Results

Medical Malpractice

Goodell DeVries Attorneys Obtain Summary Judgment in OB/GYN and Nurse Midwife Case

Kelly Hughes Iverson and M. Peggy Chu, of Goodell DeVries, obtained summary judgment for an OB/GYN practice and a nurse midwife after excluding the plaintiff’s standard of care witness on the basis of the “20% rule.”  After hearing argument from both sides and reviewing the expert’s lengthy de bene esse testimony, the court issued an opinion from the bench in which the court agreed that Lawrence S. Borow, M.D. devoted annually more than 20% of his professional activities to activities that directly involve testimony in personal injury claims, and that he therefore was not qualified under the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act to testify about any alleged departures from the standard of care.   The case is Streaker v. Boushehri, et al., in the Circuit Court for Howard County.  

Defense Verdict Obtained in Neonatal Death Case

Kelly Hughes Iverson and Erin C. Miller obtained a defense verdict in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in the case of Woodard, et al., v. Physician. The plaintiff alleged that a term pregnancy should have been delivered approximately four hours earlier for indications of chorioamnionitis, positive Group B Strep culture and non-reassuring fetal heart tracing.  The baby was born with sepsis, had Apgar scores of 0, 0 and 0, and lived only 90 minutes. After nearly two weeks of trial, the jury deliberated for only 45 minutes before determining that the obstetrician did not violate the standard of care. 

Goodell DeVries Wins Summary Judgment on Behalf of Hospital

On November 15, 2013, the District of Columbia Superior Court heard oral arguments on a motion for summary judgment filed by Thomas V. Monahan, Jr. and Erin C. Miller on behalf of a D.C. hospital.  Convinced by the hospital’s argument that a non-employee orthopedic surgeon in private practice who provided non-emergent services to admitted patients was not the apparent agent of the hospital, the Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s apparent agency claim and entered summary judgment in favor of the hospital from the bench.  

Med Mal Team Obtains Defense Verdict in Lung Cancer Claim

On September 13, 2013 a Circuit Court jury in Frederick County returned a verdict in favor of pathologists  represented by Craig B. Merkle and Michael J. Wasicko.  In the case of Moore v. Rock, the plaintiffs alleged that a fine needle biopsy was misdiagnosed as representing lung cancer, resulting in removal of the right middle lobe of the lung and severe emotional distress.  The pathology from the surgery to remove the mass unexpectedly showed that the plaintiff did not have lung cancer, but instead had an unusual condition called cryptogenic organizing pneumonitis (COP).  The defense established that the plaintiff was at extremely high risk for lung cancer as a result of smoking cigarettes  ½ to 1 pack per day for 38 years.  In addition, before the fine needle biopsy was even performed, the plaintiff had both CT and PET scan imaging that was not only suspicious for cancer, but was reported to be most consistent with the diagnosis of cancer.  The defense further established that the cytological specimen at issue in the case was very abnormal and had numerous features and characteristics of lung cancer.  It was only with the benefit of subsequent surgical pathology from the excision and lobectomy that the diagnosis of cancer could be excluded.  The defense also established that even if the fine needle biopsy at issue had been reported differently or not performed at all, the patient would still have  undergone the subsequent lung surgery to remove the mass because of the other medical evidence that established  the mass in the lung was more than 90% likely to be cancer.

 

Reversing a $55 Million Verdict, Goodell DeVries Obtains New Trial from Court of Special Appeals in Baltimore City Birth Injury Case 

One year after Johns Hopkins Hospital was hit with a verdict of $55 million in a single-plaintiff birth injury case, the Court of Special Appeals has vacated the judgment entirely and ordered a new trial.  See Martinez v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 1394 SEPT TERM 2012, --- A.3 ----, 2013 WL 3337277 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 3, 2013).  The Baltimore City verdict was widely cited as the largest medical malpractice award in Maryland history, exceeding even what the Plaintiffs’ attorneys had requested.

