Birth Injury To Child
The Plaintiff, a minor child, was diagnosed with periventricular leukomalacia and spasticity following his birth. Prior to his birth, there was evidence of intrauterine growth restrictions, which necessitated the need of bio physical profiles, twice weekly non-stress testing and serial scans to monitor fetal growth. On the day of his birth, there was evidence that the fetus was suffering from fetal distress, which necessitated an urgent cesarean section. During the admission, fetal heart tracings provided objective evidence that the fetus was in distress and the failure to follow the standard of care by the doctors and nursing staff was a substantial factor in causing the child's injury and harm
Following five days of trial, the case was settled for seven figures.
Arterial Injury To Minor Child
The Plaintiff, a minor child, was in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of the Defendant/Hospital. A radial arterial line was placed to measure blood pressure and to have access to arterial blood for lab analysis. When the hand showed signs of circulatory compromise, the arterial line was not removed. After the line was eventually discontinued, the fingers turned black and self-amputated. The Plaintiff's experts contended that the failure to remove the line at the first sign of circulatory compromise was a deviation of the standard of care.
The jury found in favor of the Plaintiffs. The verdict with delay damages was seven figures.
Emergency Room Negligence
The Plaintiff, a 46-year-old man, reported to the emergency room with chest pain that was radiating into his neck and arm. The decedent also had a history of hypertension and a family history of heart disease.
The decedent was released from the emergency room and returned home. Approximately four hours later, he died of a myocardial infarction. Suit was filed against the emergency room physician and the hospital. Plaintiffs offered an emergency room physician and two cardiologists who offered an opinion that the decedent should have been kept in the emergency room for further evaluation.
After six days of trial, the case settled for seven figures.
Commercial Airline Crash
The law firm of LGKG represented the wife and two children of a passenger involved in a commercial airline crash. Discovery in the case proceeded for more than four years. Several depositions were taken of the relevant parties. The law firm of LGKG hired economists to project and evaluate the loss to the family of the decedent's income and services that he would have rendered to his family had he lived to his normal life expectancy. Former co-employees were interviewed and deposed for the purpose of establishing the decedent's future advancement with the company.
After extensive discovery and investigation, an eight-figure settlement was obtained on behalf of the wife and children.
Defective Trailer Hitch
The Plaintiff, the driver of an automobile, was struck when a trailer being pulled by a PennDOT driver crossed the centerline.
As a result, the Plaintiff, a woman in her 30s, sustained an injury to her spinal cord. The law firm of LGKG offered testimony of a board-certified orthopedic surgeon who testified as to the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's injuries.
The jury returned a six-figure verdict in favor of the Plaintiff.
Largest Verdict In Lawrence County's History Against A State Agency
October 14, 2005, a Lawrence County jury returned a verdict of $1.5 million on behalf of a Lawrence County man who was injured as a result of a hazardous condition on a PennDOT highway. According to the Lawrence County Prothonotary, the jury award was the highest in the history of the county at that time. It still remains the highest verdict against a state agency.
On September 16, 2000, the Plaintiff was operating his vehicle in a westerly direction on SR 2028 when he saw a dog in his lane of traffic. After steering his vehicle to avoid the dog, the passenger-side tires dropped off the paved portion of the roadway onto the berm. When he attempted to steer his vehicle left back onto the paved surface, it was unresponsive. As a result, the vehicle struck an embankment and rolled over several times.
The law firm of LGKG hired an expert witness who was an employee of PennDOT for 32 years. The expert testified that the PennDOT Maintenance Manual stated that any berm drop off in excess of 2 inches is a hazardous condition. The expert testified that upon inspection of the roadway in question, the berm drop off ranged anywhere from 2 to 7 inches and that such a berm drop off substantially affected the Plaintiff's ability to steer his vehicle safely back onto the roadway.
The law firm of LGKG hired a vocational expert who offered testimony regarding the Plaintiff's loss of past and future wages and loss of earning capacity.
The law firm of LGKG offered the testimony of a physician who specializes in physical medicine and rehabilitation. The physician offered testimony regarding the Plaintiff's limitations as a result of this accident.
The jury deliberated for approximately two hours, 15 minutes before returning a verdict in the amount of $1.5 million.
