Attorney James A Swartz's Legal Cases

Wrongful death

Doe v. Day Camp

Oct 08, 2015

OUTCOME: $6,000,000

Drowning death of young boy at day camp

Personal injury

Parilla

N/A

OUTCOME: $6.012 Million total recovery after jury verdict

This is a product liability/medical malpractice action arising from an incident wherein a 48 year old man suffered an air embolism resulting in brain damage when components on his cardiac introducer di ... sconnected. The Complaint named the doctors, nurses, product manufacturer and product distributor allegedly responsible for the subject incident. The plaintiff had presented to a medical center with chest pain. He was ultimately transferred to another hospital for cardiac catheterization and further care. He underwent aortocoronary bypass surgery, and remained a patient in the hospital's West Wing. During this surgery, the treating anesthesiologist inserted an "introducer" into the plaintiff's right internal jugular vein. He then sutured the introducer in place. The PSI selected and utilized with the plaintiff had a two-piece design. The sheath component of the introducer connected to its hub assembly with a luer lock. The luer lock is supposed to function by threading the sheath into the hub assembly. The surgery and recovery went well until the second post-operative day. At that time, while in the West Wing's CTICU, the plaintiff was being moved from his bed to a chair. While moving his patient, the nurse noticed that the introducer's sheath separated from the hub assembly. Air was heard to draw into the opening of the line. The patient suffered an air embolism and went into cardiac arrest. Allegations against medical personnel included failure to educate and inform staff regarding the nature of two-piece introducers, which had the potential to separate while in use, as opposed to the safer, one-piece design. Allegations against the manufacturers included claims that they continued to market/sell the two-piece design, despite knowledge of prior separations leading to injuries, and further failed to warn of hazards inherent in the two-piece design. Defendants offered evidence that the two-piece design was widely used in clinical settings in the U.S. and around the world, and was in clinical demand, even preferred by many physicians due to certain clinical advantages. Defendants also offered evidence at trial that due to plaintiffâ€™s history of smoking, and the performance of a quadruple bypass operation from which he was recovering at the time of the incident, he was in very poor health and would not have lived much longer.

James A Swartz's Legal Cases (2)

Doe v. Day Camp

Parilla