However, legal error required a new trial.  Specifically, the Hospital was precluded from putting on evidence at trial of the nurse-midwife’s negligence on the grounds that the uninsured midwife was not a party in the case.  Instead, the trial judge limited the Hospital to merely reciting what the nurse-midwife did and prohibited it from characterizing anything she did as improper, negligent, or in violation of the standard of care for nurse-midwives.  Plaintiffs then exploited the ruling to repeatedly suggest to the jury that the midwife’s grossly incompetent and dangerous treatment was appropriate for nurse-midwives.  The appellate court explained that “the effect of the trial court’s ruling was that Martinez was permitted to argue to the jury that [the midwife’s] treatment of Martinez was appropriate. The Hospital, however, was precluded from arguing that [the midwife’s] actions were negligent.” Slip op. at 49.

Donald L. DeVries, Jr. led the Goodell DeVries appellate team that secured this important win.  Assisting him on the briefing was Janet A. Forero, Derek M. Stikeleather and Meghan Hatfield Yanacek.

 

Med Mal Team  Prevails in 13-Day Jury Trial

For the fifth time in a year, Craig B. Merkle and Adam Kelley have obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice jury trial. In the case of Carannante v. Dr. Z, the plaintiffs alleged that a 42-year-old patient undergoing an upper endoscopy and a colonoscopy died as a result of a respiratory arrest sustained during the procedures.  Plaintiffs alleged that in addition to inadequate monitoring of vital signs, there was a colon perforation and consequent abdominal compartment syndrome. Goodell DeVries’ attorneys represented the gastroenterology defendant and established that the patient’s colon was not perforated, and that the patient died as a result of  complications unrelated to the performance of the colonoscopy. They also successfully presented evidence that the gastroenterologist did not have a duty to monitor the patient’s vital signs where there was a board-certified anesthesiologist in attendance to manage the sedation.  After 13 days of evidence, which included testimony from specialists in gastroenterology, colorectal surgery, radiology, anesthesiology, and critical care medicine, a jury in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County returned a verdict in favor of our client.
 

Goodell DeVries Obtains Defense Jury Verdict for Surgeon

For the fourth time this year, Craig B. Merkle and Adam Kelley were successful in obtaining a defense  verdict in a claim alleging medical malpractice.  In the case of Hoben v. Dr. S, the plaintiff alleged he sustained a bladder perforation as a result of a urethral sling placement and a cystodilation.  The plaintiff developed multiple postoperative complications from the bladder perforation and  repair that necessitated further surgery and 40 days in the hospital.  Plaintiffs alleged negligent surgical technique, lack of informed consent and that the surgery was not indicated.  The defense countered that all conservative measures had been exhausted to treat the plaintiff’s incontinence following radical prostatectomy, that appropriate consent had been obtained, and that the bladder injury was a non-negligent and recognized complication of the procedures.  After four days of evidence, a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County returned a verdict  in favor of the defense on all counts.

 

Goodell DeVries Secures Dismissal for Hospital in Baltimore City

On August 15, 2012, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City conducted a hearing and granted a dispositive motion filed by Goodell DeVries (Marianne DePaulo Plant and Lucas Chrencik) on behalf of a defendant hospital.  Plaintiff sought $4 million in damages, including punitive damages based on allegations of assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and negligence relating to patient visitation.  Although the plaintiff’s claims initially generated local media coverage, Goodell DeVries’ motion to dismiss was granted as to all claims against the hospital.  (Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case number 24-C-11000098.)

 

Goodell DeVries Attorneys Successfully Defend Anesthesia Team

For the third time in the last four months, Craig B. Merkle and Adam Kelley have obtained a defense verdict in  a medical malpractice trial.  In Sheppard v. DCH, which was filed and tried in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County,  the plaintiff alleged that she had sustained a tear of her airway when she was intubated  for surgery to remove  infected abdominal hernia mesh.  The plaintiff developed significant air in her neck and mediastinum the day after surgery and was reintubated and  hospitalized for an additional 10 days.  Mr. Merkle and Mr. Kelley successfully represented the anesthesia team which consisted of an anesthesiologist and a CRNA.  A motion for judgment was granted on behalf of the physician, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the CRNA on June 20, 2012.

