Latest Medical Malpractice Verdict & Settlement News

Browse all verdict news articles related to medical malpractice cases.

05/13/26 May 13th, 2026 - Tennessee Medical Malpractice

Memphis Jury Awards $38.8 Million Birth Injury Verdict Against UT Regional One Physicians

A Memphis, Tennessee jury returned a $38,816,500 verdict on behalf of a young boy and his family after finding that physicians failed to timely diagnose an intra-amniotic infection and delayed a necessary C-section during a prolonged labor. The verdict targets Dr. Roberto Levi D'Ancona, Dr. Claudette Shephard, and their employer, UT Regional One Physicians, Inc. The plaintiffs were represented at trial by Thomas Greer, with case preparation led by Jodi Black and Eric Espey of Greer Injury Lawyers PLLC.Case at a Glance Verdict: $38,816,500 Case Type: Medical Malpractice (Birth Injury) Court: State court in Memphis, Tennessee Verdict Date: May 13, 2026 Plaintiff: Minor child and family (name not disclosed) Defendants: Dr. Roberto Levi D'Ancona, Dr. Claudette Shephard, UT Regional One Physicians, Inc. Plaintiff Attorneys: Thomas Greer, Jodi Black, Eric Espey (Greer Injury Lawyers PLLC)What Did the Jury Award? The jury broke its $38,816,500 award into three components: $3,800,000 for the child's loss of earning capacity, $8,016,500 to fund a lifetime care plan, and $27,000,000 in non-economic damages. Each figure was tied to evidence presented at trial about the child's lifelong medical needs and the family's experience over the nine years since his birth.What Happened During Labor and Delivery? According to the plaintiffs, a first-time mother arrived at the hospital in early labor with an elevated white blood cell count, an indicator that often signals infection. Over the course of a prolonged labor, fetal monitor strips reportedly showed intermittent warning signs, including an eight-minute deceleration after her membranes ruptured and the presence of meconium while she was only four centimeters dilated. Despite those signs, the plaintiffs alleged that a C-section was not performed for another fourteen hours. By the time the baby was delivered, he had sustained injuries the jury found were tied to the delay. The child was born with sepsis and persistent pulmonary hypertension severe enough to require ECMO life support. He also suffered an intracranial bleed, had a carotid artery tied off as part of his early care, and experienced a stroke at ten months old. Now nine years old, he lives with intellectual disability and requires lifelong care.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? The case turned on whether the obstetric team should have recognized the warning signs of an intra-amniotic infection and moved to a C-section sooner. The plaintiff's team presented expert testimony, fetal monitor strips, and the mother's clinical records to argue that the standard of care required earlier intervention. The jury's verdict reflected a finding that the delay caused the child's injuries. "A jury of twelve people heard what this mother, this boy, and this family endured, and they delivered justice," said Thomas Greer, who served as trial counsel for the family.Why This Tennessee Birth Injury Verdict Matters Birth injury cases are among the most resource-intensive trials a plaintiff firm can take on, requiring multiple medical experts, life-care planners, economists, and years of preparation. A $38.8 million Tennessee verdict signals that Memphis juries are willing to award full economic and non-economic damages when the evidence supports a clear breach of the obstetric standard of care. It also reflects the lifetime cost of caring for a child who will need support for the rest of his life. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What are non-economic damages in a Tennessee birth injury case? Non-economic damages compensate a plaintiff for harm that is not financial, such as pain, suffering, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life. In a birth injury case, non-economic damages often reflect a child's lifetime of impaired quality of life and the family's experience caring for a severely injured child. The jury in this case awarded $27,000,000 in non-economic damages. Q: What is intra-amniotic infection and why does it matter in labor? Intra-amniotic infection, sometimes called chorioamnionitis, is an infection of the membranes and fluid surrounding a baby during pregnancy or labor. Warning signs can include an elevated maternal white blood cell count, fetal heart rate abnormalities, and the presence of meconium. When the standard of care calls for prompt delivery and that delivery is delayed, the baby is at increased risk for sepsis, brain injury, and other serious complications. Q: Who can file a birth injury lawsuit in Tennessee? A birth injury lawsuit in Tennessee is typically brought by the child's parents or legal guardians on the child's behalf. Tennessee imposes specific procedural requirements for medical malpractice claims, including pre-suit notice and a certificate of good faith. The filing deadline is generally one year from when the injury was discovered, subject to additional rules that can extend the deadline for minors. An attorney experienced in Tennessee birth injury litigation can evaluate the specific deadlines that apply.

Memphis Jury Awards $38.8 Million Birth Injury Verdict Against UT Regional One Physicians

05/07/26 May 7th, 2026 - Ohio Medical Malpractice

$10 Million Cincinnati Medical Malpractice Verdict in Good Samaritan Hospital Sepsis Death

A Hamilton County jury returned a unanimous $10 million medical malpractice verdict against TriHealth, Inc. on May 1, 2026. The verdict came in the death of 69-year-old grandmother Terri Price, who died of septic shock after sepsis treatment orders went unfilled in Good Samaritan Hospital's geriatric psychiatric unit. The Cincinnati case was tried by plaintiff attorneys Charlie Rittgers and Matt Nakajima of Rittgers Rittgers & Nakajima after nearly six years of litigation.Case at a Glance Verdict: $10,000,000 Case Type: Medical Malpractice / Wrongful Death Court: Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, Ohio Verdict Date: May 1, 2026 Plaintiff: Estate of Terri Price (represented by daughter Jennifer Wiesner) Defendant: TriHealth, Inc. / Good Samaritan Hospital Plaintiff Attorneys: Charlie Rittgers and Matt Nakajima, Rittgers Rittgers & NakajimaWhat Happened to Terri Price? Terri Price was a 69-year-old grandmother who, by her family's account, had been healthy and active until late March 2020. According to her daughter Jennifer Wiesner, Price began acting out of character that month, becoming confused and paranoid. The family initially suspected anxiety. On March 22, 2020, Price was admitted to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. Because UC Medical Center reportedly did not have an open bed, she was transferred to TriHealth's Good Samaritan Hospital. UC personnel sent Price with documentation noting an active infection and a diagnosis of "neurocognitive disorder due to a medical condition." At Good Samaritan, Price was placed in the geriatric psychiatric unit. Her family was not permitted to visit. Within six days, she was dead.Why the Jury Held Good Samaritan Liable for Medical Malpractice Court records and trial testimony indicate that Good Samaritan physicians ordered IV fluids, sepsis antibiotics, and potassium for Price as her condition declined. According to the plaintiffs, those orders sat unfulfilled hour after hour, with no nursing notes documenting why they were never administered. “These orders were placed, and Terri sat on the psychiatric unit for hour after hour without receiving the treatment these doctors ordered,” Rittgers told reporters after the verdict. "This care is some of the worst care I've seen in my career." Price suffered a perforated bowel, went into septic shock, and died on March 29, 2020. The plaintiffs argued that once a rapid-response event occurred, Price should have been moved out of the psychiatric unit and into a medical unit equipped to treat acute infection. She was not. The jury, which included three members with ties to the medical field, returned its verdict unanimously.What the Plaintiff Attorneys Argued Rittgers and Nakajima built the case around documentation gaps and a transfer-protocol breakdown. Physician orders existed, the medical condition was identified at intake, and the patient remained in a unit not staffed to manage acute sepsis. “It took six years for somebody to recognize that her mother should still be here today,” Rittgers said after the verdict, adding that the family hopes the result "brings positive changes to our health care system." For Charlie Rittgers, a trial lawyer with a record in both criminal defense and serious-injury cases, the verdict reinforced the weight of jury composition. "The fact that they understood the egregiousness of this care and signified what was taken, the verdict does mean more," he said.What the $10 Million Verdict Means for Ohio Hospitals TriHealth, the hospital system that operates Good Samaritan, issued a statement saying it was "deeply disappointed" with the verdict and is considering an appeal. Spokesman Thomas Lange said the organization believes "the jury's verdict is not consistent with the high quality of care provided at Good Samaritan Hospital." For the Price family, the result is about more than the dollar figure. Wiesner has called for hospital policy changes, specifically a requirement that psychiatric-unit patients be transferred to medical care the moment a medical emergency is identified. The verdict adds to a growing body of Ohio wrongful death and medical malpractice verdicts involving documentation failures and inter-unit transfer protocols. It also lands in a year when Cincinnati-area medical malpractice verdicts have drawn renewed attention from the plaintiff bar across Hamilton County. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured by a hospital error, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is well-documented and the trial team is prepared. Find a plaintiff lawyer in Ohio on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What types of damages can an Ohio family recover in a wrongful death medical malpractice case? Ohio wrongful death claims allow recovery for the survivors' loss of support, services, society, and companionship, as well as the deceased's mental anguish. Compensatory damages for non-economic losses in medical malpractice cases are subject to statutory caps in Ohio, though those caps do not apply to claims involving catastrophic injury or wrongful death in every circumstance. The Price verdict was reported as a single $10 million figure without a public breakdown between economic and non-economic damages. Q: Can TriHealth appeal the $10 million verdict? Yes. TriHealth has publicly stated it is considering an appeal of the May 1, 2026 verdict. In Ohio, a defendant typically has 30 days from the entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal. Hamilton County appeals go to the Ohio First District Court of Appeals. An appeal does not automatically reverse a jury verdict, and most appeals are decided on procedural or evidentiary grounds rather than re-weighing the facts. Q: How long do families have to file a medical malpractice lawsuit in Ohio? Ohio's medical malpractice statute of limitations is generally one year from the date the cause of action accrues. A four-year statute of repose bars most claims filed more than four years after the alleged negligent act. Wrongful death claims have their own two-year statute of limitations that runs from the date of death. Families who believe a hospital error caused a loved one's death should consult an Ohio plaintiff attorney as soon as possible because these deadlines are short and strictly enforced.

