New Jersey Jury Awards Largest Oral Surgery Malpractice Verdict in State History
A New Jersey jury awarded the family of Francis Keller $10.2 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit involving his wrongful death after an oral surgery procedure. It is the largest oral surgery malpractice verdict ever awarded in the state of New Jersey.
Keller's oral surgeon, Dr. George Flugard, was found guilty of negligence and medical malpractice in a tooth extraction procedure that led to Keller's death. Keller had an immune system condition which made him ineligible for any type of surgical procedure. Flugard was aware of Keller's condition, yet decided to remove his wisdom teeth anyway.
On the morning following the procedure, Keller's throat swelled and he struggled with his breathing. Shortly thereafter, he suffocated to death. He was 21 years old.
We rely on medical professionals to offer us sound judgment about the risks of potential medical procedures we may opt for. When their recommendations go against sound medical practice, they are acting in a negligent manner and are guilty of medical malpractice. When you sustain a serious injury as a result of this malpractice, you are entitled to receive compensation for your damages. It is important to consult an experienced medical malpractice attorney to ensure that you receive a fair and appropriate settlement.
If you have a medical malpractice claim in the New York metropolitan area, please contact the Law Offices of Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C. today to schedule a consultation.
Labels: medical malpractice, wrongful death
posted by Andrew at 10:16 AM
1 Comments:
It is lawyers and law firms such as Silberstein's Law firm that chase ambulances all day trying to milk the system that has virtually place our health care system through the roof. It is obvious that the intention of the healthcare provider in this case was to help and not to harm the patient. One should not forget that the infection caused by a tooth can have exactly similar outcome if untreated and I am sure the same ambulance chasers would be suing for refusal to treat, had the provider refused to treat the patient. Cases such as this one do nothing but hinder care for patients in deed of urgent treatment.
Post a Comment
<< Home