Virginia Injury Attorney Blog

Trial is the monthly magazine of the American Association for Justice (“AAJ”), formerly American Trial Lawyers Association (“ATLA”), of which Mr. Waterman has been a member for decades. Its January 2013 issue reports Verdicts & Settlements.

Trial covered that on August 1, 2012, $117,000,000.00 was awarded a permanent spinal cord and brain injury victim against an ambulance service for negligently causing a two-vehicle crash in Louisiana (where Mr. Waterman also still is licensed to practice law). Id. at 8. Also, on March 6, 2012, a New Jersey jury awarded $3,980,000.00 to a victim who was disabled by permanently by elevator malfunction. Id. at 10.

Trial reported too that on June 11, 2012, a wrongful death plaintiff in Missouri settled for $3,100,000.00 a lawsuit for negligent hiring. Id. at 8. Additionally, on June 1, 2012, a Washington jury awarded $1,000,000.00 for another wrongful death in a special case alleging civil rights violations for inadequate police training. Id. at 8-9.

On January 21, 2013, Virginia Lawyer’s Weekly ranked Mr. Waterman’s $3,500,000.00 jury award as trying for 9th of “Virginia’s Largest Verdicts of 2012”. It was in the medical malpractice case of Shirley Frazier Burrell v. Riverside Hospital, Inc., et al., No. CL1101633F in Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia.

In the same issue, Virginia Lawyer’s Weekly also reported his $3,500,000.00 jury award more extensively under its “Verdicts & Settlement”. That caption was “Plaintiff claims hospital fall led to brain injury”.

On January 23, 2013, the Motion to Quash of Williamsburg Facility Operations, LLC, d/b/a Consulate Health Care of Williamsburg, the Patient’s Motion to Enforce Va. Code Ann. §8.01-413(C) Subpoena, and the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel were heard in the $4,550,000.00 wrongful death case of William M. Snovell, Executor of the Estate of Bernadette Teresa Connelly Snovell, Deceased v. Williamsburg Facility Operations, LLC, d/b/a Consulate Health Care of Williamsburg, et al., No. CL12-4966 in Circuit Court for York County, Virginia. The Court recessed during hearing for in camera review of the 2-page Root Cause Analysis for Fall and the 2-page Determination of Unavoidable Accident that Defendant healthcare provider was continuing to withhold from its deceased patient’s representative.

The Court in Snovell found that the nursing home’s 2-page Root Cause Analysis for Fall is factual in nature, except for its last question-and-answer paragraph on the second page entitled “How The Event Might Be Prevented In The Future,” which is deliberative analysis; that all such factual information is discoverable; and that the deliberative analysis is privileged. The Court found further that the 2-page Determination of Unavoidable Accident is entirely deliberative analysis, contains no factual information, and is privileged.

Hence the Court in the Snovell patient fall lawsuit ordered Williamsburg Facility Operations, LLC, d/b/a Consulate Health Care of Williamsburg to provide forthwith to its deceased patient’s representative its 2-page Root Cause Analysis for Fall, except for redaction of its last question-and-answer paragraph on the second page. The Court did not require it to provide the 2-page Determination of Unavoidable Accident.

In the Snovell medical malpractice proceeding, the Court also ordered that Defendant, Williamsburg Facility Operations, LLC, d/b/a Consulate Health Care of Williamsburg, provide discovery responses to Plaintiff in-hand by Monday, February 4, 2013. Such required information and materials includes the identity and addresses of current and former personnel; details underlying its discoverable 2-page Root Cause Analysis for Fall; the actual bed and chair alarms for inspection and photographing; and a corporate verification.

The deposition videotape of Patricia [Hoadley] Williams, Midas System Manager (formerly QMS Coordinator) for Defendant, Riverside Hospital, Inc., was taken on October 29, 2008. Hers is the third of 22 to be run on Mr. Waterman’s website from his patient fall jury trial, Shirley Frazier Burrell v. Riverside Hospital, Inc., et al., No. CL1101633F in Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia.

In the Burrell brain injury lawsuit, Ms. Williams delineated the computerized incident reporting systems of Defendant, Riverside Hospital, Inc.: in its Quality Management System (“QMS”), data is input from paper incident reports; while in its newer Midas system operational since January, 2006, “witnesses” enter incident information directly into the database remotely from computer terminals anywhere, id. at 12-14 and 18-19; which Ms. Williams can and does revise ex post facto. Id. at 21-22 and 25. She also testified about Riverside Dep. Ex. 2, QMS Transaction Summary Report, id. at 8; Riverside Dep. Ex. 3, Midas System Printouts, id. at 10-11; and Riverside Dep. Ex. 4, Ames Dep. Ex. 6, Fall Quality Care Control Report (“QCCR”). Id. at 34.