$10 Million Cincinnati Medical Malpractice Verdict in Good Samaritan Hospital Sepsis Death

04/21/26 April 21st, 2026 - Maine Medical Malpractice

Maine Jury Awards $6.5 Million in Medical Malpractice Verdict Over Delayed Spinal Surgery

A Penobscot County jury awarded Travis Getchell $6.5 million on April 17, 2026, after finding Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center and neurosurgeon Dr. Kutluay Uluc negligent in the care that left the 41-year-old Eddington man partially paralyzed. Getchell arrived at the emergency room on August 30, 2021, with a herniated disc compressing his spinal nerves, a condition requiring emergency surgery to prevent permanent damage. Surgery was not performed until roughly 24 hours later. He now walks short distances only with leg braces and has lost bladder and bowel control. The verdict is reported as one of the highest ever returned in Penobscot County.Case at a Glance Verdict: $6.5 million Case Type: Medical Malpractice Court: Penobscot County, Maine Verdict Date: April 17, 2026 Plaintiff: Travis Getchell Defendants: Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center; Dr. Kutluay Uluc Plaintiff Attorneys: Meryl Poulin and Benjamin GideonWhat Happened at Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center? Getchell presented to the emergency room at Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center on August 30, 2021, reporting severe back symptoms. An MRI was ordered to evaluate his spine. According to evidence presented at trial, nearly four hours passed before a clinician reviewed the imaging results. The MRI showed a herniated disc pressing on nerves at the base of the spinal canal, a pattern consistent with cauda equina syndrome. Emergency neurosurgery is the accepted treatment when this condition is identified, with the surgical window measured in hours rather than days. Getchell's surgery was ultimately performed on August 31, 2021, about 24 hours after he first arrived in the emergency department.What Is Cauda Equina Syndrome and Why Does Timing Matter? Cauda equina syndrome occurs when the bundle of nerves at the lower end of the spinal cord is compressed, most often by a herniated disc. The condition can cause sudden, permanent loss of bladder and bowel function, sexual function, and lower-limb strength if pressure on the nerves is not promptly relieved. Medical guidance generally treats cauda equina syndrome as a surgical emergency. The longer the nerves remain compressed, the greater the risk that damage becomes permanent even after the disc material is removed. Those facts were central to the plaintiff's case. Getchell's attorneys argued that the delay between his arrival and his surgery cost him the chance to recover full function.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? After roughly five days of testimony, the Penobscot County jury returned a verdict against Northern Light Health, Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center, and Dr. Kutluay Uluc. The jury found the defendants negligent and awarded Getchell $6.5 million in damages. The plaintiff was represented by Meryl Poulin and Benjamin Gideon. Their case centered on the nearly four-hour gap between the MRI and clinician review, and on the overall timeline that resulted in surgery occurring roughly a day after Getchell first sought care. In a statement following the verdict, Northern Light said, "We are disappointed with the jury's verdict, we respect it."What Does This Verdict Mean for Maine Medical Malpractice Cases? The award is reported as one of the highest medical malpractice verdicts ever returned in Penobscot County. Its size reflects the severity of the permanent injuries Getchell described to the jury: partial paralysis, loss of bladder and bowel control, and a life in which walking requires leg braces and is limited to short distances. For plaintiff lawyers in Maine, the case illustrates how focused timeline evidence, the time between arrival, imaging, review, and treatment, can drive verdicts in delayed-diagnosis claims. When medical literature treats a condition as a surgical emergency, juries are often willing to scrutinize every hour that passes before care is delivered. For patients and families, the verdict is a reminder that hospital systems can be held accountable when emergency care does not match the urgency of the diagnosis. Similar cases are aggregated in the personal injury verdict news hub, and attorneys in the state are listed in the Maine personal injury attorneys directory.Bottom Line The Getchell verdict shows what a Maine jury was willing to do when a plaintiff could document, hour by hour, how a hospital's response fell short of the urgency the diagnosis demanded. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is cauda equina syndrome? Cauda equina syndrome is a condition in which the bundle of nerves at the lower end of the spinal cord is compressed, often by a herniated disc. Symptoms can include severe lower-back pain, leg weakness, numbness in the saddle area, and loss of bladder or bowel control. It is generally considered a surgical emergency. Q: How quickly should hospitals treat suspected cauda equina syndrome? Medical guidance treats suspected cauda equina syndrome as a surgical emergency, with imaging and neurosurgical evaluation expected to occur without delay. Prolonged nerve compression increases the risk of permanent paralysis and loss of bladder and bowel function, which is why timeline evidence is often central in these lawsuits. Q: Can patients in Maine sue a hospital for a delayed diagnosis? Yes. Maine allows medical malpractice claims against hospitals and individual providers when a delay in diagnosis or treatment falls below the accepted standard of care and causes injury. Claims must generally be filed within the state's statute of limitations and, in many cases, presented to a pre-litigation screening panel before trial. Additional context is available in the Maine personal injury public resources.

