UPDATE: Family Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit against UPenn over Brain Cancer Death
As an update to an entry we posted back on January 6th, 2014, we have now learned that the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, principally because she did not file appropriate expert affidavits to link her husband’s death to radiation exposure or to the medical care provided to him. The medical providers, on the contrary, produced an affidavit from an extremely well credentialed expert endorsing the care that was provided once the tumor was discovered.
An interesting footnote by the judge who ruled in favor of the defendants read as followed:
1. Defendants took it upon themselves to draft an unsolicited thirty-five-page opinion on these motions, which they proposed for the Court to adopt as its own. See ECF No. 85. This document appears to be designed as a vehicle for Defendants to obtain judicial endorsement of their views on a host of legal issues related to the litigation of radiation-injury lawsuits that do not need to be resolved to dispose of these motions. That is evident from the fact that only eighteen of its thirty-five pages make any reference to this case. The rest contain lengthy expositions on Defendants’ views on the proper way to interpret and apply various federal statutes and regulations to personal injury lawsuits based on radiation exposure. This filing will be stricken from the record.
This emphasizes that lawsuits are serious business and should be thoroughly investigated and vetted before being filed, if possible, and filed only when there is a complete commitment to seeing them through. . The effect of losing a case such as this can not only affect the individual claimants, but others who may believe themselves injured under similar circumstances.