John R. Shepperd

Christina Huston (Of Counsel-Houston, TX) and John Shepperd (Partner-Houston, TX) obtained a defense verdict after five days of trial. The plaintiff alleged her client spine surgeon performed an unnecessary 360° spinal fusion surgery when the patient presented with hip pain that was secondary to a trochanter bursitis rather than a herniated disc. The plaintiff subsequently suffered a failed fusion. The plaintiff relied on the testimony of a hip surgeon as well as an investigation by her health insurance carrier that concluded this was an unnecessary surgery. The plaintiff also claimed that our client made his decision to operate solely on provoked discography, which the plaintiff described as an antiquated “Voodoo” technology. The client countered by testifying that the insurance claim was denied because it was mistakenly characterized as a two-level fusion for herniated discs. Christina and John agreed that a two-level fusion for herniated discs is inappropriate, but that was not the patient’s diagnosis. The patient actually had internal disc disruption at two levels. The disc disruption was demonstrated on a post-discography CT scan that showed extravasation of injected dye outside the disc space. The jury returned an 11-1 verdict for the surgeon in less than an hour.

John Shepperd (Partner-Houston, TX) and Kelsi Wade Piatkowski (Of Counsel-Houston, TX) secured a dismissal on behalf of physician clients in Harris County, Texas, 333rd Judicial District Court. The plaintiff, in her early 30s, alleged that our clients failed to timely diagnose a hip fracture that resulted in a total hip replacement and alleged disabilities. Throughout the case, John and Kelsi maintained that our clients met their respective standards of care and that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused as a result of our their treatment. The court found that the plaintiff did not have the necessary evidence to support her allegations, and the lawsuit was ultimately dismissed.

After a five-day jury trial, John Shepperd (Partner-Houston, TX) and Lina Al-Salim (Associate-Houston, TX) obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice lawsuit pending in state district court in El Paso, Texas. The 53-year-old plaintiff was diagnosed with life-threatening blood clots in her lungs. Our client, an interventional cardiologist, placed an inferior vena cava filter to prevent future blood clots from migrating to the patient’s lungs.  Months later, an attempt by another interventional cardiologist to remove the IVC filter was unsuccessful, and the filter remains in the plaintiff today. The plaintiff sued our client, contending the pulmonary emboli could have been treated successfully with oral anticoagulants, and that she was not adequately informed of the potential risks of the IVC filter or of the alternative treatment using simple anticoagulant therapy. Plaintiff also contended our client was negligent for failing to remove the IVC filter 12 days after insertion as mandated by the package insert. John and Lina contended the only alternative to the IVC filter placement was probable death, arguing that a reasonable patient would have agreed to the IVC filter placement regardless of whether informed consent was obtained. In addition, they maintained that timely removal of an IVC filter is gauged by the doctor’s clinical judgment and not the contents of a package insert. Finally, they contended the plaintiff was negligent for failing to timely seek follow-up care. Regarding damages, John and Lina provided evidence that (1) the hospital had written off $280,000 of the $300,000 bill, (2) the plaintiff provided no evidence of the cost of future medical care, (3) the plaintiff’s extensive time away from work was due to numerous medical and personal issues unrelated to her fear that the IVC filter might kill her, and (4) that plaintiff’s ongoing fear is unfounded and irrational. The jury reached a unanimous decision that our client was not negligent. Concerning informed consent, 10 of the jurors believed our client did not provide adequate consent, but all 12 agreed a reasonable patient would have consented to the IVC filter placement.