New York Verdicts

Amount:

$1,325,000

Type:

Verdict-Plaintiff

State:

New York

Venue:

Bronx County

Court:

Bronx Supreme

Injury Type(s):

Case Type:

Medical Malpractice – Surgeon, Surgical Error, Post-Operative Care

Case Name:

Miguel Erosa & Marie Erosa v. Michael Coomaraswamy, M.D.,
No. 14247/05

Date:

May 7, 2013

Plaintiff(s):

Marife Erosa (Female), 

Miguel Erosa (Male, 40 )

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Andrew S. Targum;
Targum & Britton, LLP;
New York,
NY,
for
Marife Erosa, Miguel Erosa

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Jason Green;
M.D.;
Colon & Rectal Surgery;
Sparta,
NJ called by
Andrew S. Targum

Defendant(s):

Michael Coomaraswamy

Defense Attorney(s):

Susan D. Noble;
Wenick & Finger, P.C.;
New York,
NY,
for
Michael Coomaraswamy

Defendent Expert(s):

Charles Wetli;
Pathology;
New York,
NY called by
Susan D. Noble ■ Zachary Gleit;
Surgery;
New York,
NY called by
Susan D. Noble

Insurer(s):

FOJP Service Corp.

On Nov. 9, 2002, plaintiff Miguel Erosa, a 41- or 42-year-old letter carrier, underwent an appendectomy. The procedure was performed by Dr. Michael Coomaraswamy, at Parkway Hospital, in Queens. Erosa‘s hospitalization lasted four days. After two months had passed, Erosa returned to Parkway Hospital. He reported a painful condition of his abdomen. He underwent the administration of antibiotics, but his pain persisted. After six days had passed, Erosa left the hospital. He presented to another hospital, where doctors opined that his pain was a result of an infection that stemmed from incomplete removal of his appendix. Erosa underwent additional surgery, and he claimed that he suffers permanent residual effects. Erosa sued Coomaraswamy. Erosa alleged that Coomaraswamy failed to properly perform the appendectomy, that the doctor failed to provide proper postsurgical care and that the doctor’s failures constituted malpractice. Erosa‘s expert surgeon agreed that Coomaraswamy did not completely remove Erosa‘s appendix, and he opined that incomplete removal is a departure from an accepted standard of care. He contended that an incomplete appendectomy can cause a slowly developing infection whose symptoms do not emerge until months have passed. Erosa‘s counsel claimed that Erosa‘s follow-up surgery included complete removal of the appendix, and he claimed that Erosa‘s prior symptoms did not reappear after the follow-up surgery. Erosa‘s counsel also claimed that Coomaraswamy did not provide proper postsurgical care. He contended that the doctor should have closely monitored Erosa‘s postsurgical condition, but that he never performed a follow-up examination. However, Coomaraswamy claimed that qualified doctors and surgeons capably and properly monitored Erosa‘s postsurgical condition. Coomaraswamy also claimed that he completely removed Erosa‘s appendix, and the defense’s expert surgeon agreed that the procedure was properly performed. The defense’s expert pathologist opined that Erosa‘s postsurgical symptoms were a product of diverticulitis, Crohn’s disease and/or an allergic response to staples that were inserted during the procedure. However, the expert also acknowledged that he had not encountered a patient who had experienced an allergic response to staples.

On Nov. 9, 2002, Erosa underwent an appendectomy. He claimed that the surgeon did not completely remove the appendix. He further claimed that he developed residual pain that necessitated a hospitalization that spanned six days, that he was largely ignored during that hospitalization and that he feared that his condition would be fatal. He also claimed that his residual effects included appendicitis and peritonitis. On Feb. 9, 2003, Erosa underwent surgery. He claimed that the procedure included the removal of the remaining portion of his appendix, the removal of residual adhesions of soft tissue, the repair of a residual hernia and the treatment of residual abscesses. The procedure necessitated a hospitalization, and Erosa subsequently underwent rehabilitation. He claimed that his convalescence prevented his performance of eight months of work. Erosa further claimed that his residual effects have increased his likelihood of developing hernias. He also claimed that he must avoid strenuous activities that include household chores that he had previously performed. He also bears residual scars. The parties stipulated that Erosa‘s past medical expenses totaled $34,548. Erosa sought recovery of that amount, his lost earnings, and damages for past and future pain and suffering. His wife sought recovery of damages for past and future loss of services. Defense counsel maintained that Mr. Erosa‘s limitations are not related to the appendectomy that Coomaraswamy performed.

The jury found that Coomaraswamy departed from an accepted standard of medical care. It determined that the Erosas’ damages totaled $1,325,000. Judge Mark Friedlander added $34,548, which represented the stipulated damages. Thus, the Erosas’ recovery totaled $1,359,548.

Marife Erosa: $100,000 Personal Injury: Past Loss Of Services $25,000 Personal Injury: Future Loss Of Services Miguel Erosa: $950,000 Personal Injury: Past Pain And Suffering $250,000 Personal Injury: Future Pain And Suffering

Actual Award:

$1359548

Judge:

Mark Friedlander

Demand:

$450,000 (total, by both plaintiffs)

Offer:

None

Trial Length:

6
 days

Trial Deliberations:

3
 hours

Jury Vote:

6-0

Jury Composition:

1 male/ 5 female

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