New York Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

Francine Ingrassia (Female, 39 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Marc Thompson;
Pulvers, Pulvers, Thompson & Friedman, LLP;
New York,
NY,
for
Francine Ingrassia

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Gary Brickner; Obstetrics; Hamilton,
NJ called by:
Marc Thompson

Defendant(s):

David Herzog

Defense Attorney(s):

John T. Evans;
Belair & Evans LLP;
New York,
NY,
for
David Herzog

Defendant Expert(s):

Robert Troiano;
Obstetrics;
New York,
NY called by:
John T. Evans

Insurer(s):

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Co.

On Nov. 15, 2008, plaintiff Francine Ingrassia, 39, a homemaker, presented to Winthrop-University Hospital, in Mineola. She was experiencing pain that stemmed from her abdomen. Ingrassia had performed a self-test that indicated that she was pregnant, but her gynecologist, Dr. David Herzog, performed follow-up tests that suggested that she was not pregnant. A Winthrop-University Hospital doctor determined that Ingrassia was carrying an ectopic pregnancy, which is a pregnancy whose embryo has become implanted outside of the wound. A doctor suspected that a fallopian tube was the site of the pregnancy. The embryo was removed via laparoscopic surgery. Ingrassia claimed that the surgery involved removal or destruction of a fallopian tube. She further claimed that Herzog should have previously diagnosed her pregnancy. She contended that a timely diagnosis would have allowed a nonsurgical means of termination of the pregnancy. Ingrassia sued Herzog. Ingrassia alleged that Herzog failed to properly diagnose her condition. She further alleged that Herzog’s failure constituted malpractice. Ingrassia’s expert obstetrician noted that Herzog’s tests did not include a study of Ingrassia’s blood. The expert noted that such a test would have revealed any presence of human chorionic gonadotropin, which is a hormone that is produced during pregnancy. He contended that the test would have revealed Ingrassia’s pregnancy, and he opined that a prompt diagnosis would have allowed a nonsurgical solution that would not have harmed a fallopian tube. The expert concluded that Herzog departed from an accepted standard of medical care. Herzog noted that he performed a sonography, and he also noted that he tested a sample of Ingrassia’s urine. He claimed that the tests did not reveal a pregnancy, and he contended that the results obviated the need for a study of Ingrassia’s blood. The defense’s expert obstetrician opined that Herzog’s actions were appropriate.

Ingrassia claimed that she sustained the loss of a fallopian tube. She claimed that she desires additional children, but that pregnancy is not possible. She also claimed that she cannot undergo in-vitro fertilization. She further claimed that she suffers residual anguish. Ingrassia sought recovery of damages for past pain and suffering. She also sought recovery of damages for future pain and suffering, but Judge Gloria Dabiri struck that claim. Defense counsel contended that Ingrassia did not incur an injury or damages. He claimed that Winthrop-University Hospital’s records indicate that Ingrassia did not undergo removal of a fallopian tube. He also contended that Ingrassia can undergo in-vitro fertilization. Herzog claimed that Ingrassia expressed that she wanted to undergo blockage of her fallopian tubes, but Ingrassia denied having expressed such a desire.

The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found that Herzog did not depart from an accepted standard of medical care.

Judge:

Gloria M. Dabiri

Demand:

$300,000

Offer:

None

Trial Length:

2
 weeks

Trial Deliberations:

5
 minutes

Jury Vote:

6-0

Jury Composition:

3 male/ 3 female

Post Trial:

Plaintiff’s counsel has moved to set aside the verdict.

This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.