Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.

"The patient’s counsel alleged that the urologist had failed to properly inform the patient of the risks and complications associated with the treatment," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.

Expert states less-invasive options should have been considered.

Insurance company contributed to settlement without insured’s consent.

Plaintiff claims defendant negligently failed to order urology consult.

Lawsuit was resolved at mediation for $3,500,000.

Widow claims between $85,000 and $200,000 in damages.

Plaintiff alleges injury occurred during insertion of Foley catheter.

"When there are multiple defendants at trial, defendants typically present a unified defense," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.

The patient had presented to the ED with inflammation of the kidney and a 2-mm stone.

Jury apportions fault among the plaintiff as well as the defendants.

The provider said the patient failed to timely return for follow-up.

Prostate cancer symptoms were mistaken for other conditions.

"The collaboration between the settling defendants and plaintiff mobilized the urologist, who ultimately participated in the overall settlement of the applicable malpractice cap," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.

Stone embedded in bladder wall, causing slow bleed

A urologist should have been consulted, an expert for the plaintiff said.

"The urologist contended that, at all times, he was willing to undergo any training program that the manufacturer or distributor recommended and that he used the microwave device at all times exactly as instructed by the proctor and by the literature given to him," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.

"Following an adverse liability verdict, this defendant urologist did not also want the jury deciding damages," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.

"Most people do not wish for their actions to be judged in hindsight; rather, if we are going to be judged, we want to be judged based on what we knew at the time," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.

"In this case, a key component to the defense verdict was the fact that the defendants were able to provide convincing expert testimony regarding the outcome of the decedent’s situation if the diagnosis had been tendered earlier, as argued by the plaintiff," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.

"The defense claimed that the patient’s kidney function was intact at the time of the CT scan and that the patient failed to follow up with his urologist," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.

A pathologist and three urologists were accused of negligence in the lawsuit.

"The expert concluded that… had a urologist been consulted, additional attempts at placing a Foley catheter using a guidewire would have been made in an effort to relieve the retention," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.

"The plaintiff claimed the decedent’s cancer should have been diagnosed by the original urologist at least 3 years before the actual diagnosis, and claimed that timely diagnosis and treatment would have prevented the spread of the cancer," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.

A tumor in a stone patient results in a $4.5 million settlement.

"The factual question presented to the jury was whether the ER doctor breached the standard of care and whether that breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.

"In an Ohio medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a standard of care within the medical community, a breach of that standard of care by the defendants, and proximate cause between the medical negligence and the injury sustained," writes Acacia Brush Perko, Esq.