Spinal surgery being performed in operating room

Maine Jury Awards $6.5 Million in Medical Malpractice Verdict Over Delayed Spinal Surgery

04/21/26 April 21st, 2026 - Illinois Medical Malpractice

Cook County Jury Awards $7.25 Million in Medical Malpractice Verdict Following Emergency Hysterectomy

A Cook County jury on April 20, 2026 awarded Haylie Carlson and her husband Philip Griffin $7.25 million in a medical malpractice case arising from complications during an unplanned cesarean section. The award includes $6.75 million to Carlson and $500,000 to Griffin. After a two-week trial before Judge Bridget Mitchell, the jury of seven men and five women deliberated for about six hours before returning its verdict. Carlson was represented by Sarah F. King, David F. Jasinski, and Devin J. Piper of Clifford Law Offices. The award is reported as a record Cook County verdict in a hysterectomy case, topping a $5 million verdict from 2009.Case at a Glance Verdict: $7.25 million ($6.75M to Haylie Carlson; $500,000 to Philip Griffin) Case Type: Medical Malpractice Court: Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Case No. 2021 L 010206) Verdict Date: April 20, 2026 Plaintiffs: Haylie Carlson and Philip Griffin Defendants: Monique Sutherland, M.D.; Joanna Izewski, M.D.; Gian Diaz Rodriguez, M.D.; Anya Raskin, M.D.; Brian Huntington, M.D.; Iesha Waters, R.N. Plaintiff Attorneys: Sarah F. King, David F. Jasinski, and Devin J. Piper (Clifford Law Offices) Defense Counsel: Sherri Arrigo, Erin S. Davis, and Allie Ewert (Donohue Brown Smyth) Judge: Hon. Bridget Mitchell Trial / Deliberation: Two weeks / six hoursWhat Happened During the C-Section? According to Clifford Law Offices, Carlson underwent an unplanned cesarean delivery. During the surgery, a resident physician and supervising fellow damaged her uterine vessels. That vascular injury was not recognized in the operating room. A shift change followed, and the original team handed off care before the bleeding was identified or controlled. In the hours after delivery, Carlson began showing signs of postpartum hemorrhage. Her bedside nurse did not alert the attending physician, which delayed both diagnosis and the blood transfusion that should have followed. By the time surgeons returned to the operating room, the extent of the injuries forced them to perform a hysterectomy, remove her ovaries and cervix, reimplant a ureter, and repair her bladder. Carlson permanently lost the ability to have biological children.Why Did the Jury Find the Medical Team Liable? The plaintiff's theory centered on two failures stacked on top of each other. First, the surgical team injured uterine vessels during the C-section and did not recognize the injury before handing off care. Second, the postoperative team failed to act on hemorrhage warning signs in time to prevent irreversible harm. Central to that theory was the hospital's own protocol. Plaintiffs alleged the defendants failed to follow the facility's established obstetric hemorrhage guidelines and its massive transfusion protocol, two internal safety standards specifically written to catch and treat the exact emergency Carlson suffered. After the verdict, lead attorney Sarah F. King said, "This case was very complex, but the jury listened intently to all the facts and came to a just result for this family." King also noted that the case was tried to verdict with no settlement offer on the table.What Is a Massive Transfusion Protocol and Why Did It Matter Here? A massive transfusion protocol, or MTP, is a pre-written hospital procedure that activates when a patient is losing blood faster than conventional transfusions can replace it. Once triggered, it coordinates delivery of packed red blood cells, plasma, and platelets in predetermined ratios, along with escalating involvement of surgeons, anesthesiologists, and blood-bank staff. Obstetric hemorrhage guidelines serve a similar function for postpartum patients. They list the clinical signs that should prompt escalation, including vital-sign changes, blood-loss benchmarks, and drops in hematocrit or hemoglobin. Plaintiffs argued those trip-wires were activated in Carlson's case and ignored. When a jury hears that a hospital wrote the rulebook for its own staff and the staff did not follow it, the causation question becomes very hard for the defense to win. That dynamic is reflected in the size of this verdict.Why This Verdict Is Significant in Cook County The $7.25 million award is reported as a record Cook County result in a medical-malpractice hysterectomy case, topping a $5 million verdict from 2009. Illinois has no statutory cap on non-economic medical malpractice damages following the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, which means jury awards like this one are not subject to automatic reduction. For plaintiff attorneys handling obstetric injury claims, the verdict shows the power of protocol-based liability. When the defense cannot explain why clinicians did not follow the hospital's own written emergency response, juries tend to find for the plaintiff, and tend to do so generously. A catalog of similar outcomes is maintained in the personal injury verdict news hub.Bottom Line The Carlson verdict shows what a Cook County jury does when the facts point to a preventable obstetric emergency that unfolded exactly as the hospital's own protocols were written to prevent. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is postpartum hemorrhage? Postpartum hemorrhage is abnormal bleeding after childbirth, typically defined as blood loss of 1,000 mL or more in the first 24 hours. It is one of the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States. Most hospitals have written escalation protocols that are supposed to be triggered by specific vital-sign and blood-loss thresholds. Q: Can a patient sue a hospital in Illinois for a failed C-section? Yes. Illinois recognizes medical malpractice claims against physicians, residents, fellows, nurses, and hospitals when care falls below the accepted standard and causes injury. Cases involving residents and supervising attendings often turn on whether the hospital's supervision, handoff, and escalation rules were followed. Illinois requires plaintiffs to file a certificate of merit from a qualified health professional at the outset of the case. Q: Does Illinois cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases? No. The Illinois Supreme Court struck down the state's cap on non-economic medical-malpractice damages in Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital (2010). Juries may award whatever amount the evidence supports for pain, suffering, loss of a normal life, and loss of consortium. More context is available in the Illinois personal injury public resources.

C-section birth in hospital operating room

Cook County Jury Awards $7.25 Million in Medical Malpractice Verdict Following Emergency Hysterectomy

04/09/26 April 9th, 2026 - Connecticut Medical Malpractice

Jury Awards $49 Million in Connecticut Cervical Cancer Screening Verdict Against Westmed Medical Group

