Our Results

At Tetzel Law, we take pride in obtaining the best outcome for our clients. The following are some examples of successful results we achieved for our clients. These cases illustrate the variety of significant matters we handle.

$7,000,000 Asbestos Abatement Subcontractor Falls at Construction Site

The 53-year-old plaintiff worked as a laborer for an asbestos abatement contractor. Plaintiff’s employer served as the sub-tier contractor to the defendant asbestos abatement contractor that contracted with the defendant general contractor. The project scope of work included removal of transite roof panels from various buildings as part of a commercial property renovation. The plaintiff and his co-workers were transported to a building roof by aerial lift, when, in the process of retrieving personal fall arrest safety lines, plaintiff fell 25-30 feet through a roof panel. Plaintiff suffered significant and permanent injuries as a result of the fall.

Plaintiff alleged the general contractor was negligent in its superintendence, supervision, inspection and oversight of the project and failed to ensure the work was performed in accordance with generally accepted construction safety standards, codes and best practices for a safe work environment. Liability was disputed as the general contractor maintained the asbestos abatement work in which plaintiff and the defendant abatement contractor were hired to perform was specialty work, requiring the area to be quarantined and the general contractor had limited to no access to the jobsite while asbestos abatement work was performed. Through discovery, plaintiff established that the general contractor failed to perform any inspections or job hazard analyses, failed to hold safety meetings, training or orientations, and failed to document any safety policy and procedures or plans for the project.

Likewise, plaintiff alleged the defendant asbestos abatement contractor, as an exposing contractor, failed to control, supervise, and inspect the job site and allowed workers to work in a hazardous elevated location that exposed them and others to injury. Liability was disputed and the defendant asbestos abatement contractor alleged plaintiff’s comparative negligence was greater by and through his decision to step off the lift without any fall protection and stepping directly on a translucent panel. Through discovery, plaintiff established that the defendant asbestos abatement contractor failed to perform job hazard analyses, frequent inspections, and failed to comply with and enforce safety regulations, industry standards, along with their own 100% tie-off policy. Moreover, plaintiff showed the defendant failed to communicate the tie-off policies and procedures to plaintiff who was Spanish speaking, failed to operate the boom lift within the weight and occupant limits, failed to maneuver the boom lift in the immediate area of the tie-off ropes, and failed to ensure the operator of the lift was properly licensed.

Plaintiff suffered multiple significant injuries including a skull fracture, moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury, pubic fractures, spinal fracture, lower extremity fractures, and ligamentous injuries. Plaintiff underwent multiple surgeries and required inpatient care of over 75 days. Plaintiff has limited to no vocational transferable skills and his injuries prevent any future gainful employment.

Plaintiff retained multiple liability and damages experts including construction safety, neuropsychologist, neurologist, orthopedic, life care planner, vocational rehabilitation, and economist. Approximately 3 months prior to trial, the case settled for the combined policy limits of both defendants.

$7,000,000 Demolition Subcontractor Falls at Construction Site

The 46-year-old plaintiff worked as a laborer for a demolition subcontractor at a large construction project when he fell approximately 40 feet from an aerial lift. The plaintiff alleged the general contractor was negligent in its superintendence, supervision, inspection, and oversight of the project and failed to ensure the work was performed in accordance with generally accepted construction safety standards, codes, and best practices for a safe work environment.

As a result of the fall, the plaintiff suffered multiple fractures and injuries that required months of hospitalizations, acute care, and numerous surgical procedures. The injuries caused permanent physical impairments of his extremities, altered special senses, and emotional harm which likely would prevent gainful employment and require extensive future medical care.

Plaintiff retained multiple liability and damages experts. Following the close of discovery, the parties ultimately resolved the case after continued settlement discussions months after the initial mediation.

