C - HinshawPPT3.ppt

242 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
242
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

C - HinshawPPT3.ppt

  1. 1. SOLE INJURY 1. MIIX POLICY 2. QUOTE SCREENS 3. 8/1/01 LETTER - SCHUCK TO POWERS 4. 9/18/02 LETTER - SCHUCK TO POWERS 5. MIIX ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
  2. 2. MIIX POLICY NAMED INSURED: PRL Physician Services / Powers Professional Co
  3. 3. MIIX POLICY injury
  4. 4. DR. DICENZO AND POWERS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF PARMA, DR. BARICH, AND THE CODE PINK TEAM PLAINTIFFS ASSERTED THAT
  5. 5. Plaintiffs asserted that Dr. DiCenzo and Powers were responsible for the inadequate medical care provided to Garrett Bach after his delivery, including, but not limited to:  the failure on the part of Dr. Barich and employees of Parma to administer appropriate medications to Garrett Bach  the failure on the part of Dr. Barich and the Code Pink Team to properly intubate Garrett Bach  the failure on the part of Dr. Barich and the Code Pink Team to properly ventilate Garrett Bach Ex. 2 to Culp Aff. at ¶ 23.
  6. 6. At trial, Plaintiffs presented evidence that the injury sustained by Garrett Bach was caused by the negligence of Dr. Barich, a Parma pediatrician and a member of the Code Pink Team that treated Garrett Bach. Ex. 3 to Culp Aff. at pg. 304. “[T]he care that the baby received at the time of the birth was not helping the baby get oxygen into the baby's bloodstream.” Plaintiffs also presented evidence critical of the quality of care rendered by the Code Pink Team to Garrett Bach. For example, Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Jelesma, testified:
  7. 7. Dr. Yitzchak Frank, Plaintiffs' expert pediatric neurologist, testified that Ex. 3 to Culp Aff. at pg. 620-21. the developmental and neurological abnormality suffered by Garrett Bach was the result of failure to provide him with sufficient oxygen following his birth.
  8. 8. During the trial, Dr. Andrew Steele, a neonatal specialist, testified as follows to questions relating to the cause of Garrett Bach’s neurological injury: Ex. 3 to Culp Aff. at pg. 555. Q. Dr. Steele, do you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical probability as to whether or not the failure to adequately resuscitate Garrett Bach during the first 16 minutes of his life was a direct and proximate cause of his permanent brain damage? A. I do. Q. What is your opinion? A. It was.
  9. 9. It is undisputed that Dr. DiCenzo was not charged with the responsibility for intubating or ventilating Garrett Bach. The Plaintiffs alleged that Dr. DiCenzo was legally liable for professional services performed by: • the respiratory therapist, • the “Code Pink” team, and • the Parma employees who were alleged to have provided inadequate directions to the neonatal team that was dispatched by Metro Health. Ex. 7 to Culp Aff. at pg. 9; Ex. 3 to Culp Aff. at pg. 412 to 413.
  10. 10. 1/01 LETTER – CHUCK TO OWERS Paragraph II (i) of Part 1 of your policy states that coverage is excluded for: (i) corporation / partnership under Coverage Agreement B with respect to injury arising solely out of the acts or omissions in the rendering or failure to render professional services by individual physicians or nurse anesthetists, or by any paramedical for whom a premium charge is shown on the declarations page. Paragraph II (i) of Part 1 of your policy states that coverage is excluded for: (i) corporation / partnership under Coverage Agreement B with respect to injury arising solely out of the acts or omissions in the rendering or failure to render professional services by individual physicians or nurse anesthetists, or by any paramedical for whom a premium charge is shown on the declarations page.
  11. 11. 1/01 LETTER – CHUCK TO OWERS Accordingly, the corporation has no insurance coverage for the plaintiff’s allegation that the acts of the physicians, either individually, jointly and/or severally, are imputable to the PPC. By providing the corporation with a defense against all claims made in the complaint, we do not waive any of MIIX’s rights under the policy. Accordingly, the corporation has no insurance coverage for the plaintiff’s allegation that the acts of the physicians, either individually, jointly and/or severally, are imputable to the PPC. By providing the corporation with a defense against all claims made in the complaint, we do not waive any of MIIX’s rights under the policy.
  12. 12. 18/02 LETTER – CHUCK TO OWERS Paragraph VIII – Conditions of Insurance Applicable to Part I only: (a) Insured’s Duties in the Event of Injury. (1) Whenever an insured becomes aware of any alleged injury or claim to which this insurance applies, the insured shall immediately give MIIX or any of its authorized agents written notice containing particulars sufficient to identify the insured and also all reasonable obtainable information with respect to the time, place and circumstances of the alleged injury and the names and addresses of the injured and of available witnesses. Paragraph VIII – Conditions of Insurance Applicable to Part I only: (a) Insured’s Duties in the Event of Injury. (1) Whenever an insured becomes aware of any alleged injury or claim to which this insurance applies, the insured shall immediately give MIIX or any of its authorized agents written notice containing particulars sufficient to identify the insured and also all reasonable obtainable information with respect to the time, place and circumstances of the alleged injury and the names and addresses of the injured and of available witnesses.
  13. 13. 18/02 LETTER – CHUCK TO OWERS MIIX will attempt to ensure that this reporting delay does not jeopardize your defense. If, however, this delay has materially damaged your defense, MIIX will not indemnify you for this incident. You may elect to retain an attorney, at your own expense, to advise you concerning this or any other aspect of the case. MIIX will attempt to ensure that this reporting delay does not jeopardize your defense. If, however, this delay has materially damaged your defense, MIIX will not indemnify you for this incident. You may elect to retain an attorney, at your own expense, to advise you concerning this or any other aspect of the case.
  14. 14. MIIX ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
  15. 15. MIIX ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
  16. 16. SCHUCK DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
  17. 17. SCHUCK DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
  18. 18. SCHUCK DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

×