Why Treating Physicians Rarely Win the Expert Witness Battle in Car Accident Cases
When a client walks into your office after a serious car accident, the temptation is understandable: you have a treating orthopedist, a neurologist, maybe a physiatrist, all of whom know the patient, have documented the injuries, and can testify to what they observed. Why not build your case around them? Because the defense is counting […]
$5 Million Verdict Following Gastroenterologist’s Repeated Misdiagnosis That Led to Multiple Amputations
A Bucks County, Pennsylvania jury has awarded $5 million to a 78-year-old woman whose attorneys argued that a gastroenterologist’s repeated misdiagnosis of her condition contributed to a cascade of complications that ultimately required the amputation of her left hand, right thumb, and left great toe.[1] The verdict, returned on May 14, 2026, followed a nine-day […]
A Dual-Perspective Analysis of Institutional Liability, Evidentiary Posture, and Trial Strategy
Norton Healthcare and the Guirguis Matter: A Dual-Perspective Analysis of Institutional Liability, Evidentiary Posture, and Trial Strategy CASE OVERVIEW A civil action pending in Jefferson County Circuit Court (Case No. 39D01-2603-CT-000330) names Norton Healthcare, a Louisville-based regional health system, alongside Dr. Abdelmessiah “Michael” Guirguis, a former primary care physician employed at Norton King’s […]
Bill increases cap on medical malpractice awards from $2.7M to $6M in Virginia
Virginia Nearly Doubled Its Malpractice Cap. Here’s What Actually Happened Virginia lawmakers came close this session to approving a significant overhaul of the state’s medical malpractice framework. A late-stage House rewrite of a bill sponsored by State Senator Mark Obenshain would have increased the cap on malpractice damages to $6 million and expanded when […]
Landmark Verdict on 16-Year-Old Detransitioning
Landmark Verdict on 16-Year-Old Detransitioning In early 2026, a jury in Westchester County, New York, awarded $2 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by a 22-year-old woman who underwent a double mastectomy at age 16 and later detransitioned. The case, Fox Varian v. Kenneth Einhorn & Simon Chin, is widely regarded as the […]
Court Declines Review of $8.3 Million Knee Surgery Malpractice Verdict
The Georgia Supreme Court has declined to grant certiorari in a high-stakes medical malpractice case arising from complications following a knee replacement surgery, leaving undisturbed an $8.3 million verdict against Georgia Bone & Joint Surgeons PC. The court’s unanimous denial preserves not only a substantial compensatory damages award, but also a significant attorney fee ruling […]
When a “Routine” Cholecystectomy Isn’t Routine: A Seven-Figure Lesson in Surgical Standards of Care
When a “Routine” Cholecystectomy Isn’t Routine: A Seven-Figure Lesson in Surgical Standards of Care In the medical malpractice bar, some cases stand as stark reminders of how quickly a “routine” procedure can become a life-altering injury once standard surgical precautions are abandoned. The plaintiff in this case, age 76, presented to the emergency department with […]
Florida Court Orders Nursing Agency to Pay $41 Million in Medical Negligence Case Involving Medicaid Patient
In a consequential ruling with far-reaching implications for medical malpractice practitioners, a Florida trial court judge denied a defendant health care provider’s effort to apply statutory caps on non-economic damages in a malpractice case involving a Medicaid recipient, thereby allowing a substantial award to stand against a nursing staffing agency in excess of $41 million. […]
When a Routine Hip Replacement Goes Wrong: Legal and Medical Insights into Sciatic Nerve Injury
Hip replacement surgery is one of the most commonly performed orthopedic procedures in the United States, widely regarded as safe, effective, and life-changing for patients suffering from degenerative joint disease or traumatic injury. For attorneys, this familiarity can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, jurors often assume these surgeries are routine and low-risk. […]
Expert Testimony at the Center of Luppold
In Luppold v. Hanlon, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a $28.8 million verdict involving emergency-department care that failed to identify and address vascular compromise in time to prevent an amputation. The opinion highlights several issues that continue to shape medical malpractice litigation: expert testimony, causation standards, high-low agreements, and prejudgment interest. While the underlying […]