$4,875,000 Confidential Motor Vehicle Settlement

The thirty-five-year-old plaintiff was involved in a head-on collision with a commercial motor vehicle. She sustained multiple injuries including a fractured femur treated operatively and a non-operative neck fracture. The plaintiff also alleged urinary incontinence and a brain injury which were contested by the defense. The incontinence started a month post-crash, lessened overtime and resolved approximately 6-8 months later. The plaintiff’s brain injury claims for new or worsening memory loss, word finding and executive function deficits, was complicated by a pre-existing autoimmune condition for which she underwent neuropsychological testing, cognitive therapy, and multiple neurology consultations before the crash.

The case settled at mediation several months before the scheduled trial date.

$3,500,000 Sprinkler Fitter Falls into Unguarded Trench at Construction Site

The plaintiff, then 35 years-old, worked as a laborer for a sprinkler fitter contractor on a large construction project in Salem, Massachusetts. The defendants in the case included the general contractor of the project and an earthwork/site subcontractor. While on a ladder to remove an existing sprinkler system in the basement of the project, the plaintiff fell into an unguarded, uncovered, and unprotected trench that was excavated by the earthwork/site subcontractor.

Plaintiff alleged the general contractor was negligent in its superintendence, supervision, joint control, inspection and management of the project. Plaintiff further alleged the earthwork/site subcontractor was negligent in the performance of its site work at the project. Both defendants presented comparative negligence arguments and the general contractor maintained claims against the earthwork/site subcontractor and plaintiff’s employer. Through discovery, plaintiff presented evidence of prior discussions regarding fall protection around the trenches and uncovered subsequent remedial repair of the trenches to establish control. Additionally, plaintiff identified the contract between the defendants which required Garlock safety rail guards around all trench work specifically for personnel protection. Plaintiff’s engineering expert was expected to testify that a Garlock safety rail guard system would have prevented plaintiff’s incident.

Plaintiff initially suffered a complex ankle fracture dislocation and fractures for which he underwent surgery with hardware implanted. However, post-operatively plaintiff experienced decreased sensation and swelling which prompted the removal of the hardware and administration of antibiotics after determining plaintiff had a rare Staph infection. Despite continued antibiotics and treatment, plaintiff underwent a below the knee amputation due to concern for further infection. Thereafter plaintiff underwent physical therapy and received behavioral therapy for depressive order. He continued to have phantom limb pain and struggled with is mental health due to his new reality of being an amputee. Tragically, plaintiff succumbed to his mental health struggles during litigation and shortly after the first mediation. Counsel for the plaintiff amended the complaint on behalf of the Estate to assert wrongful death claims and were prepared to present evidence causally relating the death to the mental health struggles plaintiff suffered from this incident and injuries.

Plaintiff retained multiple liability and damages experts including construction safety, orthopedic, life care planner, prosthetic expert, engineering expert, vocational rehabilitation, and economist. Following mediation and substitution of plaintiff’s Estate, the parties ultimately resolved the case for $3,500,000.

$2,000,000 Medical Malpractice Settlement – Delay in Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer

The plaintiff, a 54-year-old married woman, presented to an orthopedic physician for bilateral hip pain where she underwent conservative treatment. Ultimately, the defendant orthopedic physician ordered a pelvic MRI due to continued symptoms. An outside radiologist interpreted the MRI and sent the radiology report to the defendant orthopedist. The report indicated a concerning left adnexal mass and recommended an oncology referral. At the plaintiff’s follow-up appointment with the defendant orthopedist to review the MRI results, the plaintiff was never informed of the suspicious ovarian mass and the orthopedic notes made no reference to the mass.

Plaintiff alleged the defendant’s orthopedic care fell below the standard of care by failing to review the radiologist’s report, failing to inform the plaintiff of the mass, and failing to make the appropriate referrals to work-up the suspicious mass. The defendant indicated he reviewed the MRI image himself, not the radiology report, and his care focused on the orthopedic hip injury/symptoms and had nothing to do with the ovaries.