Negligent Treatment Of Mother During Labor
The mother of the Minor-Plaintiff has been diagnosed with preterm labor. Notwithstanding the diagnosis, the Defendants failed to administer medication that would enhance the maturity of the infant's lungs prior to delivery. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to properly administer medications used to delay the delivery. Suit was filed against the physician and hospital.
As a result of the failure to administer proper medication to enhance the maturity of the infant's lungs and delay delivery, the infant suffered hypoxia immediately after birth that lead to brain damage that ultimately lead to the infant's demise.
The law firm of LGKG hired the services of a maternal fetal medicine expert who testified that the failure to administer the medication in a timely fashion was a breach of the acceptable standard of care that ultimately lead to the child's death. After a five-day trial, the jury returned a six-figure verdict on behalf of the Plaintiff.
Rape Of A Nursing Home Resident
The Plaintiff, a 78-year-old woman, was a resident of a nursing home. The Defendant/Nursing Home was charged with the responsibility of supervising the nursing home and providing a safe environment for residents who live thereon. The Defendant/Perpetrator was a relative of another nursing home resident. The Plaintiff was noted in the records to be at risk for wandering and elopement. The nursing home records indicated that prior to the date of the rape that the Plaintiff had eloped from the premises on several occasions. The perpetrator was a visitor at the nursing home. Several days prior to the incident, the perpetrator had to be removed from the nursing home for causing a disturbance. Furthermore, the perpetrator had a known psychiatric history. On the incident in question, the Plaintiff left the nursing home to go out into the parking lot. She was abducted by the perpetrator and raped. Suit was filed against the nursing home and perpetrator alleging that the nursing home failed to observe and monitor guests at the nursing home; failure to properly provide security for its residents; and failure to act upon the Plaintiff's prior wandering and/or leaving the premises. It was also alleged that the nursing home violated various sections of Title 28 applicable to nursing home facilities as well as the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations. The law firm of LGKG hired a forensic nurse and nursing home administrator to support the Plaintiff's allegations of negligence. The case resolved by way of a six-figure settlement.
Defective Placement Of A Telephone Pole
The Plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by a teenage friend. As the vehicle was proceeding down the highway, the driver of the vehicle reached over to change the radio station. As a result, the right-hand passenger side wheels of her vehicle drove onto the berm of the roadway. When the driver looked up, a telephone pole, which was situated approximately 6 feet from the berm of roadway, was directly in her path. In an effort to avoid the telephone pole, she steered sharply to the left, which resulted in a rollover of the vehicle causing significant injuries to the passenger. The law firm of LGKG filed suit against the utility company and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation alleging that the pole was inappropriately placed along the berm of the road. The law firm of LGKG hired an expert who opined that PennDOT had sufficient right of way so that the pole could have been placed farther away from the edge of the roadway thereby creating less of a hazard to passengers using the road surface. After discovery completed, which included deposition testimony of PennDOT experts, the case resulted in a six-figure settlement against the driver of the vehicle and PennDOT and in favor of the Plaintiff.
Defective Design And Signing Of Intersection
The Plaintiff was riding as a guest passenger in a vehicle driven by his wife. Unfortunately, as she came around a bend on a rural road for the first time, the wife did not see a posted stop sign. As a result, she did not stop at the stop sign and struck a vehicle that was crossing the intersection. Suit was filed by the law firm of LGKG against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation alleging defective design and signing of the intersection. The law firm of LGKG alleged that the driver of the vehicle was not given proper notice of the fact that a stop sign was situated ahead on the roadway. Furthermore, the law firm of LGKG alleged that not only was there insufficient signing but PennDOT actually used the wrong signs in notifying drivers of the upcoming intersection. The law firm of LGKG alleged that had proper signing been used at the intersection, the accident would not have occurred. The law firm of LGKG hired a road design expert as well as an accident reconstruction expert to set forth proper design of the intersection and to outline how the proper design would have avoided the accident. After extensive discovery, which included depositions and field inspections, the case resulted in a six-figure settlement in favor of the Plaintiff.
At LGKG, attorneys Charles W. Garbett, Lawrence M. Kelly, and Joseph A. George have been AV Preeminent-rated by Martindale-Hubbell. AV Preeminent rating represents the highest rating of legal ability and ethics as determined by members of the bar and judiciary.* The law firm of LGKG has also received an AV Preeminent rating, which is the rating given to pre-eminent firms in Pennsylvania by Martindale-Hubbell.
*AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer-review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ fall into two categories - legal ability and general ethical standards.