Case Results

A young mother, 37-weeks pregnant, presented to the labor and delivery unit of a hospital with hypertension, elevated liver enzymes, and swollen feet and legs. The nurses determined that the unborn child’s heartbeat was dropping and called the OB/GYN, who, despite living some 20 minutes from the hospital, did not arrive for 3 hours, and only did so after arguing with the nursing staff about the urgency of the case. While they waited for the doctor to arrive, the nursing staff took no action to intervene in a situation they all knew was very dangerous for the baby and the mother. When the doctor finally arrived, he determined that the baby had passed away inside the mother. He then took a nap in the hospital call room and waited to be called for the delivery. He took no action to treat the mother’s hypertension and neither did the nursing staff, despite one of them sitting with the mother through the night. About 6 hours after the baby passed away, the mother delivered the stillborn child. She suffered a massive hemorrhagic stroke sometime near the delivery. After another doctor at the hospital took over the young mother’s care, she was flown by helicopter to VCU/MCV, where she remained in a coma for several days. She made a remarkable recovery but is unlikely to work in the future and suffers from balance issues. Separate lawsuits were filed on behalf of the deceased child and the mother against the OB/GYN and the hospital. The case for the young mother settled for the maximum amount available under Virginia law at the time, $2,300,000, and the case for the deceased child settled for $700,000. There was substantial risk that both cases could be subject to one “cap” of $2,300,000 if the cases were tried and appealed.

The patient had a gallbladder removal surgery (laparoscopic cholecystectomy). During the surgery, the surgeon thought that he might have nicked her intestine with a trocar, the tubes used to perform laparoscopic surgery, but he couldn’t find the injury. He finished the procedure and discharged the patient home, noting to his colleagues in the surgical group that if this patient shows up in the hospital, first rule out a bowel injury. The patient came to the ER the next day, and one of the original surgeon’s young colleagues admitted the patient. He decided that she did not have a bowel injury despite a CT scan that showed excess air in her abdominal cavity (a sign of infection), an elevated white blood count (a sign of infection), excessive abdominal pain (a sign of bowel injury), and his senior colleague’s warning about this patient if she was readmitted while he was on vacation. Nothing was done to investigate a bowel leak of enteric contents into her abdominal cavity for a week until one of the incisions near her belly button began leaking foul smelling, bile-colored fluid. Ultimately she had to have four open abdomen surgeries to attempt to correct the problems. She was left with “short gut syndrome” because so much of her intestine was removed. She suffered terribly and at one point her weight dropped from 120 to 87 pounds because she could not digest nutrients with her anatomy. The case settled at mediation for $1,650,000.

Two days after giving birth to her first child by C-section, the patient went to the emergency room complaining of severe abdominal pain in the area of her C-section incision. The ER doctor ordered a CT scan of her belly, which showed a possible abscess on her uterus over the C-section incision. She also had a high white blood count and a fever. Together with the CT results, these tests led the ER doctor to conclude that the patient was, in fact, suffering from an abscess and admitted her to the hospital to be cared for by an OB/GYN after telling the patient he thought she had an abscess that could be drained. The OB/GYN believed that an abscess was unlikely, diagnosed the patient with a common post-partum infection, and decided to treat the patient with antibiotics. Over the next 2-3 days of antibiotic treatment, the patient did not improve and continued to complain of abdominal pain and a fever. Even though the patient asked the OB/GYN about the possibility of an abscess, the OB/GYN brushed off these suggestions. On the seventh day of the patient’s hospital stay, another doctor ordered a repeat CT scan, which showed that the patient did, in fact, have an abscess on her uterus that had been there for at least seven days. Shortly after this diagnosis was made, the patient underwent an exploratory surgery that essentially reopened her C-section incision. The surgeon found that the patient’s uterus had become necrotic or dead had much of it had to be removed. The patient would never carry another child. The patient, a preschool teacher for special needs children, sued the OB/GYN because she ignored the ER doctor’s conclusion and did not know how to read the CT scan from the emergency room. The delay caused by this negligence took away the plaintiff’s opportunity to have the abscess drained early, which would have allowed her uterus to heal; instead, she lost most of her uterus and the ability to have other children of her own. The jury deliberated for less than two hours before finding for the plaintiff in the amount of $1,500,000. During this trial, Mr. Robins did jury selection, the opening statement, the testimony of several witnesses, and the closing argument. This verdict tied for the 13th largest in Virginia for 2019.

The patient suffered cardiac arrest during an outpatient endoscopy and passed away several weeks later without regaining consciousness. His family sued the CRNA who administered anesthesia because she used a one-size-fits-all approach to dosing his IV anesthesia instead of taking into account the patient’s size and other risk factors associated with outpatient anesthesia or “monitored anesthesia care.” The CRNA and her lawyers contended that the patient had a phantom heart attack that his cardiologist should never have cleared him for outpatient anesthesia. They argued that the patient’s cardiac problems were deteriorating rapidly before the procedure. The case settled for $1,425,000 after a mediation.

