Pennsylvania Verdicts

Find out about the most important recent Pennsylvania cases, selected by VerdictSearch editors. Coverage includes Allegheny, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties. Subscribe to VerdictSearch Pennsylvania for access to all Pennsylvania verdictsPricing Options

Podiatrist: Patient was non-compliant in bunion treatment

Type:

Verdict-Defendant

State:

Pennsylvania

Venue:

Erie County

Court:

Erie County Court of Common Pleas

Injury Type(s):

foot/heel-foot

Case Type:

Medical Malpractice – Podiatrist, Delayed Diagnosis, Negligent Treatment

Case Name:

Andrew Beezub v. Larry G. Wells D.P.M. and Foot & Ankle Clinic,
No. 13503-2009

Date:

October 9, 2013

Parties

Plaintiff(s):

Andrew Beezub (Male, 43 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Stephen P. Drexler;
Ainsman, Levine, & Drexler, LLC;
Pittsburgh,
PA,
for
Andrew Beezub

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Matthew Sabo;
D.P.M.;
Foot Surgery;
Ford City,
PA called by
Stephen P. Drexler

Defendant(s):

Foot & Ankle Clinic, 

Larry G. Wells, D.P.M.

Defense Attorney(s):

Francis J. Klemensic;
Knox McLaughlin Gornall & Sennett, P.C.;
Erie,
PA,
for
Foot & Ankle Clinic, Larry G. Wells, D.P.M.

Defendant Expert(s):

Lawrence DiDomenico;
Foot Surgery;
Youngstown,
OH called by
Francis J. Klemensic

Insurer(s):

CampMed Casualty & Indemnity Company, Inc. of Maryland

Facts:

On May 31, 2007, plaintiff Andrew Beezub, 43, a laborer, presented for bunion treatment to podiatrist Larry Wells at Wells’ practice (Foot & Ankle Clinic) in Corry. Beezub was prescribed conservative treatment (including orthotic shoes and medication), but after the treatment reportedly did not improve Beezub’s condition (he still had multiple bunions on both feet) in the ensuing months, Wells recommended surgery. On Aug. 16, Beezub underwent a bunion-removal surgery on the left foot in order to properly realign the toes; in addition, a tendon-lengthening and capsulotomy were performed. On Sept. 7, after about five post-operative visits, an X-ray, which was performed after Beezub had complained of severe pain in his big toe, showed that his toe was elevated and out of alignment. Beezub then sued Wells and his practice group for medical malpractice. Beezub’s expert in podiatry criticized Wells’ performance of the surgery, opining that the toe had not been placed in alignment correctly, and, instead, was placed in an elevated position. The expert further faulted Wells in diagnosing the misalignment postoperatively, testifying that the physician should have recognized it earlier, and immediately performed a revision surgery. Wells maintained that Beezub was a noncompliant patient, who most likely had been the cause of his own post-surgical injury. According to Wells, Beezub failed to use the orthotic shoes and physical therapy with which he was prescribed. The defense maintained that there was evidence that Beezub had been weight-bearing post-surgery — a direct violation of the podiatrist’s instructions — and that Beezub fell while using his crutches. (Beezub testified that he did not fall on his foot but on the right side of his body.) Wells’ expert in podiatry testified that the slightest movement, such as even being weight-bearing for two steps while walking to the bathroom, can disrupt and ruin a surgical site. Despite Beezub’s claim that Wells never recommended revision surgery, the defense produced Wells’ notes from Sept. 7 and Sept. 28, which indicated that the physician had recommended a revision surgery, but that Beezub apparently had refused to undergo it at that time. The defense’s expert opined that Wells’ performance of the surgery had conformed to the relevant standard of care; he pointed to the operative report, in which Wells wrote "good alignment was noted," three times. The expert further stated that Wells had timely recognized Beezub’s misaligned toe, and opined that it did not matter what date the misalignment had been recognized, because, even six months post-surgery, a revision operation can still be performed.

Injury:

Following his last visit with Wells in September 2007, Beezub presented to a treating orthopedic surgeon, who prescribed foot pads, which Beezub used for the next year. With the conservative treatment reportedly unsuccessful, Beezub underwent a revision surgery on his feet on Jan. 12, 2009. No further treatment was administered, and Beezub sought to recover approximately $8,000 in damages for past medical expenses, and about $2,000 for past wage loss. Beezub claimed that the revision surgery had offered some relief, but that he still experiences pain and stiffness. Beezub said that he particularly feels discomfort at work, since his position requires him to inspect and perform maintenance for various machines, and thus requires him to stoop down and apply pressure to the ball of his feet for extended periods of time. At the end of the day, he is completely exhausted and has no energy, claimed Beezub, who sought to recover unspecified amounts of noneconomic damages, for past and future pain and suffering. The defense pointed out that, despite Beezub’s complaints of pain, he continues to go hunting.

Result:

The jury determined that Wells had not been negligent in his treatment of Beezub.

Trial Information:

Judge:

Ernest J. DiSantis

Demand:

$175,000

Trial Length:

3
 days

Editor’s Comment:

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