Surgery Malpractice Lawyers

in Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Nassau County & Suffolk County

 

Unnecessary Heart Pacemaker

 

This medical malpractice case involves the unnecessary placement of a permanent heart pacemaker in a 35 year old woman.

 

She originally went to the Emergency Room complaining of shortness of breath. She was not admitted to the hospital but was referred to another facility for cardiac testing. After two days of cardiac testing in an in-patient setting, it was determined that a pacemaker was not needed and instead she required only medication and monitoring. Subsequently, she came under the care and treatment of another physician who determined that a pacemaker was in fact needed which was inserted shortly thereafter. Again, the claim of the lawsuit was that the pacemaker was not required.

 

The defense called an electrophysiologist at the time of trial to support its claim that the pacemaker was warranted. Testimony was offered about pacemakers generally and the criteria for placement.

 

On cross examination we learned:
• This expert was hired by the previous law firm who defended the case and that he had worked with this defense firm a number of times in the past.

• This expert had testified in multiple states mainly on behalf of physicians/defendants.

• This expert had testified in the past that his primary practice is internal medicine.

• This expert was paid at least $9,000 on this particular case.

• That this expert testified in Court on at least 25 prior occasions.

• That the telemetry strip relied on by the defense to substantiate the need for the pacemaker only encompassed between 5 and 15 seconds of monitoring.

• That his interpretation of the telemetry strip differed from that of the patient’s prior treating doctors.

• That the patient’s prior treating doctors believed that her heart rate may have been affected by an increase in caffeine use or her previous Lyme’s disease.

• That the patient’s prior treating doctors believed she did not need the pacemaker.

• That the patient’s current cardiologist recommended that when the battery voltage of the pacemaker runs out, he recommends that the battery not be replaced.

• This expert testified that it was not the defendant’s responsibility to discuss with the patient what other treating doctors thought about the need for the pacemaker, even though their opinions were contradictory.

Click here to read the cross -examination of the defendant's expert by our office.

 

If you or a loved one has had a heart attack and have questions about the quality of the medical care received, please contact Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C.’s surgery malpractice lawyers for answers. Together we will continue our fight against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES. We serve clients in New York, including the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island, with free consultations!

 

 

Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C.
Call Us Toll Free
1.877. ASK 4 SAM