Paul Karp (Partner-New York, NY) and Francis Howell (Associate-White Plains, NY) obtained a defense verdict on behalf of their neurologist client following a jury trial in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Rockland County. The plaintiff, a police officer, alleged that the neurologist failed to timely diagnose and treat myasthenia gravis, a neuromuscular disorder that causes muscle weakness in the voluntary muscles. He claimed that the alleged delay in diagnosis and treatment resulted in a “myasthenic crisis,” causing respiratory failure and admission to an intensive care unit, and negatively affected his ability to be a father and carry out normal daily activities. The plaintiff had missed more than one year of work following his ultimate diagnosis. At trial, the plaintiff’s expert testified to 17 alleged departures from the standard of care and that the failure to promptly diagnose myasthenia gravis worsened disease progression and diminished responsiveness to treatment.

Using meticulously detailed demonstrative exhibits, Paul guided the jury through the plaintiff’s course of treatment during the 6 months of alleged negligence, during which 11 medical professionals across 9 specialties evaluated him. Through expert testimony, Paul challenged the plaintiff’s claim that he suffered a myasthenic crisis, establishing that the plaintiff’s Negative Inspiratory Force (NIF) score never met the clinical threshold for such a diagnosis, despite repeated references to a "myasthenic crisis" in the non-party hospital records. Paul also undermined the plaintiff’s neurology expert’s credibility through cross-examination regarding the expert’s extensive work on behalf of petitioners in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Frank drafted a successful memorandum of law arguing that the verdict sheet should be limited to a single liability question, despite the plaintiff’s numerous alleged departures from the standard of care, and only one liability question was submitted to the jury for consideration. He also filed a memorandum of law to preclude the plaintiff from making an improper argument to the jury on summation. In closing, Paul argued that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving liability because his symptoms were diffuse, vague, and inconsistent with a diagnosis of myasthenia gravis during the relevant period. He further argued that the plaintiff failed to establish that any alleged delay in diagnosis caused a worsened prognosis or the claimed myasthenic crisis.

After deliberating for less than one hour, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Wilson Elser’s neurologist client.