Latest Medical Malpractice Verdict & Settlement News

$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.

$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.

$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.

$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.

$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.

$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.