McQuaid v. Burlington County Memorial Hosp.
Decision Date | 12 May 1986 |
Citation | 515 A.2d 796,212 N.J.Super. 472 |
Parties | Elizabeth McQUAID, Executrix of the Estate of Joseph T. McQuaid, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BURLINGTON COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Herbert M. Epstein, M.D., Elmer Pasimio, M.D., Ruth L. Rizzo, M.D. and American Home Products Corporation, Ayerst Laboratories, Defendants-Respondents. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Gary D. Ginsberg, Cherry Hill, for plaintiff-appellant (Nathan A. Friedman, atty.; Gary D. Ginsberg, on the brief).
John R. Orlovsky, Toms River, for defendants-respondents Herbert M. Epstein, M.D. and Elmer Pasimio, M.D. (Orlovsky, Grasso & Orlovsky, attys.; John R. Orlovsky on the brief).
John H. Osorio, for defendant-respondent Ruth L. Rizzo, M.D. (Montano, Summers, Mullen, Manuel & Owens, attys.; Arthur Montano, Westmont, on the brief).
Anita Hotchkiss, Morristown, for defendant-respondent Ayerst Laboratories (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, attys.; Anita Hotchkiss, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges DREIER, BILDER and GRUCCIO.
BILDER, J.A.D.
This is a medical malpractice, drug product liability action arising out of the use of halothane anesthesia during the performance of an operation on plaintiff's decedent. Named as defendants were the decedent's surgeon, Dr. Epstein; the anesthesiologist, Dr. Pasimio; Dr. Rizzo, a resident who took the decedent's pre-surgical history; Ayerst Laboratories, the manufacturer of the halothane; and Burlington County Memorial Hospital. The claim against the hospital was dismissed after openings. Plaintiff does not appeal this ruling.
In general, plaintiff contended that her decedent's death was caused by his hypersensitivity to halothane; that the doctors were negligent in administering it without consulting records of prior hospitalizations which would have alerted them to his sensitivity to the drug; and that the manufacturer failed to provide sufficient warnings of the danger.
Following a 14-day trial, in answers to special interrogatories, the jury found that (a) decedent's death was caused by the halothane but (b) Ayerst had not failed to give adequate warnings, and (c) none of the doctors were negligent. Plaintiff appeals from the resultant verdict of no cause for action and the denial of her motion for a new trial. In her brief on appeal she makes the following contentions:
Basic to plaintiff's appeal are two arguments. First, that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence; second, that improper evidential rulings deprived her of a fair trial. The contentions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shackil v. Lederle Laboratories
...907, 93 L.Ed.2d 857 (1987) (involving adequacy of cigarette labelling and advertising); McQuaid v. Burlington County Memorial Hospital, 212 N.J.Super. 472, 475-476, 515 A.2d 796 (App.Div.1986) (raising the question whether FDA action dictating the warning to be given "does not indeed provid......
-
Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories
...of whether reasonable care requires warnings in addition to what is called for by statute); McQuaid v. Burlington County Memorial Hospital, 212 N.J.Super. 472, 475-76, 515 A.2d 796 (App.Div.1986) (stating that although manufacturer's compliance with FDA request to remove part of warning lab......
-
Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories, a Div. of American Cyanamid Co.
...616, 634, 530 A.2d 1287 (App.Div.1987), certif. granted 109 N.J. 519, 520, 537 A.2d 1304 (1987). See also, McQuaid v. Burlington County Memorial Hosp., 212 N.J.Super. 472, 476 (n. 1), 515 A.2d 796 Plaintiff argues that, at the second trial of this matter, Lederle's proofs were "no more comp......
-
Bradford v. Kupper Associates
...an expert who was earlier deposed "does not normally justify an adverse inference charge." McQuaid v. Burlington County Memorial Hospital, 212 N.J.Super. 472, 476, 515 A.2d 796 (App.Div.1986). See also Anderson, supra, 158 N.J.Super. at 395, 386 A.2d Plaintiffs argue that the trial judge ab......