A Connecticut jury awarded $49 million to a Darien woman after finding that her gynecologist at Westmed Medical Group repeatedly failed to follow standard HPV screening protocols over six years, allowing cervical cancer to progress to a late-stage, metastatic disease. The verdict was returned on April 9, 2026, after just three hours of jury deliberation following a five-week trial in Connecticut Superior Court in Stamford.Case at a Glance Verdict: $49 million ($39 million to plaintiff, $10 million to spouse) Case Type: Medical Malpractice (failure to follow HPV screening protocols) Court: Connecticut Superior Court, Stamford Judge: Yamini Menon Verdict Date: April 9, 2026 Plaintiff: Jennifer Anderson, Darien, Connecticut Defendant: Westmed Medical Group Plaintiff Attorney(s): Peter Dreyer and Sarah Russell, Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Trial Length: 5 weeks Deliberation: 3 hoursWhat Happened to Jennifer Anderson? Jennifer Anderson was a patient of an obstetrician/gynecologist employed by Westmed Medical Group from at least 2013 through 2019. During that time, she attended annual visits and underwent routine testing. Over the course of those visits, Anderson repeatedly tested positive for high-risk strains of HPV, including HPV 16, a genotype known to place patients at significantly elevated risk for cervical cancer, according to her attorneys at Silver Golub & Teitell. Despite those results, the doctor never performed a colposcopy, a standard follow-up procedure required under the applicable standard of care for patients with persistent high-risk HPV.How Was the Cancer Discovered? In September 2019, Anderson visited the doctor with complaints of irregular menstrual cycles and bleeding. A mass was discovered on her cervix, and subsequent testing confirmed invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. The cancer had already spread to her chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Anderson now suffers from late-stage metastatic cervical cancer, which her attorneys say is expected to cause her death.What Did the Jury Award? After a five-week trial before Judge Yamini Menon, the jury deliberated for approximately three hours before finding the defendants negligent. The jury awarded $39 million to Jennifer Anderson and $10 million to her husband in damages. The verdict is one of the largest medical malpractice awards in Connecticut in recent years.What Are the Plaintiff's Attorneys Saying? Peter Dreyer, a partner at Silver Golub & Teitell, said in a statement: "Jennifer Anderson did everything right. She went to her doctor every year, she had her tests done, and she trusted that her results would be acted upon." Sarah Russell, also a partner at the firm, emphasized the preventable nature of the outcome: "What makes this case so troubling is that cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers we have."How Has Westmed Responded? A Westmed spokesman said the company disagrees with the verdict but empathizes with the Andersons. The spokesman confirmed that Westmed intends to file post-trial motions and an appeal.A Verdict That Underscores the Cost of Missed Screening This $49 million verdict sends a clear message about the consequences of failing to follow established screening protocols for high-risk patients. For Jennifer Anderson, years of positive HPV tests went without the standard follow-up that could have caught her cancer at a treatable stage. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself. Find a plaintiff personal injury attorney in Connecticut by browsing Major Verdict members.FAQ Q: What is a colposcopy, and why is it important for HPV-positive patients?A: A colposcopy is a procedure that uses a magnifying instrument to closely examine the cervix for abnormal cells. It is the standard follow-up when a patient tests positive for high-risk HPV strains, particularly HPV 16, which carries a significantly elevated risk of cervical cancer. Q: Can cervical cancer be prevented with proper screening?A: Cervical cancer is considered one of the most preventable cancers. Regular Pap tests and HPV screening can detect precancerous changes early, allowing treatment before cancer develops. When high-risk HPV is identified, follow-up procedures like colposcopy are critical to catching abnormalities before they progress. Q: What does it mean that the defendant plans to appeal?A: When a defendant announces intent to appeal, it means they plan to ask a higher court to review the trial court's decision. The verdict amount is not final until appeals are resolved, which can take months or years. The plaintiff may not collect the full award until the appeals process concludes.

Jury Awards $49 Million in Connecticut Cervical Cancer Screening Verdict Against Westmed Medical Group

04/08/26 April 8th, 2026 - Illinois Medical Malpractice

$51 Million Cook County Verdict After ER Fails to Test Man's Blood Sugar

A Cook County jury has awarded more than $51,000,000 to an Illinois man who suffered a permanent brain injury after physicians at OSF Heart of Mary Medical Center failed to order a blood sugar test during a 2022 emergency room visit. The verdict, reported April 8, 2026, stands as one of the largest medical malpractice awards in recent Cook County history and puts ER diabetes screening under sharp scrutiny.Case at a Glance Verdict: $51,000,000+ Case Type: Medical Malpractice Court: Cook County Court, Illinois Verdict Date: April 2026 Plaintiff: John Reinke Defendant: OSF Heart of Mary Medical Center; unnamed physician Plaintiff Attorney: Jason WilliamsWhat Happened at OSF Heart of Mary: The ER Visit That Led to a $51M Cook County Medical Malpractice Verdict John Reinke, 47, arrived at OSF Heart of Mary Medical Center complaining of a severe headache unlike anything he had experienced before. According to trial testimony, Reinke presented with known risk factors for diabetes, including obesity and a history of gout. Despite those indicators, physicians did not order a blood glucose test. Reinke was diagnosed with a tension headache, given medication, and discharged. Days later, he was found unresponsive. He had suffered a cardiac arrest caused by a severe diabetic crisis.The Injuries John Reinke Now Lives With Reinke sustained a permanent brain injury as a result of the cardiac arrest. He now requires round-the-clock care and is unable to walk, talk, or eat on his own. His legal team noted that the verdict, if it holds, could help fund access to a communication device he can operate using only his eyes. The gap between what a simple blood sugar test costs and what the failure to order one ultimately cost John Reinke forms the core of this case.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? Plaintiff attorneys argued that a routine glucose screening would have identified Reinke's condition and allowed physicians to intervene before the diabetic crisis occurred. Given his documented risk factors, the decision not to test fell outside the accepted standard of care, according to the trial record. "I hope that screening for diabetes becomes a mantra in emergency rooms across the country so that outcomes like this can be avoided," said attorney Jason Williams. OSF Healthcare System and the physician named in the lawsuit deny any negligence and have not publicly stated whether they intend to appeal.What This Cook County Medical Malpractice Verdict Signals for Emergency Medicine ER misdiagnosis cases are among the most contested in Illinois medical malpractice litigation. Plaintiffs must show not just that a mistake was made, but that the mistake deviated from what a reasonably competent physician would have done under the same circumstances. Illinois does not cap compensatory damages in medical malpractice cases, which gives juries in this state the latitude to award figures that reflect the true lifetime cost of catastrophic injury. For a plaintiff like Reinke, whose care needs are permanent and extensive, that latitude matters enormously. Juries in Cook County have returned significant medical malpractice verdicts when the facts are clear and the harm is severe. A verdict north of $51 million reflects both the gravity of Reinke's injuries and the jury's assessment of what adequate care should have looked like. For plaintiff attorneys watching this case, the facts are instructive: documented risk factors on the record, a straightforward omission, and a catastrophic outcome. That combination tends to resonate in the jury room.FAQ Q: What does medical malpractice mean in an emergency room setting? A: Medical malpractice occurs when a healthcare provider fails to meet the accepted standard of care and that failure causes harm to the patient. In an ER context, this can include failing to order tests that a reasonably competent physician would have ordered given the patient's symptoms and risk factors. The plaintiff must prove both that the standard was breached and that the breach directly caused the injury. Q: What types of damages can a jury award in an Illinois medical malpractice case? A: Illinois juries can award compensatory damages covering actual losses such as past and future medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering. The source reporting on this verdict does not break down the $51 million award into specific categories. Illinois does not cap compensatory damages in medical malpractice cases, following a 2010 Illinois Supreme Court ruling that struck down prior limits. Verdicts like this one show what juries are prepared to award when the evidence is clear and the harm is permanent. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured by a medical error, the trial record of your attorney matters. Find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the results to back it up.

$51 Million Cook County Verdict After ER Fails to Test Man's Blood Sugar

04/07/26 April 7th, 2026 - New Jersey Medical Malpractice

New Jersey Jury Awards $1,245,000 in Medical Malpractice Wrongful Death Case Over Delayed Bowel Obstruction Surgery