 

Jury Verdict for Manor Care Largo - No Breach in Standard of Care

On April 10, 2012, Thomas V. Monahan, Jr. and Elizabeth A. Hafey obtained a defense verdict in favor of Manor Care Largo MD, LLC, a nursing home in Prince George’s County, after a six-day trial.  In Lissa Ross v. Manor Care Largo, the 10 children of James Johnson alleged that their father fell from a wheelchair at Manor Care Largo, sustained an injury to his brain that necessitated surgery six days later and, ultimately, died less than 24 hours after the brain surgery.  After hearing defense experts in geriatrics, neurosurgery and neuroradiology, the jury concluded that there was no breach in the standard of care by any nurses or staff at Manor Care Largo.

 

Goodell DeVries Secures Defense Verdict in Medical Malpractice Case

In March 2012, Craig B. Merkle and Adam Kelley obtained a defense verdict in a wrongful death suit on behalf of a general surgeon in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County. In the case of Ward v. MASG, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant surgeon failed to timely diagnose a bowel perforation following a laparoscopic procedure to repair a ventral hernia. After six days of trial, the jury determined that the defendant surgeon had not breached the standard of care with respect to the patient’s post-operative surveillance. Numerous expert physicians testified at the trial of the case, including specialists in general surgery and infectious disease.

 

Medical Malpractice Team Obtains Verdict for Surgeon

In February 2012, Craig B. Merkle and Adam Kelley obtained a defense verdict in a wrongful death suit on behalf of a general surgeon in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County. In the case of Paluba v. MASG, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant surgeon failed to properly repair and treat an anastamotic leak discovered during a low anterior resection for rectal cancer.  The patient's subsequent course was complicated by a persistent high ileostomy output, Klebsiella pneumonia, an inflamed abdominal aortic aneurysm, an infected endograft and an aortoenteric fistula.  After eight days of trial, the jury determined that the defendant had not breached the standard of care in the decisions made at the time of surgery or in the patient's postoperative management. Nine physicians testified during the trial on a wide range of issues, including, surgical oncology, infectious disease, vascular surgery, and gastroenterology.

 

Defense Verdict returned in 50 minutes after nine-day jury trial

In August of 2011, Susan T. Preston and Janet A. Forero obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a gynecologist in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County after a nine-day jury trial.  In the case of Conti v. Women's OB/GYN, the plaintiff alledged that she suffered a bowel injury during a vaginal hysterectomy that was not recognized, resulting in a rectovaginal fistula and five sugeries attempting to repair the bowel.  The plaintiff claimed permanent damages arising from the alleged injury, including the need for a colostomy and ileosotomy and future loss of earning capacity.  The jury deliberated only 50 minutes before returning its decision.

 

Goodell DeVries' Successfully Defends Internist in Wrongful Death Claim              

In November of 2011, Craig B. Merkle and Thomas G. Coale obtained a defense verdict in the Circuit Court for Carroll County in a medical malpractice claim arising from the unexpected death of a 39-year-old patient.  In the case of Powell v. Dr. B, the plaintiffs alleged that the decedent sustained a fatal pulmonary embolism more than a month after a fasciotomy to treat compartment syndrome in his lower extremity.  The plaintiffs alleged that the internist who discharged the patient from the hospital should have ordered extended DVT prophylaxis in the  form of Lovenox or Coumadin based  upon a series of alleged risk factors for DVT, including obesity, reduced mobility, smoking, edema and infection.  The defense successfully argued that existing practices did not require the use of dangerous blood thinners, especially since the plaintiff was able to bear weight after his surgery and had no history of thrombophilia or clotting disorders.

 

Goodell DeVries Defeats Claim of Failure to Diagnose case of Flesh-Eating Bacteria

Craig B. Merkle and Shannon Madden Marshall obtained a defense verdict in the Circuit Court for Prince Georges County on July 11, 2011 following a week-long medical malpractice trial. In the case of Penn v. Lee, the plaintiff alleged that her gynecologist negligently failed to diagnose and treat necrotizing fasciitis following a hysterectomy. The defense presented evidence that necrotizing fasciitis - which is often described in the media as the "flesh-eating bacteria" - is an unusual and unpredictable-post operative infection and that it was timely recognized and treated in this case. The defense utilized the testimony of experts in infectious disease and gynecology, and an aggressive cross examination of the plaintiff's standard of care expert.

