Ron Austin
DRI member Ron Austin, a principal at the Chicago-based law firm, Grant Austin, LLC, successfully represented a hospital by obtaining a dismissal of a claim that the hospital violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”). The dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
In January 2018, the plaintiff was arrested for arson. While in jail, the plaintiff was transferred to the psychiatric unit, where a nurse practitioner recommended an involuntary admission to the hospital. At the hospital, an emergency physician examined the plaintiff. The physician noted that the plaintiff was calm and cooperative during the visit and reported no physical or mental problems. After completing the examination and finding no emergency condition, the physician discharged the plaintiff. Several days after the hospital visit, the plaintiff got into a physical altercation with a neighbor, which resulted in the plaintiff being arrested for battery. While in jail on the battery charge, the plaintiff filed three lawsuits against various defendants, including the hospital. Each lawsuit was dismissed.
In 2023, the plaintiff filed his EMTALA lawsuit, alleging that the hospital failed to adequately examine him and that it should have involuntarily admitted him in 2018. The hospital moved to dismiss the complaint because the EMTALA claims were filed after the two-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff, through counsel, argued that equitable tolling applied because he diligently pursued his claims and extraordinary circumstances prevented him from timely filing the EMTALA action. The hospital argued that the plaintiff did not diligently pursue the EMTALA claims and plaintiff’s three lawsuits filed while he was in jail showed that his incarceration and mental condition were not extraordinary circumstances that prevented him from timely filing an EMTALA claim. The US District Court agreed with the hospital and dismissed the complaint, with prejudice. On July 2, 2024, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
Laura DeMartini Eschleman
Laura DeMartini Eschleman, managing partner of DeMartini Firm, PC, as lead counsel, along with her associate Shawn H. Choi, both formerly of the law firm Nall & Miller, LLP, secured a defense verdict in Bibb County, Georgia for a hospitalist in June 2023, while the jury issued a $40 million verdict against the doctor’s co-defendants. Defense counsel for the hospitalist stated that the jury understood their case theme – justice for the family, and fairness for their doctor.
After three weeks of trial and two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a $40 million verdict against the first two hospitals and attributed zero negligence to Ms. DeMartini Eschleman’s hospitalist client, an independent contract who admitted the patient while working as a locum tenens doctor overnight.
Jerry Popovich and Nicole Ortiz
Hawkins Parnell & Young achieved a favorable verdict for a large distributor of food products after a high-risk 15-day trial in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County. Jerry Popovich and Nicole Ortiz of Hawkins Parnell's Orange County office tried the case.
The plaintiff sought nearly $11 million in damages from catastrophic injuries after an accident involving the defendant's 18-wheeler. The extensive injuries alleged included neck, upper back, and lumbar spine injuries, with the most severe being a three-level fusion surgery performed two years post-accident, with ongoing treatment expected over the plaintiff's lifetime.
The jury returned a verdict awarding only $337,000. Since the amount is less than the settlement offers made prior to trial, Hawkins Parnell's client will be able to recover substantial costs and expert fees, further reducing the plaintiff's recovery.
Tracy Kolb
Meagher + Geer Partner Tracy Kolb recently obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a hospital client in a medical malpractice lawsuit filed in Burleigh County, North Dakota. Plaintiff parents alleged their infant sustained burns from heat from a radiant warmer that was used by an operating room team during a surgery. The defense countered that warming devices are the standard of care to keep an infant warm during surgery. Further, they are not capable of burning a patient. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the hospital, rejecting the obscurity of plaintiffs’ theory, along with their attempt to influence the jury with sympathy and emotion rather than evidence.