A Middlesex County jury has returned a $1,245,000 judgment in a New Jersey medical malpractice wrongful death case involving a 58-year-old father whose death followed a delayed surgical response to a large bowel obstruction. The defense never made a settlement offer, maintaining throughout litigation that this was a "no-pay" case. The jury disagreed, voting 7-1 on liability and 8-0 on damages.Case at a Glance Final Judgment: ~$1,245,000 (including pre-judgment interest) Gross Verdict: $1,312,500 Scafidi Reduction: 20% Case Type: Medical Malpractice / Wrongful Death Court: Middlesex County Superior Court, New Jersey Judge: Hon. Patrick Bradshaw Jury Vote: 7-1 liability / 8-0 damages Plaintiff Attorneys: Amos Gern (partner) and John T. Brost (associate), Sarno da Costa D'Aniello Maceri Webb LLC Plaintiff Expert: Jeffrey Freed, MD (colorectal surgeon)What Happened to the Patient? The decedent was a 58-year-old father of three adult daughters who presented with a serious large bowel obstruction. According to trial evidence, surgery was delayed despite the severity of his condition. The delay allowed his condition to deteriorate. He ultimately required a Hartmann's Procedure, a colectomy and colostomy, but by the time surgery occurred, his bowel had already suffered ischemia. He developed sepsis and endured 39 days of significant pain and medical complications before his death. His three daughters testified at trial about watching their father's health decline over those final weeks.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? Jeffrey Freed, MD, a colorectal surgeon from New York City, served as the plaintiff's standard-of-care expert. He testified that serious large bowel obstructions rarely resolve without surgery, and that prompt surgical decision-making is necessary to prevent the exact cascade of complications the patient experienced. The court also refused to give a judgment charge to the jury, a ruling that reflected the court's view that a discretionary medical judgment defense was not supported by the facts developed at trial. To help the jury work through more than 11,000 pages of hospital records, the trial team used presentation technology from Vincent Maggiano of Dynamic Evidence, allowing jurors to follow key chart entries and treatment decisions on a clear timeline. During deliberations, the jury specifically requested to review an economic damages summary prepared by plaintiff's economist Paul Gazaleh, CPA, a signal the panel was taking the damages phase seriously.How Were Damages Calculated? The case involved several notable damages considerations. The decedent worked as a box truck driver earning approximately $50,000 per year but had been furloughed before his hospitalization due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because he was not actively working at the time, no lost income claim was presented to the jury. Instead, the family's recovery centered on $600,000 in damages under the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Green v. Bittner, which allows surviving family members to recover for the loss of a loved one's guidance, advice, and companionship. The parties stipulated to a life expectancy of 14.9 years. The jury returned a gross verdict of $1,312,500. Under New Jersey's Scafidi doctrine, the award was reduced by 20% to account for the role of the decedent's pre-existing medical conditions. Because the case had been pending since early 2022, pre-judgment interest pushed the final judgment to approximately $1,245,000, nearly identical to the plaintiff's pre-trial demand of $1.25 million.The Defense Never Made an Offer One of the more striking aspects of this case is that the defense characterized it as a "no-pay" matter throughout litigation and never extended a settlement offer. That position held until the jury returned its verdict. Attorneys Amos Gern and John T. Brost of Sarno da Costa D'Aniello Maceri Webb LLC carried the case through trial, presenting the complex medical evidence and the family's loss in a way that produced a near-unanimous damages verdict.Case Conclusion Cases involving delayed surgical intervention illustrate how critical timely medical decision-making can be, and how significant the consequences are when providers fall short. For a full picture of what plaintiff attorneys across the country are winning at trial, visit Major Verdict's latest verdict news. If your family has been affected by a delayed diagnosis or surgical error, results like this one show what an experienced plaintiff attorney can achieve when the evidence is clear and the advocacy is strong. Find a medical malpractice attorney on Major Verdict with the trial record to back it up.FAQ Q: What is the Scafidi doctrine in New Jersey medical malpractice cases? A: The Scafidi doctrine, established by the New Jersey Supreme Court, applies in medical malpractice cases where a defendant's negligence worsened a pre-existing condition. Rather than holding the defendant fully liable for the entire harm, the doctrine allows a reduction in the verdict proportional to the role the patient's underlying condition played in the outcome. In this case, the jury's gross verdict was reduced by 20% under Scafidi. Q: What does Green v. Bittner allow families to recover in a New Jersey wrongful death case? A: Under the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Green v. Bittner, surviving family members may recover damages for the loss of a deceased loved one's guidance, advice, and companionship, not just financial support. This is particularly significant in cases where the decedent's income cannot be claimed, as it ensures the jury can still recognize the full human impact of the loss. In this case, the family recovered $600,000 on this basis. Q: Can a wrongful death case proceed even if the deceased was not working at the time of death? A: Yes. In New Jersey, wrongful death damages are not limited to lost income. Families can recover for the loss of services, guidance, and companionship under Green v. Bittner, regardless of the decedent's employment status at the time. In this case, the plaintiff's team made no lost income claim because the decedent had been furloughed, and still secured a judgment exceeding $1.2 million.

New Jersey Jury Awards $1,245,000 in Medical Malpractice Wrongful Death Case Over Delayed Bowel Obstruction Surgery

03/21/26 March 21st, 2026 - Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice

$108.6M Philadelphia Verdict Against Jefferson Health in Forceps Delivery Brain Injury Case

A Philadelphia jury has awarded $108.6 million against Jefferson Health and an affiliated pediatric practice after a forceps-assisted delivery in December 2018 left a newborn with permanent brain damage. The verdict, returned March 20, 2026, is the largest medical malpractice award in the city since a $183 million verdict against Penn Medicine three years ago in a nearly identical category of case. The child, identified only as KJ in court filings, is now 7½ years old. According to his attorneys, he will live his entire life with the cognitive function of a toddler.What Happened During the Delivery KJ was born at what is now called Jefferson Einstein Philadelphia Hospital in December 2018, three years before Jefferson Health acquired Einstein Healthcare Network. His delivery required the use of forceps, a tool used in certain difficult births to guide the baby through the birth canal. Forceps deliveries carry a rare but serious risk: bleeding inside the baby's skull. That is what happened to KJ. According to the lawsuit, filed in July 2024, he suffered permanent neurologic injury as a result. Einstein Pediatrics doctors were found liable for the brain injuries by the jury.The Attorneys' Case The case was tried by E. Merritt Lentz and Briggs Bedigian of Gilman and Bedigian LLC, the same Philadelphia firm that won the $183 million Penn Medicine verdict in 2023. Lentz described KJ's prognosis in stark terms after the verdict. "He will grow up, he will grow into adolescence, he will grow into a young man, he will grow into an adult, but he will retain the brain of essentially a toddler," Lentz said. That outcome is reflected in how the jury structured its award. Of the $108.6 million total, $106.1 million covers future medical and other expenses projected over an expected additional lifespan of 68 years. The remaining amounts cover pain and suffering ($1.4 million) and loss of earnings capacity ($1 million). The future expense payments will be made quarterly and include the option for specialized care at an institution for people with brain injuries.Jefferson's Response and the Road to Appeal Jefferson Health disputed the verdict immediately and announced plans to appeal. In a statement, the health system said the jury was not permitted to hear crucial evidence showing its clinicians provided exceptional care, and that liability was based on theories not supported by the medical record. Jefferson characterized the jury's picture of the medical facts as misleading. That position faces a difficult precedent. When Penn Medicine appealed its own $183 million Philadelphia birth injury verdict, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld it last year. By the time that appeal concluded, delay damages had grown the total judgment to $207 million. Jefferson's appeal, if pursued, carries the same risk of a larger final judgment.Philadelphia's Nuclear Verdict Reputation Philadelphia juries are well known within the legal industry for returning what are called nuclear verdicts, awards so large they reshape how defendants and insurers calculate risk. Though most medical malpractice trials end in favor of healthcare providers, the possibility of a nine-figure award has become a significant concern for hospital systems with large labor and delivery operations. The Jefferson verdict is the second time in three years that a Philadelphia birth injury case has produced a verdict above $100 million. Both cases were handled by Gilman and Bedigian. Both involved allegations of care failures during delivery. And in both cases, the defendants announced their intention to appeal. For plaintiff attorneys, the pattern is significant. It signals that Philadelphia juries are willing to hold large health systems accountable for birth injury outcomes at a level that matches the lifetime cost of catastrophic neurological damage.What Plaintiff Attorneys Should Know Birth injury cases involving forceps and intracranial hemorrhage require expert testimony on obstetric standards, neonatal neurology, and long-term care projections. The structure of this verdict, with the overwhelming majority of damages allocated to future medical expenses rather than pain and suffering, reflects a litigation strategy built around lifetime cost-of-care modeling. Plaintiff attorneys handling similar birth injury cases can track how comparable verdicts are being tried and won across the country at Major Verdict. Lawyers who have secured results like this one can add their verdicts to the platform, building a public record of their trial outcomes that clients and referring attorneys can find. For Pennsylvania residents researching birth injury cases or medical malpractice outcomes, Major Verdict's Pennsylvania personal injury resources page is a starting point for understanding what cases like these have produced at verdict.