The deposition videotape of Joann Rae “Jodi” Friend, Director of Risk Management for Riverside Health System, whose office is located at Riverside Regional Medical Center in Newport News, Virginia, was taken on October 29, 2008. It is the second of 22 to be launched on Mr. Waterman’s website from his medical malpractice trial during November 26-December 7, 2013, Burrell v. Riverside Hospital, Inc., No. CL1101633F in Newport News Circuit Court.

On November 27, 2012, Ms. Friend was called as one of Plaintiff’s early case-in-chief witnesses. In videotape deposition, Ms. Friend testified why and how she as Riverside’s Risk Manager “waived,” i.e., wrote off, the Burrell brain injury victim’s unpaid hospital bill balance by Authorization to Charge to Risk Management, id. at 12-14 - which Plaintiff at trial unsuccessfully sought to introduce as an admission or statement against by conduct under the circumstances, and which adverse ruling Plaintiff has preserved for cross-appeal.

Also in videotaped deposition, Ms. Friend identified a Quality Management System (“QMS”) Transaction Summary a/k/a the “expenditure report” printout of Riverside Hospital, Inc. for the Risk Management waiver re the patient fall victim in Burrell. QMS and Midas are computer program databases of Riverside Hospital, Inc., including for risk management purposes. Id. at 21-25.

The deposition videotape of Christopher Stolle, M.D., Vice-President of Medical Affairs at Riverside Regional Medical Center in Newport News, Virginia, taken on February 26, 2009, is the first of 22 deposition videotapes to be posted on Mr. Waterman’s website from Shirley Frazier Burrell v. Riverside Hospital, Inc., et al., No. CL1101633F in the Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia. If Riverside Hospital, Inc. appeals the $3,500,000.00 brain injury verdict against it, VP/Dr. Stolle’s trial testimony transcript should be available by Spring for supplemental posting along with Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 30.

On November 27, 2012, the medical malpractice victim called VP/Dr. Stolle as an early case-in-chief fact witness at jury trial in Burrell. Notably, VP/Dr. Stolle testified about certain Riverside record-keeping re factual information of patient care not included expressly in its patient chart; and through him, the Burrell victim introduced into evidence Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 30, the internal computer database printout of Riverside Hospital, Inc. that stated inter alia its high unto extreme fall risk patient’s mental status was “very confused”.

On January 7, 2012, Virginia Lawyers Weekly (“VLW”) newspaper headlined on the front page: “A return to ‘Riverside’: Patient’s $3.5M verdict for fall prompts comparisons to 2006 case”. VLW’s print version is substantially similar to its prior online reporting of Mr. Waterman’s Newport News brain injury case against Riverside Hospital, Inc.

However, VLW’s print article covered Mr. Waterman using his “2006 Riverside opinion to introduce into evidence four incident report documents with information not included in the patient’s chart”. Id. at 21. It also covered Newport News Circuit Court denying on January 2, 2013, the post-trial Motion of Riverside Hospital, Inc. to set aside the medical malpractice verdict against it. Id.

In the patient fall case of Shirley Frazier Burrell v. Riverside Hospital, Inc., et al., No. CL1101633F-15 in Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia, Mr. Waterman deposed on videotape 22 Riverside representatives, essentially all as “most knowledgeable persons” pursuant to Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 4:5(b)(6). They are: Ann Fox Andrews (12/3/09), Emily Theal Edwards (4/23/09), Tikishia Monique Everett (12/22/08), Joann Rae “Jodi” Friend (10/29/08), Deborah Lynn Gressett (10/30/08), Stephanie Hadley (12/22/08), Ramona English Hercules (10/30/08), Christine Frances Hill (12/17/08), Delores K. Kitchin (12/3/09), Lisa Michele Morgan (4/23/09), Michelle Walls Morris (12/22/08), Christina Marie O’Brien (2/26/09), Tricia O’Grady (2/26/09) Shrikant Lalaji Patel (2/26/09), Susan Sale (2/23/09), Christopher Stolle, M.D. (2/26/09), Michelle Thomas-Eckroade (12/3/09), Joyce Carolyn Turner (12/17/08), Deborah C. Walton (10/30/08), Jacqueline B. Ward (4/23/09), Patricia Williams (10/29/08), and Michelle Snyder Wooten (12/17/08).

Ultimately, Mr. Waterman plans to launch them on www.YouTube.com, having purchased a YouTube platform. Meanwhile, this Blog will highlight each Riverside deposition videotape from the Burrell brain injury lawsuit as they are posted on his website, beginning with Dr. Stolle.