The wheelchair-dependent plaintiff was being transported from her nursing home to a dialysis appointment in a non-emergency medical transport van when the van driver slammed on the brakes, causing the plaintiff to be thrown forward onto the van floor. The fall caused a fracture-dislocation of her ankle that required surgical fixation using a footlong titanium rod nailed through her heel and into her tibia. She also fractured her eye-socket which healed on its own. The plaintiff was in end stage renal disease and healing was difficult. She also had a number of other serious health problems that jeopardized her recovery. The plaintiff sued the van driver and her employer, the non-emergency medical transport company, alleging that the van driver failed to secure the plaintiff into her wheelchair and/or failed to secure her wheelchair into the van’s locking mechanism. The case was resolved shortly after the case was filed through a mediation.

A 55-year-old dump truck driver and mechanic was rear-ended on Good Friday at high speed by a VCU student returning to Richmond from Northern Virginia. The dump truck driver was in his Honda Civic at the time. His vehicle was severely damaged and his driver's seat broken from the impact. He underwent years of conservative attempts to fix his low back pain. He had been in prior rear-end car crashes, had a hard, physically demanding job, and could stand to lose a few pounds at the time of the crash. Physical therapy, epidural steroid injections, nerve ablations, and a nerve stimulator failed to alleviate his low back and leg pain. After losing 30 pounds, the dump truck driver underwent a complex lumbar spine surgery more than three years after the crash. The treating surgeon related the surgery to the crash. Lawyers and the insurance company for the VCU student argued that this surgery would have been necessary anyway because of preexisting back problems, weight issues, and a physically demanding job. They asked a “hired gun” doctor to support their case, which he did. Unfortunately, two healthcare providers who saw the dump truck driver after the crash also documented that they didn’t think surgery would help. The insurance company also hired an expert witness to dispute the amount of medical bills charged for the surgery. Mr. Robins got the court to exclude this witness and also prevailed on a motion to move the case to a less favorable jurisdiction. Again, COVID played a role in the resolution of this case because the trial dates were frequently moved and witnesses were nervous about attending the trial live. In the end, the dump truck driver received, after fees and expenses, more than 10x the amount initially offered to settle the case, not accounting for attorney fees and expenses.

While riding from her nursing home to a doctor’s appointment, the wheelchair-dependent plaintiff fractured her femur when the non-emergency medical transport van braked suddenly, causing her to be catapulted forward into the center console of the specialized van. Surgery repaired the fracture and the plaintiff made a quick recovery to her baseline level of health. Plaintiff alleged that the van driver failed to properly secure her into her wheelchair and/or to secure her wheelchair into the van’s locking mechanism. The non-medical transport company contended, initially, that the locking mechanism malfunctioned. Expert engineers for the plaintiff, the van company, and the seller of the specialized van inspected and tested the van’s locking mechanism. The inspection revealed that the van’s locking mechanism was in good working order. The case settled shortly thereafter for $237,500.00.

A 45-year-old IT consultant and avid golfer suffered a partial tear of his ulnar collateral ligament in his left thumb, among other injuries typical of car wrecks (strains, strains, bruising, cuts, headaches, whiplash) when a young woman turned left in front of his vehicle as he took his daughter home from a golf lesson. This injury is often called “gamekeeper’s thumb” or “skier’s thumb” and is painful and difficult to treat. After he recovered from the initial shock of the crash, the pain in his thumb stuck with him. It did improve somewhat with physical therapy and home exercise but still caused excruciating pain when pressure was applied to the thumb. This meant that turning doorknobs, using a broom or rake, or lifting things overhead was very difficult. Golf also became very challenging and painful. The IT consultant’s doctor recommended surgery as an option, but no guarantee of full recovery. After the IT consultant sued the young woman for damages, Allstate hired a doctor to examine the IT consultant and determine if surgery was appropriate. Usually, these “hired gun” doctors almost always disagree with the doctors who have been treating a patient. They do so after seeing the patient for a few minutes and reviewing medical records. However, in this case, the doctor hired by Allstate, who was the insurance carrier for the young woman, agreed with the IT consultant’s treating doctor. Allstate made a lowball offer even though they agreed their insured was responsible for the wreck and even though their expert witness agreed that this was a permanent injury that could be reasonably treated with surgery. Due to the COVID pandemic, a jury trial would have been nearly impossible. Mr. Robins took the case to private arbitration, and the arbitrator decided that the case was worth nearly twice as much as Allstate had offered to settle the case.

A lady was walking in a parking lot and stepped into a hole that was covered by leaves. The lady suffered a fractured foot requiring surgery. Unfortunately, her ankle did not heal and she developed a permanent and painful condition known as complex regional pain syndrome. A lawsuit was filed and it was discovered that the defect in the parking lot had existed for awhile prior to our client’s fall. Prior to trial, the case settled for $3,000,000.

