In a significant medical malpractice decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently upheld an $8 million jury verdict awarded to plaintiffs Laura and Randy Rongione following a 2013 cesarean delivery at Abington Memorial Hospital. The case centered on allegations that OB/GYN Dr. Kanli Jiang failed to conduct a critical intraoperative inspection, resulting in life-threatening complications.
Postoperatively, Ms. Rongione suffered two cardiac arrests and required multiple emergency interventions, including a hysterectomy. The plaintiffs asserted that these events—and the resulting infertility and psychological trauma—were the direct consequence of the surgical oversight.
The Verdict and Damages
In June 2023, a Montgomery County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Rongiones, awarding:
- $5.5 million to Laura Rongione for pain, suffering, permanent loss of reproductive capability, and resulting psychological injuries, including PTSD.
- $2.5 million to Randy Rongione for loss of consortium and emotional distress.
The plaintiffs were represented by Elia Robertson and Lisa Dagostino of Kline & Specter, who emphasized the strength of the testimony in establishing both liability and the magnitude of damages.
Evidentiary Highlights and Legal Strategy
The plaintiffs presented compelling expert testimony establishing a deviation from the standard of care—specifically, the failure to inspect the surgical field prior to closure. Dr. Jiang acknowledged under oath that she could not recall performing this critical step. Emergency surgery records confirmed a complete transection of a vessel that could have been identified and addressed during the initial procedure.
Additional evidence included:
- Admissible Hearsay: Testimony from family members recounting a physician’s post-operative statement—“We messed up”—was admitted under a hearsay exception, bolstering the liability argument.
- Documentation Gaps: The operative report lacked documentation of standard surgical checks, supporting the plaintiffs’ theory of negligence.
- Causation Support: Expert medical opinion linked the oversight directly to the cascade of complications that followed, including cardiac arrests and the necessity of a hysterectomy.
Defense and Appellate Challenges
On appeal, Abington Memorial Hospital challenged both liability and causation. The defense argued that Ms. Rongione’s injuries could have occurred despite appropriate care and attempted to assert comparative fault based on her purported refusal to push during labor. However, their expert, Dr. Owen Montgomery, conceded that there was no definitive link between her labor behavior and the vascular injury.
The Superior Court rejected these arguments, affirming the trial court’s findings and emphasizing that the record contained substantial evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the injury was preventable and stemmed directly from a failure to follow surgical standards.
Implications for Medical Malpractice Practitioners
This case highlights several strategic considerations for attorneys handling complex medical negligence litigation:
- The impact of cohesive expert testimony in demonstrating standard-of-care breaches.
- The evidentiary weight of surgical documentation—or the absence thereof.
- The importance of lay witness testimony in personalizing damages and illustrating emotional impact.
- The need to proactively address speculative defense arguments unsupported by the medical record.
Attorney Charles Lyman Becker of Kline & Specter expressed confidence that the Superior Court’s affirmance will withstand any further appellate challenge, reinforcing a strong precedent for accountability in OB/GYN surgical care.
