MEDIA – Several Delaware County health care entities have answered a Georgia woman’s lawsuit, brought after the hospital and its personnel were said to have failed to diagnose and monitor her late husband’s medical condition, which led to him passing away from cardiac arrest soon after his discharge.
Shanera Raison (individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Robert J. Walker, deceased) of Fairburn, Ga. first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on April 27 versus Prospect CCMC, LLC of Upland and Prospect Crozer, LLC of Springfield Township (both doing business as “Crozer Chester Medical Center”), John Doe Corporations 1-5 and John/Jane Does 1-5.
“On Oct. 8, 2020, plaintiff’s decedent Robert J. Walker presented to the emergency department of Crozer Chester Medical Center with complaints of abdominal pain, which had been ongoing for two or three days. Syed Ali M.D. entered a note into the medical record at 5:25 p.m. that he had consulted with David Kleinman M.D., a cardiologist, who had recommended to admit Walker to a cardiology service monitored-bed, due to an electrocardiogram finding consistent with anterior lateral ischemia and elevated troponin. Thereafter, Walker was admitted to Crozer Chester Medical Center for cardiac care,” the suit said.
“During Walker’s inpatient hospitalization, defendants determined that he had significantly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in the setting of coronary artery disease. Defendants knew and/or should have known that Walker was therefore at high risk of sudden cardiac death due to an arrhythmia. Specifically, defendants knew and/or should have known that Walker’s injection fraction had dropped to 25 percent in the setting of a recent myocardial infarction. As a result of these diagnoses and foreseeable increased risk of serious injury and death therefrom, defendants prescribed and ordered Walker a cardiac life vest (a wearable defibrillator to prevent or stop life threatening heart conditions).”
The suit continued that the defendants failed to properly plan for Walker’s safe discharge by failing to obtain the life vest for fitting and use on his body prior to sending him home from the hospital, and instead, had the life vest sent to Walker’s home without knowing when it would be delivered, and discharged Walker anyway, without a life vest.
Rather, they sent Walker home by himself, at approximately 3 p.m. on Oct. 13, 2020. Walker died by himself at home the following day, at about 9:54 a.m. on Oct. 14, 2020.
“Walker had not yet received his life vest when he died. Walker’s causes of death were acute myocardial infarction, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and mixed hyperlipidemia. Walker suffered electrical cardiac sudden death as a result of defendants’ negligence and breaches of the medical standards of care which included failing to obtain the prescribed life vest prior to discharging Walker,” the suit stated.
“Had Walker been kept in the hospital and monitored until the life vest could be fitted to his body, he would not have died from sudden cardiac death within 24 hours of discharge. Defendants failed to properly diagnose Walker’s condition. Being prematurely discharged from Crozer caused Walker to decline and die, because he was without continued monitoring and evaluation by medical personnel. By discharging Walker from Crozer, defendants increased the risk that his medical condition would decline and reduce his chances of survival.”
The defendants filed preliminary objections on May 25, seeking to strike allegations of recklessness and claims for punitive damages from the suit.
“In addition to the allegations of negligence, plaintiff asserts that the defendants were reckless and should, therefore, be liable for punitive damages. However, plaintiff has failed to provide the necessary factual predicate to support such claims. Here, a complete reading of the complaint illustrates that the allegations against defendants are based upon a theory of negligence alleging mistake and errors in professional medical judgment. These allegations do not rise to gross negligence, yet alone a level of culpability that would require the imposition of punitive damages,” per the objections.
“Importantly, as to the claims for punitive damages based on a theory of vicarious liability, at no time does plaintiff alleged defendants knew of and allowed the conduct by its agent that resulted in the award of punitive damages, which is a necessary element to plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. Furthermore, no facts are alleged which demonstrate reckless conduct. Instead, plaintiff has only alleged ordinary negligence against defendants for allegedly discharging the defendant without a life vest. Despite plaintiff’s peppering of the complaint with use of words and phrases suggesting a claim for punitive damages, the factual allegations in this matter do not give rise to a claim for punitive damages by any interpretation. Plaintiff makes no factual allegations that defendants acted so outrageously, with conscious disregard to a known risk of harm to plaintiff as to justify a claim for punitive damages- either individually or vicariously. Rather plaintiff has only entered ‘trigger words’ to facts that show ordinary negligence. The mere insertion of ‘trigger words’ is not self-supporting and must be substantiated by the facts. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages against defendants must be stricken with prejudice.”
In an opposition answer to the objections filed on June 10, the plaintiff maintains that the defendants failed to properly diagnose Walker’s condition, and being prematurely discharged from Crozer caused Walker to decline and die, because he was without continued monitoring and evaluation by medical personnel.
On Aug. 8, the Crozer defendants moved to join additional, third-party defendants in the case.
“Kindly issue a writ to join additional defendants Muhammad Raza, M.D., Andrew Mehalick, M.D., David Kleinman, M.D., Jonathan Finkel, M.D. and Cardiology Consultants of Philadelphia, in connection with the above-captioned matter,” the writ stated.
On Nov. 17, Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge Barry C. Dozor decreed the objections were to be thrown out.
“Upon consideration of defendants Prospect CCMC, LLC (doing business as “Crozer Chester Medical Center”) and Prospect Crozer, LLC’s (doing business as “Crozer Chester Medical Center”) preliminary objections to plaintiff’s complaint and any response thereto, it is ordered that said preliminary objections are overruled,” Dozor said.
UPDATE
Subsequent to the ruling, the defendants then answered the action, denied the plaintiff’s allegations and provided related new matter on Dec. 14.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action 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 defendants. Plaintiff’s claims are barred as answering defendants were not negligent. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because the alleged injuries, if any, were not caused by the actions or inactions of answering defendants. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by virtue of the defense of defense of assumption of the risk. Plaintiff’s claims are barred or must be reduced, by virtue of the comparative negligence of plaintiff and/or plaintiff‘s decedent,” the new matter stated.
“Plaintiff’s damages and/or injuries, if any, were caused by individuals and/or entities not under the control of answering defendants. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited as plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s decedent may have executed a release in favor of answering defendants. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, or must be reduced, by application of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, the entire provisions of which are incorporated by reference herein, as though set forth in full. Plaintiff’s alleged damages were caused by the acts and or omissions of persons and or entities over whom which answering defendants exercised no control and said acts or omissions amount to a superseding intervening cause of the injuries allegedly sustained. Plaintiff’s claims are barred as any alleged act and or omission of answering defendants was not the factual cause or the proximate cause of plaintiff’s alleged harm. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.”
For counts of negligence, vicarious liability, corporate negligence, wrongful death and survival, the plaintiff is seeking damages, jointly and/or severally, in excess of $50,000, and in excess of the prevailing limits of arbitration, plus punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, post- judgment interest, costs and damages for delay.
The plaintiff is represented by Justin M. Bernstein of Kenneth R. Schuster & Associates, in Media.
The defendants are represented by Daniel J. Divis, Joseph L. Garbarino III and Angelica N. Parrilla of Gerolamo McNulty Divis & Lewbart, in Philadelphia.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2022-002901
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com