The plaintiff experienced a 19-month delay in diagnosis. She was diagnosed with clear cell carcinoma arising from the left ovary which metastasized to 4 aortic lymph nodes with secondary omental involvement. She was diagnosed as having Stage 3C ovarian clear cell carcinoma.

Plaintiff’s gynecologic oncologist opined the 19-month delay in diagnosis and delay of definitive treatment caused the plaintiff’s ovarian cancer to advance from Stage 1 to Stage 3C. Therefore, the plaintiff’s 5-year survival rate significantly decreased due to the delay of diagnosis from approximately 80% to 25-30%, decreasing her long-term survival by 50-55%.

The case settled for the policy limits of the defendant orthopedic doctor and orthopedic practice group. At the time of settlement, nearly 3 years since diagnosis, the plaintiff was cancer free without any evidence of reoccurrence.

$1,800,000 Construction Laborer Falls due to Unsecured Ladder

$1,750,000 Confidential Malpractice Settlement

$1,650,000 Premises Liability Settlement – Attack by Co-Tenant

The plaintiff, a 59-year-old male, lived in a shared multi-family rooming residence that housed individuals who were homeless and suffered from substance addiction and mental health disorders. The property was owned and managed by a non-profit company.

In November 2019, the plaintiff was attacked in his room by a co-tenant, causing him to fall and sustain a significant spinal cord injury. The plaintiff brought claims against the non-profit property owner and non-profit property management company as well as many of the entities’ employees including property managers, case managers and supervisors. Discovery revealed the plaintiff made numerous documented complaints regarding the assailant leading up to the attack. The plaintiff also alleged the defendants conducted a negligent CORI of the assailant which should have all together prevented his tenancy.

Plaintiff alleged the defendants negligently and carelessly maintained and controlled the property by allowing a known dangerous and violent individual to reside and remain at the rooming house. Plaintiff’s property management expert opined the defendants failed to monitor the assailant, failed to evict for non-payment of rent or for-cause, or relocate the plaintiff after multiple complaints. The expert further indicated the defendants failed to comply with property management best practices and industry standards including appropriate policy and procedures, staff development and training, and complying with the defendants’ own policy and procedures.

The defendants contended the plaintiff was comparatively negligent and his own behavior contributed and caused the attack. The defendants further argued the company employees were workers of modest means with the intent of serving individuals from difficult and challenging backgrounds and thus any jury verdict would be moderate at best. The defendants also moved for summary judgment arguing they did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care and the attack was not foreseeable.

As a result of the attack, the plaintiff sustained a spinal cord injury requiring cervical fusion, prolonged inpatient rehabilitation, and left him with residual functional deficits. Plaintiff retained a neurosurgeon and life care planner as damages experts.

The case settled for $1,650,000 at mediation two weeks before the court was scheduled to hear the parties’ oral arguments on the defendants’ summary judgement motion.

$1,250,000 Minor Struck by Motor Vehicle Settlement

The 26-month-old minor plaintiff walked to an unmarked bus stop with his older brother and parents as well as other families from the neighborhood. While the parents were distracted by the family dog that broke free from an invisible electric fence, the children walked ahead. The minor plaintiff began to run towards the bus stop but ultimately stopped and stood several feet in the main intersecting street for a few seconds. While standing in the street, the defendant struck the minor with the vehicle’s right front fender, launching the minor into the air where he landed in a nearby tree. The defendant testified she never saw the minor plaintiff or other children before the crash and therefore did not take any evasive action. The defendant further indicated she never knew a bus stop existed at the incident location despite driving past it multiple times each week.

Plaintiff alleged the defendant negligently and carelessly operated her motor vehicle with disregard for pedestrian conditions and in violation of Massachusetts Law. Plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert was prepared to testify the defendant had ample sight cues, sight distance, expectancy, and time to anticipate and avoid the minor plaintiff as he approached and stood in the roadway.

