����ԭ��

Senior Trial Partner Laurie A. Annunziato and Partner Michael B. Manning successfully obtained Summary Judgment in a case involving care rendered to the plaintiff at ����ԭ��’s client Hospital. The case involved the defendants failed to timely diagnose and treat diverticulitis, which resulted in ruptured diverticulitis, colon perforation, purulent peritonitis, sepsis, emergency laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy and colostomy, and the need for a Hartmann’s Pouch.

��

����ԭ�� filed a motion for Summary Judgment supported by an Expert Affirmation from a Board certified Gastroenterologist, and argued that the treatment and care rendered by the Hospital and its staff was at all times within good and accepted standards of medical practice, and further, the treatment rendered by the Hospital and its staff did not proximately cause or substantially contribute to the plaintiff’s claimed injuries. ������ԭ�� further argued that the Hospital cannot be held vicariously liable for any treatment rendered by the plaintiff’s private physician/gastroenterologist or the co-defendant radiologist. ����ԭ��’s expert opined that the progression of the plaintiff’s diverticulitis, eventually resulting in the perforation, was unrelated to the management and care at ����ԭ��’s client Hospital. The expert further opined that its staff timely and properly appreciated, investigated, and treated the plaintiff’s diverticulitis, which was controlled and consistent with uncomplicated diverticulitis until July 13,2017. On that date, the plaintiff’s condition changed, and it became apparent upon imaging, that the plaintiff had suffered a perforation despite having received appropriate therapy, including antibiotics.

��

After ����ԭ��’s motion for Summary Judgment was fully submitted, plaintiff’s counsel moved to be relieved as counsel. Thereafter, the pro se plaintiff was directed to retain new counselor oppose ����ԭ��’s motion pro se, which the plaintiff failed to do. The Court rendered a Decision and Order granting ����ԭ��’s motion for Summary Judgment. The Court found that ����ԭ��’s client Hospital had made a prima facie showing for Summary Judgment, including establishing that all of the care by ����ԭ��’s client Hospital was within good and accepted standards of medical practice and did not proximately cause or contribute to the plaintiff’s claimed injuries. Further, the Court concluded that the pro se plaintiff, despite having had “proper and additional time” to respond to ����ԭ��’s motion, failed to submit any evidentiary facts or materials to rebut the prima facie showing that ����ԭ��’s client Hospital was not negligent. The Court dismissed the Complaint against ����ԭ��’s client Hospital in its entirety.

‍