On December 28, 2012, the Virginia Supreme Court quickly vacated a Fairfax Circuit Court Order that enjoined a litigant from maintaining past accusative postings online and from posting again during the pending lawsuit. The unpublished opinion in Record No. 122157, Perez v. Dietz Development, LLC, expressly finds inter alia “the preliminary injunction was not justified”.

The Virginia Supreme Court’s Perez ruling - issued only 2 days after the appeal pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 8.01-626 - vindicates the propriety of Mr. Waterman posting contemporaneous case developments on this Blog. In 2010, 2011, and 2012, 3 medical malpractice Defendants - including Sentara and Riverside Hospital, Inc. - unsuccessfully have tried to deny Mr. Waterman’s state and federal rights of “free speech” online in a wrongful death, a patient fall, and another case through Circuit Courts in Suffolk, York, and Newport News.

In Perez, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) of Virginia at www.acluva.org and the Public Citizen at www.citizen.org appealed the injunction Order as violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in addition to Virginia state law. Since Riverside Hospital, Inc.’s attempt to abridge Mr. Waterman’s Constitutional rights of “free speech” was in November, 2012, in the still-pending brain injury lawsuit, he yet may call upon ACLU of Virginia and Public Citizen to intercede on the topic.

On January 2, 2013, the Court issued its letter opinion in favor of Mr. Waterman’s client on all post-trial motions in the patient fall case of Shirley Frazier Burrell v. Riverside Hospital, Inc., et al., No. CL1101633F-15 in Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia. Those motions were heard on December 27, 2012.

First, the Court denied Defendant Riverside Hospital, Inc.’s Motion to Set Aside Jury Verdict in the Burrell medical malpractice lawsuit. Riverside Hospital, Inc. had filed an 11-page Memorandum in Support with 4 Exhibits consisting of 29 pages on December 14, 2012; and also a 7-page Memorandum in Reply with 2 Exhibits consisting of 15 pages, immediately before hearing on December 27, 2012.

Second, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs in the Burrell brain injury suit. It awarded Plaintiff $4,533.65 against Riverside Hospital, Inc. for filing fees, service fees and videographer/reporter fees, atop the jury’s verdict of $3,500,000.00 (which on Plaintiff’s oral motion on December 7, 2012, already had been reduced to the applicable statutory “cap” of $1,800,000.00).

Third, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Appeal Bond in the Burrell medical malpractice proceeding. It required Riverside Hospital, Inc. to post a bond of $1,900,000.00 as a prerequisite for appealing the Judgment Order to be drafted by Mr. Waterman and entered against it shortly.

On January 3, 2013, www.VaLawyersWeekly.com initially headlined “Patient’s fall leads to $3.5 verdict,” then revised its headline to "A return to 'Riverside': Patient's $3.5M verdict prompts comparisons to 2006 case". That top article covers Burrell.

The www.VaLawyersWeekly.com coverage marquees Mr. Waterman in Burrell “using high resolution imaging to dramatize alleged brain injuries for the jury,” including “’cutting edge’ 3.0 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging, applying ‘fractional anisotropy,’ also known as Diffusion Tensor Imaging, and NeuroQuant Analysis”. It also presages: “An appeal of Shirley Burrell’s verdict against the owner of Riverside Regional Medical Center could offer a ruling on the admission of hospital policies and protocols” and on the “admissibility of hospital write-offs of patients bills”.

Www.VaLawyersWeekly.com reported further from Mr. Waterman’s Blog that Burrell asserted Riverside Hospital, Inc. was guilty of medical malpractice because it “omitted preventative measures such as relocating the patient closer to the nurses’ station, activating a bed alarm, using a sitter to keep watch, and using soft restraints like a ‘posey vest’.” Re some nurses not liking to use bed alarms despite their proven effectiveness, the online newspaper quoted Mr. Waterman: “Some false positives are a worthwhile inconvenience.”

Www.VaLawyersWeekly.com recounted the Virginia Supreme Court upholding Mr. Waterman’s $1,600,000.00 Newport News jury verdict in another patient fall trial against Riverside Hospital, Inc. in 2005, Riverside Hosp., Inc. v. Johnson, 272 Va. 518 (2006). It chronicled too that the “so-called Riverside [v. Johnson] standard [which clarified the law on admission of hospital incident reports] was codified by the General Assembly in 2011”.

If Riverside Hospital, Inc. ultimately seeks to appeal the jury verdict against it in the Burrell brain injury matter, then Mr. Waterman definitely will cross-appeal against both Defendants, Riverside Hospital, Inc. and Nurse Melanie Ames. Some of Plaintiff’s alternate grounds will be first “first impression” issues, as was the case in Riverside.