The defense claimed the minor plaintiff ran into the street and the defendant had no ability to avoid the collision. Defendant’s accident reconstructionist further alleged solar glare prevented the defendant from observing the minor plaintiff and children at the bus stop.

The minor plaintiff suffered a brain injury and non-operative right leg fracture. Plaintiff’s pediatric neurologist was expected to testify the minor experienced a traumatic brain injury which affected his learning and executive function and placed him at an increased risk to develop learning disabilities which would require IEPs, counseling, and behavioral plans. The defendant was expected to challenge and dispute the minor’s brain injury alleging he was born prematurely and sought pediatric neurologic care and development therapy before the incident.

Plaintiff also brought claims on behalf of the minor brother, mother, and father for emotional, psychological, and post-traumatic trauma as a result of witnessing the incident.

The case settled a month before trial for the insurance policy limits of $1,250,000.

$1,250,000 Smart Car Rear-Ends Construction Vehicle Settlement

The plaintiff was driving home from work in a Smart car in the early morning on a dark highway in the rightmost travel lane. As he approached the beginning of a construction site on the highway, the plaintiff rear-ended a slow-moving tractor-trailer carrying a load of Jersey barriers extending beyond the rear of the flatbed.

The plaintiff brought claims against the general contractor, subcontractor that owned the tractor-trailer and driver of the tractor-trailer. The entities were retained by the state to undertake improvements to the highway. At the time of the crash, the tractor-trailer was travelling approximately 16 mph and was transporting the Jersey barriers to a highway work zone. Plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to have a strobe vehicle or police detail trail the tractor-trailer as mandated by the MUTCD and OSHA regulations as well as the general contractor’s safety plans. Plaintiff retained multiple liability experts including a Traffic Engineer, construction safety professional, and crash reconstructionist that specialized in driver behaviors and response.

As a result of the crash, the plaintiff sustained significant facial trauma and fractures, a brain injury with associated seizure disorder, detached retina, and left shoulder injury which required multiple surgeries and extensive rehabilitation.

The defendants were prepared to call multiple liability and damages experts to dispute the plaintiff’s claims. The defendants argued the crash was the plaintiff’s fault and his own failure to control his vehicle and maintain a proper lookout caused the rear-end collision. While subject to undecided trial motions, the defendants intended to argue the plaintiff fell asleep while driving home after working 12 hours.

The case was unsuccessfully mediated twice and ultimately settled a month before trial for $1,250,000.

$1,250,000 Motorcycle Driver Dies in Left Turn Crash Settlement

The decedent, a 75-year-old male, was operating a motorcycle on a main roadway with one lane of travel in each direction. As the decedent approached an intersecting street, the defendant turned left from the opposite direction directly in front of the decedent’s motorcycle, resulting in a head-on collision. Plaintiff’s counsel promptly initiated an investigation and obtained multiple witness statements which confirmed the decedent was not speeding and had no time to react to the defendant’s vehicle.

As a result of the collision, the decedent was ejected from his motorcycle and sustained multiple traumatic injuries. Ultimately, the decedent died from the blunt force impact later that day.

The decedent’s adult children alleged the defendant negligently caused the crash by failing to grant right of way to the motorcycle while making a left-hand turn and failing to keep a proper lookout.

The case settled for the defendant’s insurance policy limit of $1,250,000.

$1,250,000 Settlement – Plaintiff Suffers Abdominal Injuries in T-Bone Collision

The plaintiff, a 59-year-old female veteran, was driving home from her job as a Mental Health CNA at a veteran’s hospital. While travelling with the right of way, the plaintiff’s vehicle was T-boned by a commercial dump truck. Plaintiff’s accident reconstructionist analyzed the vehicle crash data of both vehicles involved and was prepared to testify the plaintiff was travelling straight within the speed limit just prior to impact. The reconstructionist was expected to testify the defendant’s failure to yield was the sole cause of the collision.