 

Summary Judgment Victory – Court Rules that Plaintiff Failed to Prove Proximate Causation in Urologic Surgery Case 

On April 1, 2011, Craig B. Merkle and Shannon Madden Marshall earned summary judgment in favor of their clients, in a medical malpractice action pending in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.  The plaintiff also sued an anesthesiologist. 

The plaintiff required surgical intervention for the treatment of kidney stones.  One doctor successfully performed the urologic surgery at issue with no apparent intraoperative complications.  Post-operatively, the patient suffered an acute cardio-respiratory decline.  He underwent emergency exploratory surgery, suggesting that a pulmonary embolism had suddenly and unexpectedly caused the event.  The patient recovered, and returned to full employment. 

The plaintiff claimed that all defendants were negligent by failing to perform (or refer the patient pre-operatively for) additional testing to ensure that he could endure the surgery under general anesthesia.  Plaintiff’s expert witness, an anesthesiologist, admitted that she did not know what additional testing would have shown, nor whether the patient’s outcome likely would have been avoided in any circumstance.  She also admitted that her field (anesthesiology) is not related to the field of medicine practiced by the defendant doctors. 

Goodell DeVries moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that the Certificate of Qualified Expert and report signed by plaintiff’s anesthesiologist were not valid as to these defendants for lack of an adequate foundation, and further that plaintiff had failed to produce adequate proof of causation.  After oral argument, the court rendered summary judgment from the bench in favor of both doctors. 

 

Goodell DeVries Successfully Defends Obstetrical Malpractice Claim by Brain-Damaged Infant

Craig B. Merkle and Kelly Hughes Iverson obtained a defense verdict on January 21, 2011 for three obstetricians, two physician assistants, and their obstetrical practice group following a nearly three-week trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.  In Eskandary v. RHJN, et al., the two-year-old plaintiff's mother suffered a cardiac arrest and died while 40 weeks pregnant. The baby, who was delivered by emergency traumatic cesarean section, was severely brain damaged and now requires, among other things, tracheostomy, tube feeding, and 24-hour nursing care.  The plaintiff alleged that in the course of her prenatal care, his mother's obstetricians allegedly failed to refer her for cardiac work-up to identify a congenital heart malformation, first identified on autopsy, that led to sudden arrthymia and cardiac arrest.  The plaintiff asserted that diagnosis of the condition should have led to early delivery of the baby before the mother's arrest.  The plaintiff claimed damages approaching $20 million and elicited the testimony of several treating physicians and providers to attest to the child's global brain injury and profound disabilities. Mr. Merkle and Ms. Iverson presented the testimony of all of the obstetric providers, as well as expert testimony in the fields of maternal-fetal medicine and cardiology, among others.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of all six defendants.  Mr. Merkle and Ms. Iverson had previously obtained a summary judgment in favor of a fourth obstetrician in the case.

 

Fourth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in High-Profile Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Based on Goodell DeVries' Successful Daubert Challenge to Expert Medical Causation Testimony

In a December 14, 2010 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed a notable summary judgment win and important Daubert ruling that Goodell DeVries, through Susan T. Preston and Derek M. Stikeleather, obtained in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.  The case was McEwen v. Baltimore Washington Medical Center.  The District Court had excluded the medical causation expert testimony offered by the plaintiff, former CBS morning news personality Mark McEwen, and granted summary judgment for all defendants on plaintiffs’ $20 million medical negligence action.  To support his claim, plaintiff produced two neurologists who offered expert opinions that if defendants administered certain anti-stroke medications on November 13, 2005, it would have prevented plaintiff's stroke less than two days later.

In the District Court, defendants successfully challenged the reliability of both experts’ testimony under Daubert.  The District Court found both experts' testimony was inadmissible ipse dixit in the face of uncontroverted epidemiological studies that repeatedly show the short-term efficacy of such drugs is less than fifty percent.  Ruling on the eve of trial, the District Court did not issue a written opinion.

