Prior to an emergency room visit to a South Florida hospital, Francis Ziadie was an optometrist and father of four. However, he is now a shadow of the man he once was—paralyzed and bedridden for life. However, Ziadie’s family won a $14 million malpractice verdict last week, including $5 million for his medical care, $8 million for pain and suffering, and $250,000 for each of his minor sons.
One day in 2002, Ziadie began experiencing dizziness and slurred speech. He immediately went to Memorial Regional Hospital in Hollywood, Florida. Luckily, his symptoms began to improve after doctors gave him aspirin and the anti-platelet medication, Plavix. Later, tests revealed that Ziadie had not suffered a stroke, but radiologist Dr. Hoang Dinh Doung placed a mesh stent in Ziadie’s carotid artery to help improve the blood flow anyway. However, during the procedure Dr. Doung punctured Ziadie’s blood vessel. After waking from the procedure, Ziadie still complained of slurred speech and weakness on his right side. Nevertheless, nurses sedated him instead of addressing his complaints. As a result, Ziadie suffered major bleeding in his brain, which also caused massive pressure on his brain stem, damaging his brain tissue and causing paralysis.
Ziadie now lives with his 76-year-old mother and gets around the house in a wheelchair, although he spends most of his time in bed. Ziadie also requires round-the-clock care, which he will continue to need for the rest of his life. Mr. Ziadie’s attorney successfully argued that homecare is the best option over care in a nursing facility, which Mr. Ziadie’s mother has vowed to provide.
recently named in the 2009 edition of Best Lawyer's In America, David Mittleman has been representing seriously injured people since 1985. A partner with Church Wyble PC—a division of Grewal Law PLLC—Mr. Mittleman and his partners focus on medical malpractice, wrongful death, car accidents, slip and falls, nursing home injury, pharmacy/pharmacist negligence and disability claims.
2 Comments
jim ohare vp medmal claims
Sad outcome- The alleged perforation was due to a scary diifficult procedure, and the perforation is a recognized complication of the procedure. The immediate assumption is that it was med mal.
The carrier tried the case as it had defenses. I am curious re the informed consent. A comlicated digestion of subtle issues for a lay jury. They could not get past the damages. Unfortunatly, there is very little coverage to satisfy this verdict.
David Mittleman
Thank you for your post Jim - its easy for the medical community to huddle together and say that just about anything is a "recognized complication" BUT my question to you is, is it an "acceptable consequence" and the answer is, it wasn't to the Ziadie family or the jury.Please don't under-estimate our jury system,though not perfect, its the best system in the world. As to the informed concent - there was NO consent given to act below the acceptable standard of care.
Comments for this article are closed.