The plaintiff suffered internal and abdominal injuries in the collision including a splenic laceration, diaphragmatic hernia, and multiple rib fractures. She was initially taken by ambulance to a local hospital at which time her internal bleeding required a medical flight transport to a trauma center. She underwent several procedures during her inpatient hospitalization.

Months later, the plaintiff also developed an intestinal stricture which required a subsequent hospitalization and endoscopies. She was restricted from driving and working for months and remained on a soft diet for approximately six months.

Suit was filed immediately. During discovery and prior to the truck driver’s deposition, the case settled for the policy limits.

$1,150,000 Sexual Assault at Nursing Home Settlement

The plaintiff was sexually assaulted in a secured dementia unit at the defendant nursing home. The perpetrator frequently visited the facility and socialized with its residents despite having no family members there for many years.

On the day of the incident, a CNA discovered the perpetrator in the plaintiff’s bed with the plaintiff disrobed. The nursing home staff understated the severity of the event to the point the plaintiff’s family, instead of the nursing home staff, notified the police. The plaintiff was taken to a nearby hospital and underwent a SANE exam which revealed physical trauma and confirmed the plaintiff was sexually assaulted. Evidence collected during the SANE exam matched the perpetrator’s DNA.

The plaintiff’s guardian brought negligence claims against the nursing home, nursing home corporate ownership as well as the administrator, director of nursing, assistant director of nursing and several individual RNs. Plaintiff’s nursing home administrator expert opined the defendants breached the standard of care in several respects including allowing a third-party free access to a secured dementia unit, providing access codes to visitors, and failing to require visitors to sign-in. The expert also opined the nursing home attempted to conceal the sexual assault and failed to properly investigate and report prior instances of trauma.

At the time of the sexual assault, the plaintiff was 87-years old and suffered from multiple underlying health conditions including advanced dementia, depression, anxiety disorder and heart failure. She had no memory of the sexual assault. Plaintiff retained a geriatric psychiatrist to discuss the plaintiff’s changes in behavior after the assault including hallucinations, fear of men, and newly developed sexualized behavior. The expert also opined the plaintiff suffered PTSD as well as worsened depression and anxiety.

$1,100,000 Settlement – Moped Driver Dies in Crash with SUV

The decedent, a 56-year-old married male, was operating a moped in the breakdown lane on a roadway with one lane of travel in each direction. As the decedent approached an intersection, the defendant, operating an SUV, turned left from the opposite direction directly in front of the decedent’s moped. In an attempt to avoid a collision, the decedent braked but slid and struck the right rear of the defendant’s SUV.

As a result of the collision, the decedent’s left leg was crushed between the moped and SUV. The decedent ultimately died from his left leg and abdominal injuries thirteen days after the crash.

The widowed plaintiff alleged the defendant negligently caused the crash by failing to grant right of way to the moped while making a left-hand turn and failing to keep a proper lookout.

The defendant alleged his view was obstructed at the intersection by a box truck whose driver stopped and waved the defendant to execute his left turn. The defendant also alleged the decedent operated the moped at an excessive speed in the breakdown lane while passing vehicles to his left. The plaintiff was prepared to counter the defendant’s allegations with evidence that he failed to report the obstructing box truck to police, on his Operator’s Report or in answers to interrogatories signed 16 months after the incident, and the decedent’s speed was limited by the moped’s governor.

Following the completion of discovery and before a scheduled trial date, the case settled at mediation for $1,100,000.

$1,000,000 Man with advanced prostate cancer sues over ‘loss of chance’

In June 2018, the plaintiff, then 61, was diagnosed with Stage IV metastatic prostate cancer. The plaintiff alleged that, during the preceding 10 years, the defendant primary care physician breached the standard of care by failing to continue PSA testing initiated by his prior physician, failing to alert the plaintiff that he was not continuing PSA testing, and failing to ever discuss with him the option of PSA testing and the associated potential risks and benefits.