The Fourth Circuit heard oral argument on October 27, 2010, which Mr. Stikeleather argued for defendants/appellees.  In its ruling, the three-judge panel found Judge Frederick Motz did not abuse his discretion in excluding the proffered experts’ testimony.  It explained that the ruling was sound because “the McEwen’s experts failed to meaningfully account for medical literature at odds with their testimony, declaring without explanation that the studies cited by Baltimore Washington Medical Center did not apply to McEwen.”  The panel concluded that the “district court’s thoroughly reasoned oral decision plainly reflects its determination that the McEwens had not carried their burden of presenting evidence from which the court could determine that the proffered testimony was properly admissible.”

 

Goodell DeVries Successful in Wrongful Death, Medical Malpractice Trial

On October 18, 2010, Craig B. Merkle and Marianne DePaulo Plant obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a gynecologist and her group in this case alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death.  The verdict followed a two-week trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.  In Marcantonio v. Women's OB/GYN , the plaintiffs alleged negligence for failing to diagnose endometrial cancer in a 60 year old patient who had been followed for many years in the defendants' practice.  Plaintiffs asserted an endometrial biopsy was necessary for the evaluation of this patient's uterine lining, as she was experiencing abnormal postmenopausal bleeding after being treated with cyclic hormone replacement therapy from 1990-2000.  The defense successfully argued that the referral for a pelvic ultrasound, rather than a biopsy, was within the standard of care under the circumstances.  The case involved complex issues of pathology, oncology, mixed tumors, diagnostic imaging, as well as the prevailing standards of care for practicing gynecologists.

 

Goodell DeVries Obtains Dismissal on Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to Join an Indispensable Party under Maryland's Wrongful Death Statute

On July 26, 2010, attorneys Craig B. Merkle and Thomas G. Coale obtained the dismissal of an action from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to join an indispensable party. In Ward v. Walker, an action for negligence and wrongful death, plaintiffs alleged diversity jurisdiction between the decedent, alleged to be a Florida resident, and Maryland health care providers. In their Motion to Dismiss, the defense noted that plaintiffs had failed to include the decedent's daughter, a Maryland resident, in their action for Wrongful Death, which is required under statute, and that the inclusion of this plaintiff would destroy diversity between the parties. Although plaintiffs attempted to dismiss the Wrongful Death claim at the time of hearing, the defense successfully argued that the "time of filing" rule required that the motion must be decided on the pleadings as originally filed and that plaintiffs were not permitted to manufacture federal jurisdiction by dismissing the Wrongful Death claim. Judge Richard Bennett agreed, dismissing the action in its entirety pending refiling in Maryland state court, and found that the decedent's daughter was an indispensable party under the Maryland Wrongful Death statute. Judge Bennett's Opinion further held that plaintiffs' attempt to dismiss the Wrongful Death claim was tantamount to manufacturing federal jurisdiction and impermissible under the "time of filing" rule. 

 

Goodell DeVries Wins Plastic Surgery Trial

Craig B. Merkle and Marianne DePaulo Plant obtained a defense verdict on May 13, 2010 on behalf of their plastic surgeon client and his practice group after a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County.  Barbely v. PPS, et al. involved allegations of negligence in a series of reconstructive plastic surgery procedures, which the patient underwent following prophylactic bilateral mastectomy.  The patient initially alleged improper surgical technique in the first reconstructive operation, and alleged that she was not properly advised to refrain from smoking cigarettes for a certain period of time before and after each of her reconstructive surgeries.  As a consequence, she asserted that she did not refrain from smoking, and thus prevented adequate healing in her reconstructed breasts - leading to tissue necrosis.  The patient alleged that she was therefore constrained to undergo a reconstructive surgery using autologous donor flaps from her back (a latissmus dorsi myocutaneous breast reconstruction).  The patient claimed the alleged medical malpractice of the defendants caused her to develop a disabling, permanent pain syndrome at one of the donor sites on her back.  After deliberating for an hour and fifteen minutes, the jury found that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants.

