Konsul v. Asensio

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 316 Neb. 874

Opinion Date: June 14, 2024

Judge: Miller-Lerman

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury

The case involves a medical malpractice claim brought by Ivan J. Konsul against Juan Antonio Asensio, M.D. The claim arose from treatment Konsul received after being admitted to Creighton University Medical Center following a motor vehicle accident. Asensio, a trauma surgeon, placed an inferior vena cava filter (IVC filter) in Konsul to prevent migration of deep vein thrombosis. Konsul alleged that Asensio violated applicable standards of care in various respects, including unnecessary placement of the filter, improper location of the filter, and failing to inform Konsul of the long-term risks of the filter remaining in his body. Konsul claimed that due to Asensio's failures, the filter migrated throughout his body and became lodged behind his heart, causing physical pain, mental suffering, and additional health care costs.

The case went to a jury trial. Konsul called Dr. David Dreyfuss as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding the standard of care applicable to Asensio. However, the district court ruled that Dreyfuss could not testify regarding the applicable standard of care in Omaha, as he was not familiar with the standard of care in Omaha or a similar community. Without Dreyfuss' testimony, Konsul provided no evidence of the standard of care, and the district court dismissed Konsul's case.

Konsul appealed, claiming that the district court erred when it struck Dreyfuss as an expert witness and when it granted Asensio's motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the case. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the district court did not err when it struck Dreyfuss as an expert witness and when it granted Asensio's motion for a directed verdict and dismissed Konsul's case. The court also found that any error regarding the deposition issues was harmless considering the proper dismissal of the action based on Konsul's failure to provide evidence of the standard of care.

Dignity Health v. District Court

Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Citation: 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 40

Opinion Date: June 20, 2024

Judge: Parraguirre

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury

The case revolves around a medical malpractice claim filed by Saeed Gohari, acting as the guardian ad litem for Nammi Gohari, a minor. Nammi was born prematurely in 2012 and developed irreversible brain damage, which the family attributed to professional negligence by the medical staff at facilities operated by Dignity Health. The malpractice claims were filed against Dignity Health and several individuals who provided medical care to Nammi's mother, Afsaneh Amin-Akbari, over a decade after Nammi's birth, on November 30, 2022.

The case was initially brought before the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. Dignity Health moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely under NRS 41A.097, which sets a limitation period for filing medical malpractice claims. However, Gohari argued that the complaint was still timely under NRS 41A.097(5) due to a pair of emergency directives issued by Governor Steve Sisolak during the COVID-19 pandemic, which tolled the limitations period. The district court agreed with Gohari, concluding that the directives tolled the limitations period for 122 days, making Gohari's complaint timely.

The case was then brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada. Dignity Health filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking the court to vacate the district court order and direct the district court to dismiss the case because Gohari's complaint was untimely under NRS 41A.097(5) and its timeliness was not preserved by the directives. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition, concluding that the district court correctly applied the directives and that the law does not require dismissal of Gohari's complaint as untimely. The court found no support for Dignity Health's argument in the directives’ plain language and held that the directives tolled Gohari's limitations period for 122 days.

Mertis v. Oh

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Docket: 31 MAP 2023

Opinion Date: June 18, 2024

Judge: Mundy

Areas of Law: Legal Ethics, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

In a medical malpractice case, Bobbi Ann Mertis filed a lawsuit against Dr. Dong-Joon Oh, North American Partners in Anesthesia (Pennsylvania), LLC (NAPA), Wilkes-Barre Hospital, and Commonwealth Health. Mertis alleged that Dr. Oh negligently administered a femoral nerve block, causing her a femoral nerve injury. Dr. Oh retained a law firm, Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, to represent him. Later, Dr. Eugene Kim, the orthopedic surgeon who performed Mertis’s knee surgery and was not named as a defendant, also retained the same law firm after receiving a subpoena to appear at a discovery deposition.

The Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas denied Mertis's motion for sanctions to disqualify the law firm from representing Dr. Oh and to bar the firm's further ex parte communication with Dr. Kim. The court found no violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.6, which regulates obtaining information from a party's treating physician. Mertis appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case. The Superior Court found that Rule 4003.6 was violated and that the law firm's concurrent representation of Dr. Oh and Dr. Kim was tantamount to ex parte communication.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The court concluded that a law firm representing a defendant treating physician cannot obtain information from a nonparty treating physician without the patient's written consent or through an authorized method of discovery. The court found that the client exception in Rule 4003.6(1) does not permit a law firm to obtain information from a nonparty treating physician by entering into an attorney-client relationship with that physician when the law firm's attorneys were already prohibited from obtaining information from that physician under Rule 4003.6 prior to entering such attorney-client relationship.