The plaintiff further alleged that had the defendant discussed the possibility of PSA screening with him, he would have opted for it, and that the failure to continue his PSA testing and failure to discuss PSA testing with him caused a delay in the diagnosis of his cancer, which allowed the cancer to metastasize.

According to the plaintiff’s primary care expert, despite some controversy over the usefulness of PSA screening, shared decision-making was the standard of care.

The plaintiff’s expert oncologist was prepared to testify that had the cancer been detected before it spread, as it would have been had the defendant complied with the standard of care, the plaintiff’s five-year survival rate would have been nearly 100 percent. Because the cancer was allowed to spread, the plaintiff’s five-year survival was projected at 30 percent, and he will most likely die from the prostate cancer.

In addition, had the cancer been caught before it spread, the plaintiff would have been able to avoid his current lifelong, debilitating treatments.

$1,000,000 Subcontractor Laborer Electrocuted at Construction Site

The 21-year-old plaintiff worked as a laborer for a framing and siding subcontractor at a residential construction project of three townhouses. The three townhouses were being constructed within 4 feet of powerlines that abutted the front of the townhouses. While plaintiff and his co-workers were putting up metal posts to complete the siding work on the front of the townhouses, a post came into contact with live powerlines and plaintiff suffered significant burn injuries to his hands and back.

Plaintiff alleged the general contractor was negligent in its superintendence, supervision, inspection and oversight of the project and failed to ensure the work was performed in accordance with generally accepted construction safety standards, codes and best practices for a safe work environment. Liabilty was disputed as the general contractor maintained the plaintiff and his coworkers arrived at the project after hours when the project fence was locked and the general contractor was not on site, and were previously advised not to complete any work on the front of the townhouses until the powerlines were shut off. Through discovery, plaintiff established numerous discrepancies in the general contractors description of the incident, coordination of work, and his location at the time of the incident, and further established that the general contractor failed to perform any inspections or job hazard analyses, hold safety meetings or orientations, and failed to document any safety policy and procedures or plans for the project.

Plaintiff suffered multiple significant burn injuries to his hands, left arm and upper back that required over 15 procedures and more than a month of inpatient hospitalization. The injuries caused permanent scarring and disfigurement of his hands, wrists, and back. Plaintiff has limited vocational transferrable skills and his injuries will likely prevent any future gainful employment in the construction industry.

Following multiple depositions of the parties and witnesses, investigative interviews and statements of witnesses, and various subpoenas, the Insurer offered its $1,000,000 policy limit in response to a M.G.L. c. 93A/176D Letter.

$1,000,000 Confidential Product Liability Settlement

$1,000,000 Claim Against Mechanic Shop for Bad Brakes

$1,000,000 Medical Malpractice Settlement – Medication Error Results in Stroke

In February 2015, the plaintiff, a then 79-year-old independent woman, was admitted to the defendant-nursing home for short-term rehabilitation following a nondisplaced pelvic fracture. At that time and for many years prior, she suffered from atrial fibrillation and was prescribed Coumadin. The discharge instructions from the hospital ordered a daily dosage of Coumadin as well as frequent INR testing. After being admitted to the defendant-nursing home, the plaintiff went 11 days without any anticoagulant medication. When the nursing home staff discovered the medication error, the defendant-physician attempted to troubleshoot the error by ordering loading doses of Coumadin. The plaintiff suffered an embolic stroke days later when her daughter-in-law discovered her with facial drooping and garbled speech. The plaintiff underwent rigorous physical, occupational and speech therapy in the ensuing month in an attempt to regain her independence. After exhibiting some improvement over the next 7 weeks, the plaintiff travelled to California to visit her daughter where she suffered a second embolic stroke. The plaintiff never regained any sense of independence thereafter. She required 24/7 care and necessitated some form of assistance for nearly every activity of daily life.