 

Goodell DeVries Obtains Affirmance of Summary Judgment for Physician Consultant on Grounds of No Physician-Patient Relationship in Context of Informal Consult

On March 18, 2010, attorneys Donald L. DeVries, Jr., Kelly Hughes Iverson, and K. Nichole Nesbitt obtained the affirmance from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals of an entry of summary judgment on behalf of Washington Hospital Center and one of its physicians in a multi-million dollar medical malpractice action pending in the District of Columbia.  The case, Gilbert, et al., v. Washington Hospital Center Corporation, et al., asserted that Ilyaas Gilbert was born with severe neurologic injuries after his mother experienced a rupture of her uterus in labor in an attempt to have a vaginal birth after having two previous cesarean section deliveries.  In addition to suing the midwives who provided the mother’s prenatal care, the plaintiffs sued a physician with whom one of the midwives consulted about the plan of care prior to her delivery.  Granting summary judgment, the Superior Court for the District of Columbia determined that the physician owed no duty to the mother, as he had no physician-patient relationship with her.  The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The defense argued that the brief consultation between the physician and the treating midwife did not give rise to a duty because the physician never treated, evaluated, spoke with, saw, or met the plaintiff's mother, but rather simply provided his advice – which the midwives were free to accept or reject – during a less than 10-minute discussion.  The defense further argued that the midwives were capable of caring for the patient, that her history of prior cesarean sections did not make her a “complicated” patient beyond the competence of the midwives, and that the physician had no duty under the memorandum of understanding to intervene in the patient’s care when the midwives did not seek to transfer the patient to him. 

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s entry of summary judgment, holding that the consulting physician had no duty to “take charge” of the plaintiff's mother treatment, noting that the midwives were “independent practitioners fully qualified to act in these circumstances” and that the physician “did not become in practical terms the ultimate decision-maker” in the patient’s care. 

 

Goodell DeVries Successfully Defends George Washington University Hospital Following Patient's Alleged Fall/Death

On December 11, 2009, a jury concluded that nurses at George Washington University Hospital, defended by Thomas V. Monahan, Jr., were not negligent in the care of Harold Sims, Jr. Mr. Sims' Estate claimed that Mr. Sims died from a cerebral hemorrhage caused after he struck his head while unattended by the nursing staff. Experts for the hospital testified that Mr. Sims died from a spontaneous hemorrhagic stroke. After a week-long trial, the jury required only one hour to determine that the nurses' care and the hospital's policies were reasonable. This was Mr. Monahan's second verdict in favor of George Washington University Hospital in less than two months.

 

Goodell DeVries Wins Summary Judgment and Disproves Plaintiff's Agency Theory

In Miller Randy Carroll v. Hospital, et al., Circuit Court for Harford County (October 2009), Craig B. Merkle and Marianne DePaulo Plant obtained summary judgment for their client in a medical malpractice case alleging failure to diagnose a cervical spine fracture. The patient allegedly suffered a high spinal cord injury as a consequence of an Emergency Department physician's alleged failure to recognize and treat the c-spine fracture. The Emergency Department physician was not an employee of the hospital, but plaintiffs sought to hold the hospital responsible for her care based on a theory of apparent agency. Deposition testimony taken in the case, along with other factual information gathered in the discovery phase, was used to disprove the requisite elements of a claim of implied agency. Summary judgment was entered in favor of Goodell DeVries' client.

 

Goodell DeVries Obtains Defense Verdict in Five-Week Trial of Equitable Indemnification Claim Brought by Former Arnold & Porter Partner

Following a 5-week trial, a jury in Washington, D.C. returned a defense verdict on October 20, 2009 in favor of George Washington University Hospital in a suit brought by a former partner at the District of Columbia law firm of Arnold & Porter. The plaintiff/assignee claimed that the health care provider defendants should indemnify the wheelchair manufacturer which had already paid a $14 million settlement of a product liability claim after the plaintiff was thrown to the ground by his malfunctioning wheelchair. The plaintiff argued that two episodes of alleged hypoxia during a five-week ICU stay caused brain damage that cut short his legal career at age 42. The hospital, which was defended by Goodell DeVries attorneys Thomas V. Monahan, Jr. and Aaron L. Moore, demonstrated that nurses who cared for the plaintiff were not negligent.