Eichhorn & Eichhorn Attorneys At Law

Claim:

Plaintiff sought damages for the alleged unnecessary implantation of a cardiac biventricular pacemaker and defibrillator

Outcome:

Defense verdict in favor of all defendants.

David Jensen, James Hough and Kevin McNamara obtained a defense verdict in Lake County, Indiana on behalf of their client, a Cardiologist from Munster, Indiana. In June of 2007, the patient, a 25 year old man, was admitted to the hospital with severe hypertension, but also complaints of shortness of breath and swelling of his lower legs and feet. He was found to a 20-30% ejection fraction, meaning his heart was pumping less than half the normal amount of blood with every stroke. He was diagnosed with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy with manifested in congestive heart failure. After being started on appropriate medications, and the performance of an angiogram which revealed pulmonary hypertension, as well as both right and left sides heart failure, the cardiologist recommended the implantation of a cardiac defibrillator due to the risk of sudden cardiac death. During the hospitalization, a nurse recorded and the cardiologist agreed, that a rhythm strip showed a prolonged QRS which is an indication for biventricular pacing. The cardiologist then recommended a device that was capable of both biventricular pacing and had a defibrillator. The patient obtained a second opinion from a cardiac electrophysiologist who advised observation while on medication for at least three (3) months. The patient chose to have the device implanted. At trial, the plaintiff claimed that the defibrillator was implanted prematurely and that medications were not given a chance to work. Further, he claimed that there was no need for the biventricular pacing at all. However, six (6) years after the original implant, the the battery was nearing end of life, the plaintiff had the device replaced with a device with the same functions by a physician where he was living in Ohio.

The case was tried over nine (9) days and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant in approximately 4 hours. In addition to the claims against the cardiologist, the plaintiff pursued a claim against the hospital where the implantation was performed for negligent credentialing of the cardiologist to perform the implant. The case was to be tried in stages with the credentialing claim to be addressed only if the plaintiff obtained a verdict against the cardiologist. With the defense verdict obtained for the cardiologist, judgment was rendered in favor of the hospital as well.