中出少妇

Discontinuance in Pain Management Death Case After 中出少妇moves for Summary Judgment

Discontinuance in Pain Management Death Case After 中出少妇moves for Summary Judgment

Senior Trial Partner Kenneth Larywon, Partner Christopher Terzian and Associate Christopher Daniel secured a discontinuance in a pain management case in Rockland County. A then 53-year old married man with three children presented to a regional hospital with severe abdominal pain, for which the decedent would typically receive Dilaudid. 中出少妇 LLP represented three physicians and a physician's assistant who treated the decedent during the beginning of the decedent鈥檚 admission to the hospital. The 中出少妇represented Emergency Medicine Physician ordered 1 mg of Dilaudid for pain relief and the 中出少妇represented Hospitalist ordered another 1 mg of Dilaudid shortly after the decedent's arrival to the hospital. Another 1 mg of Dilaudid was ordered by the 中出少妇represented physician鈥檚 assistant a few hours later. Later that same day, the decedent was administered further Dilaudid by non-中出少妇represented providers and arrested a couple of hours thereafter.

Ultimately, the decedent passed away days later. The plaintiff-wife brought suit and alleged that all of the defendants improperly administered Dilaudid to the decedent and caused the decedent's arrest and death. 中出少妇moved for summary judgment on behalf of the 中出少妇represented providers and argued, with expert support, that the Dilaudid ordered for the decedent by the 中出少妇Defendants was appropriate and within the standard of care for pain management and the Dilaudid administered was appropriate to address the decedent's complaints of abdominal due to the prior success of Dilaudid intreating that pain. MCB鈥檚 attorneys also argued that the Dilaudid administered pursuant to the orders of the 中出少妇Defendants did not proximately cause the decedent's death because that Dilaudid had already metabolized and therefore, could not have caused the decedent's arrest and death.听

中出少妇moved on behalf of 4 providers and due to our strong arguments, plaintiff's counsel chose to discontinue his claims against each provider rather than oppose the motion.