The plaintiff brought negligence claims against the nursing home and her assigned physician. In discovery, it was confirmed the unit manager failed to transcribe the Coumadin order to the plaintiff’s medication administration record in violation of federal and state regulations. The plaintiff further argued the defendant-physician physically examined the plaintiff twice during the period she did not receive Coumadin and did not undertake any effort to review her chart or ensure her INR levels were within therapeutic range. The defendant-physician argued she affirmed the Coumadin order upon admission and as a result did not breach the standard of care.

In addition to standard of care experts, the plaintiff retained an expert cardiologist who opined the first stroke was causally related to the medication error and was also a substantial contributing cause of the second stroke. The defendants obtained expert opinions indicating neither stroke was causally related to the medication error. The basis for that position was the plaintiff’s volatile INR levels, the fact she travelled across country and the inability to identify when and where a clot formed. The defendants also argued an unrelated third stroke in 2019 contributed to the plaintiff’s permanent deficits.

In the middle of discovery shortly after plaintiff disclosed two additional expert opinions, the case settled against both the defendant nursing home and defendant geriatric physician for a total of $1,000,000.

$950,000 Confidential Premise Liability Settlement

$925,000 Wrongful Death Due to Malfunctioning Oxygen Tank

$750,000 Confidential Construction Site Injury Settlement

$750,000 Confidential Motor Vehicle Settlement

$725,000 Slip and Fall at School, Nurse Alleges Head Injury

$700,000 Medical Malpractice Settlement – Delay in Diagnosis of Melanoma

In April 2017, the plaintiff, a 78-year-old man, went to his primary care doctor with a suspicious lesion on his right arm. The primary care doctor removed the lesion and sent the specimen to the pathology department at a nearby hospital. The defendant pathologist analyzed the specimen and made the diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma. No further testing or treatment was ordered.

Fourteen months later, the plaintiff developed two similar lesions on his right arm. The primary care doctor referred the plaintiff to a dermatologist that removed the lesions and sent the specimens for pathological testing. This time the plaintiff was diagnosed as having metastatic melanoma.

In September 2018, the plaintiff was referred to an oncologist where he underwent a wide local excision procedure. He also commenced monthly adjuvant immunotherapy for thirteen consecutive months. The plaintiff’s treating oncologist indicated the plaintiff had stage III or stage IV melanoma. The plaintiff’s April 2017 specimen was also reviewed by the pathology department of the oncological hospital and the records indicated the correct diagnosis was melanoma instead of basal cell carcinoma.

The plaintiff retained a pathologist and oncologist as experts. After review of the slides, the plaintiff’s pathologist expert agreed the defendant misdiagnosed the April 2017 specimen as basal cell carcinoma instead of melanoma. Both the pathologist and oncologist experts were prepared to testify the misdiagnosis caused a sixteen to seventeen-month delay in diagnosis which allowed the melanoma to advance from stage I or II to stage IV. The plaintiff’s oncological expert opined that a wide resection and a right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy should have been performed in April 2017, which yields a 95% curative rate for stage I or stage II cases. Instead, the expert oncologist indicated the plaintiff’s melanoma metastasized and went from a curable to a non-curable disease.

The defendant was prepared to offer expert testimony from several experts that the cancer had metastasized by April 2017 and that diagnosis and treatment in 2017 would not have changed the plaintiff’s prospect of long-term survival. The plaintiff also suffered from several pre-existing health conditions including renal cell carcinoma, aortic aneurysm with stent placement, coronary artery disease, and two prior heart attacks.

When the case resolved at mediation, the plaintiff had completed immunotherapy treatment and was cancer free for a year and a half without any evidence of reoccurrence.

$650,000 Settlement against Driver and Construction Company for Failing to Paint Crosswalk

$650,000 Trucking Crash Settlement

DISCLAIMER: The settlements and verdicts listed here represent a sampling of the case results pursued and won by Tetzel Law, LLC. Please note that every case is different and these verdicts and settlements, while accurate, do not represent what we may obtain for you in your case. However, our clients tell us that knowing we have achieved significant results, both by settlement and jury verdict, is one factor that many of them used to decide to hire us.