$108.6M Philadelphia Verdict Against Jefferson Health in Forceps Delivery Brain Injury Case

03/20/26 March 20th, 2026 - Maryland Medical Malpractice

$18M Maryland Medical Malpractice Verdict After Hospital Delays Cost Woman Her Leg

A Prince George's County jury has awarded $18 million to a young mother who lost her leg after what her attorneys described as hours-long surgical delays at a local hospital. The verdict against Prince George's Hospital Center is one of the largest medical malpractice awards in recent Maryland history, though the state's damage cap will reduce what plaintiff Jamie White actually collects to approximately $4.5 million. The case draws attention not just for its size, but for what it reveals about patient safety, surgical urgency, and the real-world consequences of Maryland's limits on malpractice recovery.A Routine Injury That Became a Five-Year Ordeal In 2020, Jamie White was 23 years old and walking to work when she slipped on ice and dislocated her knee. It was the kind of accident that happens to thousands of people every year. For most, it means surgery, physical therapy, and recovery. For White, it became the beginning of a five-year fight for her life, her limb, and eventually her day in court. A dislocated knee can damage the popliteal artery, the blood vessel running behind the knee joint. When vascular injury goes untreated, the tissue downstream is starved of oxygen. Time is the critical variable. Delays in surgical repair can mean the difference between a leg saved and a leg lost. According to White's legal team, that window was wasted. Twice.What the Attorneys Alleged: Two Surgeries, Two Delays Over the course of a nearly five-week trial, attorneys for White alleged that two of her surgeries were delayed by caregivers for hours, depriving her leg of oxygen during critical treatment windows. White says she underwent nearly 30 surgeries over eight months in an effort to save the limb. Those efforts ultimately failed. Her leg was amputated above the knee. Her attorney, Karen Evans of The Cochran Firm, argued that the standard of care White received fell below what any patient in Maryland should expect, regardless of which hospital treats them. "The standard of care should be the same, no matter where you get care," Evans said. "There is no lower standard of care for the residents of Prince George's County." That framing, centered on equity in healthcare quality across communities, gave the case a dimension beyond the individual plaintiff.The Jury's Verdict and Maryland's Damage Cap After five weeks of testimony, the Prince George's County jury returned a verdict of $18 million in favor of Jamie White. But under Maryland law, there is a cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Non-economic damages cover pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of quality of life, which are the categories most relevant in a case like White's. The cap significantly limits recovery for these losses, regardless of what a jury decides. As a result, the amount White will actually receive is approximately $4.5 million, roughly 25 cents on every dollar the jury awarded. Maryland's cap is adjusted annually for inflation, but it consistently draws criticism from plaintiff attorneys who argue it punishes the most seriously injured patients. Catastrophic injuries such as amputations, permanent disability, and severe disfigurement involve the highest non-economic losses, so the cap hits hardest precisely where the harm is greatest. The gap between the jury's $18 million verdict and the approximately $4.5 million White will recover is itself a story about how damage caps work in practice.The Hospital's Response The University of Maryland Capital Region Medical Center, which operates Prince George's Hospital Center, disputed the verdict's implications in a statement. The hospital said it was grateful for the opportunity to defend the care its providers rendered, and stated its belief that White was treated in a timely manner and received excellent care. That position was rejected by the jury after nearly five weeks of evidence.Life After the Verdict White, now a mother of two, spoke about what the trial's conclusion means to her and what keeps her going. "You wake up regular one day, and then all of a sudden, one day, it all comes spiraling down," she said. "It was hard. I didn't plan this." She said her children are her focus now. "When they do get older, they'll see how resilient their mom is." The verdict does not undo the amputation, or the years of surgeries, or the life White had before 2020. But it represents a jury's judgment that the hospital's care fell short and that the consequences were real and severe.What This Case Means for Plaintiff Attorneys For medical malpractice attorneys, the White case illustrates several recurring trial themes: the importance of documenting surgical timelines, the challenge of arguing vascular injury causation, and the frustrating reality of statutory damage caps that limit jury awards regardless of the evidence. Cases involving surgical delays and catastrophic limb loss require expert testimony on vascular surgery standards, anesthesia timing, and hospital protocol. A five-week trial signals that the defense mounted a serious challenge, and the jury found for the plaintiff anyway. Attorneys tracking Maryland malpractice verdicts, or handling similar surgical delay cases, can find comparable trial results and attorney profiles at Major Verdict. Plaintiff lawyers who have tried and won cases like this one can also list their verdicts on the platform, building a public record of their trial experience that clients and peers can find. For Maryland residents researching malpractice cases or patient rights, Major Verdict's Maryland personal injury resources page offers a reference point for verdicts and legal context in the state.

$18M Maryland Medical Malpractice Verdict After Hospital Delays Cost Woman Her Leg

03/19/26 March 19th, 2026 - Oregon Medical Malpractice

$10 Million Oregon Verdict: Jury Holds Physicians Accountable After ER Delay Left Man Permanently Paralyzed

A Portland jury awarded $10 million to a Clark County diesel mechanic who spent nearly 17 hours in an emergency department as a preventable spinal infection progressed toward permanent paralysis. The verdict, returned in March 2026, sends a clear message about what juries expect when a patient arrives with a rapidly deteriorating neurological condition. The case is John Douglas Cox vs. Kaiser, et al., Multnomah County Case No. 23CV40984.A Treatable Emergency, Left Untreated In December 2021, John Douglas Cox, then 62 years old, developed a severe infection connected to a recently implanted spinal cord stimulator. The condition, a spinal epidural abscess, is a known medical emergency. When left untreated, it can compress the spinal cord rapidly and cause permanent paralysis. Cox arrived at the emergency department by ambulance, already experiencing sepsis and new-onset paralysis beginning at the T7 level of his spine. One emergency physician recognized the acute neurological decline and ordered imaging. What followed, according to evidence presented at trial, was a cascade of delays that sealed Cox's fate.What Went Wrong in the ER Hospital staff could not confirm whether Cox's spinal cord stimulator was MRI-compatible. Rather than contacting the device manufacturer directly or escalating the issue through the chain of command, staff waited for authorization from Cox's out-of-town physician. Cox sat in the emergency department while that authorization process dragged on. No spine surgeon or neurosurgeon was consulted during that window, despite the hospital having contracts in place for 24-hour specialist coverage. When imaging was eventually performed, it targeted the wrong region of the spine entirely. The underlying abscess was missed. Cox was ultimately transferred to Kaiser, where additional imaging finally identified the spinal epidural abscess. Surgery was performed more than 27 hours after he first arrived at the hospital. By then, the damage to his spinal cord was permanent. Medical experts testified at trial that early diagnosis and surgical decompression are critical to preventing permanent spinal cord injury in cases involving epidural abscesses. The defense argued that earlier intervention would not have changed the outcome. The jury rejected that argument.The Human Cost Cox worked as a diesel mechanic for Clark County, Washington for decades and was weeks away from completing 30 years of service when the December 2021 incident occurred. After the delayed diagnosis, he pushed himself to return to work. He used a wheelchair first, then a walker. Infections and hip complications eventually forced him to leave the job he had devoted his career to, just months before he would have hit the 30-year mark. Today, Cox can walk short distances and climb the stairs in his home with handrails. He lives with permanent neurological damage and lasting mobility limitations. His trial attorney, Jane Paulson of Paulson Coletti Trial Attorneys PC in Portland, described the weight of the case in a statement following the verdict. "Our client did everything he could to get help," she said, noting that Cox emailed his own doctor from the emergency room to report he was going paralyzed and feared he might never walk again. "This case was about accountability and patient safety," Paulson added. "We hope this verdict will help improve how patients with neurological emergencies are treated in emergency rooms."How the Jury Allocated Fault The jury returned a $10 million verdict and apportioned fault between two parties. It assigned 80% of the fault to Kaiser and 20% to the physicians who treated Cox at the emergency department. Kaiser was not a defendant at trial. Oregon follows modified comparative fault rules, which affects how damages are ultimately calculated and collected. The specifics of how the fault allocation affects Cox's recovery were not detailed in the publicly available record.Why This Verdict Matters Emergency departments handle patients with complex implanted devices every day. Spinal cord stimulators, pacemakers, drug infusion pumps, and other devices can complicate diagnostic imaging. But complexity in the process does not excuse failure to escalate, failure to consult available specialists, or failure to act with urgency when a patient's neurological status is actively deteriorating. This verdict reflects jury expectations that hospitals honor their own on-call contracts and that emergency physicians take concrete steps when the standard approach hits an obstacle. The fact that Cox emailed his doctor from the ER to report his own paralysis in real time made the inaction during those hours difficult for any juror to rationalize. For plaintiff attorneys handling ER delay and hospital negligence cases in Oregon, this verdict provides a data point on what a Portland jury will award when the facts are clearly documented and the injury is severe and permanent. Cases like Cox's are the reason Major Verdict exists. Plaintiff attorneys who have secured significant verdicts and settlements can create a free profile on Major Verdict and display their results publicly, giving the public a way to find lawyers with the kind of trial record that produces outcomes like this one. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.