A gentleman was at home and his girlfriend noticed that he was slurring his speech. He looked in the mirror and noticed that one side of his face was drooping. Fearing that he was having a stroke , his girlfriend called the rescue squad and he was taken to a local emergency room. By the time that he got to the emergency room, his symptoms had gone away. The gentleman was examined and underwent a MRI of the brain to rule out bleeding. He did not have any ruptured blood vessels causing bleeding inside the brain. Unfortunately, the emergency room doctor did not diagnose or treat the another type of stroke known as an ischemic stroke, which is damage to the brain from interruption of blood supply to the brain. He was discharged from the emergency room and later that day he had a damaging stroke, resulting in permanent deficits. He contacted another firm and was told that he did not have a case. He came to see me and I filed a lawsuit on his behalf. Before trial, the case settled for $1,395,000.

A client had severe back pain and went to see an orthopedic surgeon who promised that he could help her by doing a back operation. The surgeon did a spinal fusion, which is surgery to permanently connect two or more vertebrae in the spine, eliminating motion between the vertebrae. Metal plates, screws and rods are used to hold the vertebrae together. After the client had her spinal fusion, she was in more pain than she was prior to the surgery. Diagnostic scans showed that the hardware was not in the correct position and she had to undergo another back surgery to correct the hardware. She alleged that the first surgery had been done incorrectly but the surgeon disagreed and would not settle the case. A trial was held and the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $750,000.

Plaintiff was a 57-year-old insulin dependent diabetic with end stage renal disease who administered insulin to herself at home. On one occasion, she administered too much insulin and was found unresponsive.

She was taken to a hospital and treated for hypoglycemia. During her hospitalization, it was determined that she was extremely sensitive to insulin. Her attending physician felt that plaintiff would benefit from rehabilitation and discharged her to a health and rehabilitation center.

The attending physician dictated a very specific and detailed discharge summary that was forwarded to the health and rehabilitation facility, noting that plaintiff was very sensitive to insulin, that she could not tolerate more than four to six units of insulin at one time and that she should not get insulin at bedtime.

As part of the admission process at the defendant health and rehabilitation facility, an in-house pharmacist initially reviewed the discharge summary and wrote on the document “house scale,” questioning whether the house scale in place at the facility or the attending physician’s insulin instructions should be followed. The facility’s house scale was a generic scale and not tailored to a resident’s individual needs. Defendant physician number one admitted plaintiff into the facility but did not clarify which insulin scale was to be utilized and the house scale became part of plaintiff’s admission orders to the facility.

Later that day, plaintiff’s glucose level was elevated and a facility nurse called defendant physician number two, who was on call for physician number one. The defendant who took the call did not access plaintiff’s electronic records and had never seen plaintiff.

Subpoenaed phone records showed that this call lasted only two to three minutes. The on-call physician told the nurse to administer insulin pursuant to the facility’s house scale and, as such, plaintiff was administered 17 units of insulin and another six units before bedtime.

The nurse carrying out the on-call physician’s orders did not understand what “house scale” meant and administered a large quantity of insulin before plaintiff’s bedtime, which was in clear contravention of her admission orders. Early the next morning, plaintiff was found unresponsive due to severe hypoglycemia. Plaintiff suffered a metabolic brain injury with extensive complications.

Plaintiff was hospitalized until her death approximately 10 months after receiving excessive insulin. Plaintiff is survived by an adult daughter. The defendant physicians and defendant facility denied liability and each blamed the other for the plaintiff’s brain injury and subsequent death.

Confidential

Confidential

Anesthesia error resulting in hypoxic brain injury and subsequent death. This case had been declined by a prominent law firm.

Plaintiff contended that Defendants’ employees negligently failed to inspect scaffolding at a Norfolk shipyard, allowing a 4-foot, 10-pound piece of scaffolding frame to remain loose about 100 feet above the deck of the drydock. Another shipyard worker tripped and bumped into the scaffolding, causing the loose piece to fall. The scaffolding struck the plaintiff, our client, in the leg causing severe injuries to his muscles, skin, ligaments, and other soft tissues. This case had been declined by other law firms because the plaintiff had pending criminal charges.

The patient underwent a laminectomy that appeared to be successful in the immediate post-operative period. A Hemovac drain was placed in the surgical bed to remove excess fluid while the patient was hospitalized for a couple of days post-operatively. The Hemovac drain should have been removed prior to the patient’s discharge, but he was sent home with the drain in place. Initially the patient felt good but over the next week to ten days, began feeling ill and experienced a sensation of squeezing around his waist. When he presented to his orthopedic surgeon’s office for a follow-up visit approximately two weeks after the surgery with the drain still in place, he was sent emergently to the local emergency department for an MRI to identify or rule out an infection in the surgical bed caused by contamination from the Hemovac drain. The MRI identified an abscess in the surgical bed and the patient was taken urgently to surgery for wash out. After more surgical procedures the patient was referred to pain management for persistent back pain and related issues. The case settled after mediation held prior to the disclosure of expert opinions or depositions of the parties.