Temple University Hospital hit with $45 million jury verdict

Posted 9/12/24

A Philadelphia jury's verdict was against the hospital that is the lead consortium owner of Chestnut Hill Hospital.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

You can also purchase this individual item for $1.50

Please log in to continue

Log in

Temple University Hospital hit with $45 million jury verdict

Posted

On Aug. 7, a Philadelphia jury awarded a $45 million verdict against Temple University Hospital, lead consortium owner of Chestnut Hill Hospital, in a medical malpractice case involving a teenage gunshot victim. The case centers around Dylan Hernandez, now 19, who suffered severe brain damage after aspirating food following his discharge from the hospital in 2020.

Hernandez was initially treated at Temple's Episcopal Hospital and then transferred to the main campus for a gunshot wound to the neck. The lawsuit alleged that hospital staff failed to properly evaluate Hernandez's swallowing ability and provide adequate discharge instructions. Less than two days after returning home, Hernandez experienced a critical incident when he inhaled food, resulting in oxygen deprivation to his brain.

The majority of the verdict is allocated for Hernandez's future healthcare and related expenses. Although his spine was not injured in the shooting, Hernandez now requires a wheelchair due to balance issues and needs extensive assistance with daily activities.

Temple University Hospital contests the verdict, arguing that Hernandez disregarded the care team's instructions regarding safe food consumption given his condition. The hospital plans to request that the judge vacate the decision.

This case adds to a growing trend of high-value verdicts in Philadelphia, with the first half of 2024 seeing nearly as many verdicts of $10 million or more as the entire previous year. Temple's general counsel expressed concern that such large awards are making malpractice insurers hesitant to operate in Philadelphia, leading health systems to rely more heavily on self-insurance for substantial verdicts.

The case highlights ongoing debates about patient care, discharge protocols, and the impact of significant malpractice verdicts on healthcare systems and insurance markets.