On December 10, 2024, Gary W. Patterson, Jr. secured a defense verdict before Judge Jane Weiner of the Hudson County Superior Court.  The 27-year-old male plaintiff claimed the defendant emergency room physician failed to timely diagnose an acute ischemic limb, leading to amputation of his right leg above the knee.  The plaintiff later suffered from a stroke affecting his left side, leaving him wheelchair bound. 

Plaintiff presented to the hospital via ambulance with severe calf pain described as a cramp.  The defendant physician conducted a comprehensive exam, specifically noting normal distal pulses bilaterally, along with normal color, temperature and capillary refill.  Lab work revealed a critically elevated glucose level, dehydration and low potassium.  The doctor treated the plaintiff with pain medication, fluids and insulin before admitting him to the ICU.  Approximately 30 minutes after the care was transferred to the ICU team, a hospitalist examined the plaintiff while still in the emergency room and found a cool foot and weak pulse.  The patient was effectively diagnosed with an acute ischemic limb at that point.  Unfortunately, the patient was not transferred to another hospital for definitive care, i.e. a thrombectomy, until seven plus hours later.  

Plaintiff called an emergency medicine expert who testified that given the plaintiff’s past medical history significant for a myocardial infarction at the age of 20, together with his severe calf pain, the standard of care required an immediate vascular consult, arterial doppler and serial examinations every 30 minutes.  Plaintiff’s vascular surgery expert testified on direct that the presenting complaint of calf pain was secondary to ischemia, which needed to be treated within four to eight hours to salvage the limb.  On cross-examination, the vascular surgeon was forced to concede that the defendant physician effectively ruled out ischemia clinically based upon her findings of normal pulse, color, temperature and capillary refill.  At that point, there would be no need for an arterial doppler or serial exams, as plaintiff’s emergency medicine expert had testified.  The expert further conceded on cross that the limb would have been salvaged if treatment was initiated within three hours from the time the hospitalist made the diagnosis.   

In summation, Mr. Patterson argued that the plaintiff’s own expert testified that his client effectively ruled out ischemia on examination.  As such, there was no need for an arterial doppler or serial exams.  To drive the message home to the jury, he replayed audio of the critical trial testimony from plaintiff’s vascular surgeon.  Mr. Patterson further argued that the alleged delay was of no consequence since plaintiff’s own expert testified that the limb could have been saved if treated within three hours of diagnosis. 

After deliberating for approximately thirty minutes, the jury returned with a defense verdict. This was Mr. Patterson’s fourth defense verdict of 2024, three of which were in the State of New Jersey.