re-joinder in the event that future discovery indicates that it is a potentially liable party. A motion seeking Court approval to re-join PPGPA back into the above-captioned actions must be filed no later than 30 days after the expiration of the discovery deadline. PPGPA may oppose the motion to re-join it, but agrees that it will not assert the statute of limitations as a defense or in opposition to a motion to re-join.”
For multiple counts of negligence and corporate negligence, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiff is seeking, individually, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages, in excess of 50,000 and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by Joel J. Feller, Jennifer L. Russell and Jason W. Poore of Ross Feller Casey, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Donald J. Brooks Jr. and Jacquelyn J. Ager of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott in Philadelphia, plus Andrew Foulkrod and Eric Lauerman of Cipriani & Werner, in Lemoyne.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2021-006277
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com