Philadelphia Hospital Seeks to Overturn $45 Million Verdict

The Facts of the Case

The case centers on care provided by Temple University Hospital to the plaintiff, who suffered a gunshot wound to the neck. The plaintiff suffered brain injuries upon leaving the hospital after choking on food and suffering lack of oxygen to the brain. He and his mother argued at trial that the plaintiff was discharged too soon and that the instructions they received lacked critical details.

At trial, the plaintiffs offered four different theories of liability, according to Temple’s post-trial brief. These included a failure by the speech pathologist to inform them that the plaintiff should be monitored while eating, a failure by the surgical team to allow the speech pathologist to follow up with the plaintiff and his mother, improper discharge, and unclear discharge instructions from the hospital.

Temple argued that trial evidence didn’t show that doctors thought the plaintiff needed additional observation, nor that the speech pathologist ever intended to follow up with the plaintiff. The hospital also argued there was no evidence that the plaintiff’s mother didn’t understand the plaintiff wasn’t supposed to eat solid foods.

The jury found that the plaintiff was negligent for eating solid food against orders, but it also found Temple was negligent in discharging the plaintiff too soon and without providing certain critical details for post-discharge care. Jurors awarded the plaintiff and his mother $44.9 million in damages.

Efforts to Overturn the $45 Million Verdict

Temple Hospital’s post-trial filing focuses on the jury’s findings, which the hospital claims are contradictory.

At trial, the jury agreed with the hospital that the injured plaintiff engaged in negligence by eating solid food while recovering from complications to the gunshot wound. However, the jury also found the hospital at fault for discharging the plaintiff too early after the plaintiff choked and suffered a brain injury from lack of oxygen.

In its filing, the hospital noted that the plaintiff failed to establish any other cause of choking besides eating the chicken pieces. Therefore, the hospital argued, “the chicken was the only cause supported by the evidence.” Because the jury found the plaintiff was negligent in eating the chicken against medical advice, Temple argued, the hospital’s medical decisions could not have caused the injuries in a legal sense.

The hospital also argued that the trial judge should not have provided a jury instruction about “increased risk of harm,” noting that the instruction reduced the burden required to find the hospital negligent. Temple argued that the instruction should not have applied in the plaintiff’s case.

“The jury was left to speculate about the increase in risk and could find that merely because it is safer in the hospital than at home, Temple Health can be held liable,” the hospital wrote in its post-trial brief.

Temple Hospital suggested several options for relief. These included reversing the judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, seeking a new trial with additional depositions and discovery, or holding an evidentiary hearing to examine outside information that may have been available to jurors.

Takeaways for Attorneys

Navigating fault can be challenging in any medical malpractice case. Several parties, including hospitals, doctors, and other providers, may be involved in patient care. Tracing fault to the acts or omissions of one or more providers can prove challenging.

Fault becomes difficult to navigate as well when a patient’s own behavior causes or contributes to injuries. Asking why the plaintiff took certain steps or failed to do so - for instance, because discharge instructions were not clear - can help answer some questions.