$10 Million Oregon Verdict: Jury Holds Physicians Accountable After ER Delay Left Man Permanently Paralyzed

03/12/26 March 12th, 2026 - Alabama Medical Malpractice

$50 Million Alabama Medical Malpractice Verdict: Jury Holds Cardiologist Accountable for Wrongful Death

A Mobile, Alabama jury has awarded $50,000,000 to the family of Dan Haas, a man who died in his sleep hours after his cardiologist sent him home from the hospital despite discovering a serious, life-threatening heart blockage. The verdict, returned after a 13-day trial, stands as a powerful statement on the consequences of failing to meet the standard of care in cardiac medicine. The case was tried by the plaintiff firm Cunningham Bounds, LLC, with offices in Mobile and Atlanta. The trial team consisted of attorneys Skip Finkbohner, Lucy Tufts, Dave Wirtes, and Carmen Chambers.A Family's Christmas Nightmare On December 24, 2020, Dan Haas came home from a hunting trip with severe pain between his shoulder blades and shortness of breath. On Christmas Day, he called his cardiologist, Dr. John Galla, to report his symptoms. According to the press release, Dr. Galla told Dan to take it easy and come in Monday for a stress test. Dan went to the offices of Cardiology Associates on December 28 with continued chest pain. The stress test results came back abnormal. On December 30, Dr. Galla performed a heart catheterization that, according to the lawsuit, clearly revealed a serious and life-threatening cardiac blockage. Rather than hospitalizing Dan and beginning treatment immediately, Dr. Galla sent him home. The cardiologist also cleared Dan for an elective eye surgery scheduled for the following week and instructed him to begin blood thinners only after that procedure. Dan Haas died in his sleep that same night, next to his wife.What the Experts Said Top cardiology experts retained by Cunningham Bounds testified at trial that if Dr. Galla had simply kept Dan in the hospital and administered routine blood thinners after the catheterization, Dan had a greater than 99% chance of survival. That testimony proved central to the plaintiff's case. The standard intervention, according to the experts, was not experimental or heroic. It was routine. The decision to send Dan home cost him his life. The plaintiff's trial team argued that Cardiology Associates failed to take the necessary steps to meet the required standard of care.The Defense Strategy and Its Failure Dr. Galla's defense took an unusual and ultimately unsuccessful position: that the contemporaneous medical records from Cardiology Associates, including entries Dr. Galla himself had made, were wrong. Attorney Skip Finkbohner addressed this directly in remarks following the verdict: "We relied on the contemporaneous medical records. They were accurate. The defense and their experts took the position these records were wrong. The jury spoke loudly about this, and the lack of care Dan received and the attempts to cover up the mistakes that were made." Finkbohner also noted that the Haas family had tried repeatedly to resolve the case before trial. According to his post-trial statement, the defense refused all settlement discussions and forced the matter to a jury. The jury spoke after 13 days of testimony.Five Years of Fighting for the Truth Dan's family, including his wife Barbara and their children Sarah, Carrie, and Daniel, spent more than five years pursuing accountability through the courts. Attorney Lucy Tufts reflected on what the verdict meant for the family: "The Haas family has been fighting to expose the truth of what happened to them for more than five years. This verdict affirms what they've known all along. Dan should have been admitted to the hospital. And if he had been, he'd be alive and here with them today." The Haas case underscores how a single clinical decision, the choice to send a patient home rather than admit them for observation and treatment, can be the difference between life and death. And how juries respond when they conclude that decision violated the standard of care.What This Verdict Signals A $50 million verdict in a medical malpractice wrongful death case is significant in any jurisdiction. In Alabama, where plaintiff verdicts of this magnitude are not common, the outcome reflects both the strength of the evidence and the preparation of the trial team. The case also illustrates an important dynamic in medical malpractice litigation: the power of a defendant's own records. When a physician's contemporaneous documentation contradicts his trial defense, the credibility gap becomes very difficult to overcome. The jury in Mobile made clear they were not convinced by the effort to rewrite the record. Cunningham Bounds has represented plaintiffs for more than 65 years, handling cases in serious personal injury, products liability, industrial accidents, and medical malpractice.Plaintiff Attorneys Who Win at Trial Belong on Major Verdict Cases like this one deserve a public record. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can display their trial results and notable settlements for the world to see, including potential clients searching for lawyers with exactly this kind of track record. If you are a plaintiff attorney with verdicts or settlements worth sharing, create your free profile on Major Verdict and let your record speak for itself. If you or someone you love has been harmed by a medical professional and want to find a plaintiff attorney with a proven record at trial, browse plaintiff lawyers on Major Verdict.

