By Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff
The Daily Record Newswire
Clinic accused of misdiagnosing rare eye disorder
Over the first six weeks of 2005, the previously healthy plaintiff, a 24-year-old obese woman, visited her local health clinic on four separate occasions with various symptoms, including intermittent blurred vision, swishing/drumming sounds in both ears, torso pain, headache, vomiting and nasal congestion.
She was diagnosed by multiple clinic personnel with costochondritis (rib cartilage inflammation), inner ear infection and flu syndrome. Her treatment consisted of an antibiotic, analgesic and decongestant. No ophthalmic exam was performed, but the plaintiff was referred non-emergently for examination by an optometrist in March.
In late February, the plaintiff suffered a sudden loss of vision in her right eye and reduced visual field in her left. She returned to the clinic and was referred to a tertiary hospital, though not until four days later.
A lumbar puncture revealed high spinal fluid pressure, and the plaintiff was correctly diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri, or PTC, a rare intracranial hypertensive disorder of unknown origin that most often afflicts obese females of child-bearing age.
The hallmark symptoms of the condition are transient visual disturbances and severe headache, but may also include intracranial noise and muscle aches. The condition invariably is accompanied by some degree of papilledema, or swelling of the optic nerve.
The plaintiff underwent aggressive and sustained medical and surgical intervention but suffered irreversible and total loss of vision in her right eye. Her left eye continued to deteriorate before stabilizing with low shadow vision.
Plaintiff’s experts were prepared to testify that the standard of care was breached by the clinic caregivers, who repeatedly failed to have the plaintiff promptly evaluated for papilledema and increased intracranial pressure.
An expert neuro-ophthalmologist was prepared to testify that had the plaintiff been properly evaluated within the first six weeks of initial presentation, the papilledema would have been detected, and, with proper treatment, her condition would have stabilized with little loss of visual acuity.
The expert also would have testified that had the plaintiff not been subjected to a four-day delay following her last presentation to the clinic, she likely would have preserved a greater measure of useful left-eye vision.
Defense experts were expected to testify that the plaintiff’s treatment met the standard of care for a clinic-based family medicine practice, and that not only did the plaintiff have a rare condition, but over the first six weeks she never uniformly presented with signs or symptoms suggesting the need to rule out increased intracranial pressure.
That patient’s vision is now “fine.”
Action: Medical malpractice
Amount: $1.4 million
Elderly driver strikes attendant in ‘nightmare’ lot
The plaintiff, a 30-year-old parking attendant, was assisting drivers in a busy, crowded supermarket parking lot when an elderly driver struck the plaintiff with his car, pinning him against the wheel well of a nearby parked vehicle.
The driver allegedly had become confused and stepped on the gas pedal instead of the brake.
The lot, as described by the supermarket store manager, was a “nightmare” that had a history of accidents.
The plaintiff underwent numerous surgeries that precluded the need for amputation, but his disability continues.
Suit was filed against the driver, the supermarket, and the owners and managers of the lot. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment were denied.
Action: Motor vehicle negligence/negligence & tort
Amount: $1.2 million
Company freezes out stockholder VP in takeover
Before the defendant-in-counterclaim fired him, the plaintiff-in-counterclaim was a vice president, director and minority stockholder under an arrangement whereby the company would be acquired over time by a second defendant company, which was owned by a third, individual defendant.
The arrangement required the purchase of company stock over a six-year period, at which time the plaintiff counterclaimant could convert his stock to shares of the purchasing company. Upon conversion, the arrangement dictated that the VP would take a position commensurate with his then-current terms of employment.
On the eve of the plaintiff counterclaimant’s remaining payment obligations, he was fired and blocked from exercising his right to convert his shares and denied his position with the new company. The grounds given for the termination were that he was “not a worthy successor.”
The plaintiff counterclaimant argued that he was owed fiduciary duties as a minority stockholder. After he made the final payment to acquire his remaining shares, he demanded conversion of those shares to shares of the new company.
The plaintiff counterclaimant’s expert, a business consultant, testified to the variety of alternatives commonly considered to avoid terminating a valued employee/owner.
In answer to special questions, the jury returned a verdict for breach of contract for $1,537,163; unjust enrichment, $34,200; breach of fiduciary duty, $221,408; and violations of G.L.c. 93A, $221,408, which was doubled by the court.
Amount: $3.26 million