Kari La Fratta

The plaintiff’s decedent, a 48-year-old man, visited his family physician with complaints of shortness of breath, dizziness, chest pain, and a dry mouth. His vitals were obtained, and the results revealed that he was experiencing mild tachycardia, or an increased heart rate, at over 100 beats per minute. He had an oxygen saturation of 94% and blood pressure readings of 92/50 and 130/80. This doctor’s visit took place approximately three and a half months post-op from the decedent’s thoracic decompression surgery. Following this surgery, he experienced significant mobility limitations, relying on a wheelchair and a walker for mobility. Following a physical examination, the defendant attributed the decedent’s shortness of breath to deconditioning, his chest pain to GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease), and his dizziness to possible orthostatic hypotension. Prior to discharging the decedent, the defendant ordered several lab studies, including a D-Dimer test. This is used almost exclusively to evaluate for acute pulmonary embolism. The D-Dimer test was ordered on a non-stat (non-urgent) basis and was scheduled to be reported the following day. Our plaintiff’s decedent was discharged from the defendant’s office. Later that evening, he collapsed suddenly. Despite resuscitation efforts initiated by EMS, he died – approximately 6 hours after his arrival at the defendant’s clinic. The following day the D-Dimer result was reported and was severely elevated – about 30 times higher than normal. There was no autopsy. At trial, experts on the plaintiff’s side testified that the defendant violated the standard of care. They noted that the defendant failed to develop an appropriate level of suspicion for acute pulmonary embolism based on the patient’s risk factors, presenting signs, and symptoms. The plaintiff’s experts also testified that the standard of care required the immediate transfer of the plaintiff’s decedent to the nearest emergency room so that the D-Dimer could be completed on a stat (urgent) basis, along with a chest CT-A scan. The plaintiff’s causation experts testified that had the decedent been timely transferred to the emergency department, he would have received telemetry and other monitoring. Anticoagulants would also have been administered, to keep the existing clot from propagating. The experts also testified that the clinic’s support measures were insufficient to maintain the plaintiff’s hemodynamic stability. Thrombolytic medication could have been initiated, and it would have saved the decedent’s life. Finally, they testified that while a D-Dimer is a non-specific test and an elevated D-Dimer does not necessarily confirm a pulmonary embolism, a D-Dimer elevated to such a high degree is more likely due to pulmonary embolism. The defendant’s standard of care experts testified that the plaintiff’s decedent did not meet the profile of a patient experiencing an acute pulmonary embolism. They explained that they came to this decision primarily because the decedent’s chest pain was non-pleuritic (sharp and painful) in nature, and his vitals were historically consistent with those gathered at other medical visits. The defendant’s causation experts testified that the plaintiff’s decedent’s death was more likely the result of a sudden cardiac death. They claimed that this death was unrelated to his earlier presentation and not a pulmonary embolism. Those experts also testified that the plaintiff’s decedent had been evaluated for pulmonary embolism a few months prior to his death after a sudden onset of chest pain. They testified that although that evaluation included an elevated D-Dimer, a chest CT-A ruled out the presence of emboli in the lungs. After four days of evidence, the jury deliberated for just over an hour before returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Prior to closing arguments, the parties entered into a high-low agreement.

After being rear-ended by a tractor-trailer on Interstate 81, our client turned to Allen & Allen for guidance as his neck and back pain continued to worsen in the months and years that followed. Attorneys Kari La Fratta and David Irvine secured a settlement of $895,735.78, reflecting the extent of his injuries and the years of treatment that followed. The crash occurred on New Year’s Eve of 2021. Our client was driving on Interstate 81 during foggy conditions when he approached an earlier incident on the roadway. Warning signs alerted traffic ahead, and our client slowed his work vehicle to a stop. However, a tractor-trailer traveling behind him was unable to stop in time and struck his vehicle, pushing it into the median. Although he was evaluated at the scene by EMS, he initially returned home. Later that same day, he began experiencing increasing pain along the left side of his body, including his neck, back, and shoulder, along with dizziness and headaches. What followed was a long and evolving medical journey. He first completed 12 rounds of physical therapy and experienced relief from his pain. But over time, his symptoms returned and intensified. MRIs revealed degenerative changes in his spine, and he underwent months of pain management treatment, including injections and medication to find relief. While undergoing continued pain management our client was involved in a second motor vehicle collision which caused him to hit his head on the windshield and fracture his left hand. Following the second collision he reported no increased pain and continued with his prior pain management plan. As the years progressed, his symptoms persisted. Nearly two and a half years after the I-81 collision, further MRIs revealed a significant cervical spine condition requiring surgery. He underwent a cervical discectomy and fusion to relieve his ongoing pain and restore function. Attorneys Kari La Fratta and David Irvine along with their legal team worked to clearly connect the initial collision to the client’s ongoing pain, demonstrating how the crash set into motion a multi-year course of treatment that ultimately led to surgery. Through thoughtful preparation, they presented a clear and medically supported picture of the client’s injuries and their impact on his everyday life. The case was scheduled for trial but resolved during settlement negotiations. The final settlement of $895,735.78 provides our client with the financial support needed for his medical expenses and accountability after years of treatment and recovery. Our team was proud to stand by our client through his complex and extended recovery.

Attorneys Kari La Fratta and David Irvine successfully obtained a total recovery of $575,000 after their client was seriously injured in a motorcycle collision in Chesterfield. As a result of the collision, their client sustained primary injuries of wrist fracture, shoulder separation, and mild traumatic brain injury. Both the wrist fracture and shoulder separation required surgical repair. The case was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This result reflects the diligent advocacy of Attorneys Kari La Fratta and David Irvine in securing justice and meaningful compensation for their client.