$50 Million Alabama Medical Malpractice Verdict: Jury Holds Cardiologist Accountable for Wrongful Death

02/28/26 February 28th, 2026 - Washington Medical Malpractice

$24 Million Verdict in Seattle Stem Cell Wrongful Death Case Sends Message to Unproven Treatment Clinics

A King County jury delivered a unanimous $24 million verdict on February 27, 2026, in favor of the family of Michael Trujillo, a 62-year-old Colorado man who died after receiving a stem cell injection at the Seattle Stem Cell Center in 2019. The Seattle stem cell wrongful death verdict is one of the largest medical malpractice awards in Washington state in recent years and puts a national spotlight on the risks of unproven stem cell treatments marketed to desperate patients.How a Colorado Electrician Ended Up at a Seattle Stem Cell Clinic Michael Trujillo, a journeyman electrician from Westminster, Colorado, was diagnosed with ALS in 2017. As the progressive neurological disease advanced, Trujillo and his wife Carmen searched for treatment options and discovered the Seattle Stem Cell Center through its online marketing. The clinic promoted stem cell therapy for a range of serious medical conditions, including ALS. After a free consultation, Trujillo underwent his first stem cell treatment in February 2019. He returned to the Seattle clinic in April 2019 for a second procedure. "We flew to Seattle with hope, and I flew home alone," his widow, Carmen Trujillo, told jurors during the trial.The Procedure That Took His Life Evidence presented at trial showed that during the second visit, stem cells were injected into Trujillo's spine without imaging guidance while he was taking blood-thinning medication. According to trial testimony, the combination caused catastrophic bleeding and brain herniation, leading to Trujillo's death. Dr. Tami Meraglia, owner of the Seattle Stem Cell Center, told KIRO Newsradio that she did not personally treat the patient. She said a different doctor at the clinic performed the procedure and changed the treatment plan from an IV administration to an epidural injection without consulting her, while the patient had high blood pressure and was on blood thinners. The clinic closed in 2021.A Unanimous Jury and a Courtroom Full of Emotion The King County jury returned a unanimous verdict, though unanimity is not required in Washington civil cases. Carmen Trujillo delivered her testimony on what would have been the couple's 46th wedding anniversary. After the verdict was read, jurors lined up to embrace Carmen. "They just were such a blessing. They were smiling. They were so happy for us. It was just one big celebration," she told KIRO Newsradio. Plaintiff's attorney Dylan Cohon of Swanson Gardner Meyers Cohon PLLC said the verdict carries a broader message for the stem cell treatment industry. "This verdict is about justice, compensation, and accountability," Cohon said. "Medical providers who market treatments to vulnerable patients need to be honest about whether there is any scientific evidence that the treatments will work."A Pattern of Legal Trouble for the Clinic This was not the first legal action involving Dr. Meraglia and her clinic. In 2022, the Washington Attorney General filed a separate Consumer Protection Act lawsuit against US Stemology and Dr. Meraglia, alleging deceptive marketing of unproven stem cell treatments. That case resulted in an $800,000 judgment and permanent marketing restrictions. Despite the verdict, Dr. Meraglia indicated she intends to appeal, citing legal rulings made before and during trial that she believes prevented the jury from hearing all of her evidence. "We're disappointed in today's verdict, and our hearts go out to everyone," she told KIRO Newsradio. "A man lost his life. Even though it was many years ago, it's still very sad."What This Seattle Stem Cell Wrongful Death Verdict Signals The $24 million verdict underscores the legal exposure facing clinics that market unproven medical treatments to patients with serious or terminal diagnoses. For plaintiff attorneys, the case highlights the power of combining wrongful death claims with evidence of deceptive marketing practices, particularly when a clinic has a documented regulatory history. For families affected by medical negligence, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is strong and the attorney is prepared. Find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up, or browse the latest verdict news from courtrooms across the country.

$24 Million Verdict in Seattle Stem Cell Wrongful Death Case Sends Message to Unproven Treatment Clinics

02/27/26 February 27th, 2026 - Maine Medical Malpractice

$750K Maine Medical Malpractice Verdict After Surgeon Leaves Gap in Patient's Femur

A nine-person jury in Ellsworth, Maine awarded $750,000 in damages to a 71-year-old woman on Friday after finding that her orthopedic surgeon and hospital provided negligent medical care during hip replacement surgery. The Maine medical malpractice verdict came after three days of witness testimony at Hancock County Superior Court and less than four hours of jury deliberation.What Happened to Mary Shea Mary Shea, a resident of Milbridge, Maine, sued orthopedic surgeon Peter Copithorne and Northern Light Maine Coast Hospital over right hip replacement surgeries performed in 2019. According to the lawsuit, Shea was 64 at the time and had previously undergone a successful left hip replacement in 2013 with no significant complications. Her right hip replacement, performed in February 2019, left a routine complication that should have been identified and repaired quickly. During a follow-up visit after surgery, Copithorne failed to read Shea's correct post-operative X-ray. He did not review the correct imaging until May 24, 2019, more than two months after the X-rays were taken on March 20, 2019. According to court testimony, Copithorne recorded in Shea's medical documentation that he had reviewed her March 20 X-rays with her. He later amended the note to reflect that he had read the wrong film. The original note was made with auto-generated language, a common practice for physicians.A Second Surgery Made Things Worse Because of the delayed diagnosis, Shea required a much more invasive procedure called an osteotomy to address the complication. During that second surgery, which the lawsuit said Copithorne had only performed alone once before, he sawed a centimeter-long gap in Shea's femur. He unsuccessfully attempted to close the opening with wire, according to the lawsuit. The femur is essential for mobility, and Shea's injuries from this procedure left her with permanent physical impairment. Two physicians testified at trial that the osteotomy would not have been necessary had Copithorne read Shea's X-rays on the day they were taken. During the two months between her March 20 imaging and her May 24 follow-up appointment, the muscles and tendons around Shea's femur atrophied, causing permanent weakness and mobility issues, according to plaintiff attorney Elizabeth Kayatta.Years of Treatment and $291,000 in Medical Bills After leaving Copithorne's care, Shea sought treatment from a Portland surgeon to fix her femur and undergo additional revision surgery. From there, she began years of injections, medication regimens, physical therapies, and various procedures to manage her pain, weakness, and mobility problems, according to testimony from Victoria Brander, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at Northwestern Medicine who served as an expert witness. Shea's right hip replacement treatment resulted in nearly $300,000 in medical bills, approximately $250,000 more than what her successful left hip replacement cost. Once an avid hiker and kayaker, Shea has faced significant physical limitations, along with mental health challenges, in the years since her surgeries with Copithorne.The Jury's Maine Medical Malpractice Verdict and Defense Arguments The Ellsworth jury found that both Copithorne and Northern Light Maine Coast Hospital provided negligent medical care that harmed Shea. Three of the nine jurors did not concur with the verdict. Maine civil suits do not require a unanimous jury. Defense attorney Douglas Morgan acknowledged that Copithorne's failure to read the correct X-ray was negligent but argued that this did not directly cause Shea's medical complications. Morgan contended that Shea would have needed the osteotomy regardless of when the X-ray was read. The jury disagreed with that position. "Though we are disappointed with the verdict in this matter, we respect the jury's decision," Morgan said. "More importantly, we wish Mary Shea the best and continued good health moving forward." Kayatta framed the verdict as a moment of accountability. "When doctors make medical errors, they need to be held accountable for those errors in a meaningful way," she told the Bangor Daily News. According to the lawsuit, Copithorne is the second-highest paid physician at Northern Light. ProPublica reported he earned $712,019 for the fiscal year ending in September 2024.Why Verdicts Like This Matter Medical malpractice verdicts in Maine provide critical public insight into how juries evaluate surgical errors, hospital accountability, and patient outcomes. For anyone researching what medical malpractice cases in Maine are worth at trial, cases like Shea's offer real data from real courtrooms. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself. If you or someone you love has been affected by a medical error, you can find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict with a proven trial record in your state.

$750K Maine Medical Malpractice Verdict After Surgeon Leaves Gap in Patient's Femur

1 of 1 Pages - 13 Total Verdict News Posts Found

Search Verdict News

State Verdict News

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Verdict Case Types

Member Search

Latest Featured Members

View All Major Verdict Members

Search Members by State

Plaintiff trial attorneys. Join now for free!

ShowcaseYour Experience

Major Verdict gives you a free public profile to showcase your hard-earned trial verdicts and notable settlements. Let your results speak for themselves to potential clients and peers nationwide. You control what you share, when you edit, and how your public record is presented.

Why join

Join now