Gene Feeney is a veteran litigator who defends the interests of physicians and healthcare organizations in state and federal courts.
Gene also handles personal injury cases, including auto and premises liability matters. He argues cases on appeal in the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Gene also assists local counsel, carriers, third party administrators and self insureds on the applicability of the Affordable Care Act to claims of future medical damages in all types of disciplines of catastrophic loss matters. The cost of future healthcare has been altered by the ability for those with pre-existing conditions to access insurance. He can assess the real costs of lifetime care.
Eugene P. (Gene) Feeney
Obtained dismissal on behalf of their surgeon client in a medical malpractice matter. The case involved allegations that the Defendant surgeon negligently performed an exploratory laparotomy with right hemicolectomy for cecal mass and that the surgeon as well as other Co-Defendants subsequently failed to diagnose and appropriately treat the Plaintiff’s post-operative condition, which they further allege led to his death. After a thorough investigation, Gene and Ryan determined that both the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Certificate of Merit were deficient as to Defendant surgeon. Specifically, the Plaintiffs asserted that they would be relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to pursue their claim, which Gene and Ryan deemed to be inappropriate under the controlling law. Therefore, they filed a Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs’ Certificate of Merit as being defective, which was ultimately granted by the Court.
Eugene P. Feeney and Ryan R. McBride recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of their hospital client as well the hospital's surgeon employee, by going the extra mile to obtain an unlikely result given the circumstances of the case. By way of background, in 2004, Plaintiff underwent an esophagectomy to address his diagnosis of esophageal cancer. During said surgery, a laparotomy sponge was left inside of the Plaintiff, which went undetected until 2008. At that time, Plaintiff began complaining of abdominal pain and underwent a CT scan for the same, which revealed an intraabdominal abscess as well as the presence of the retained sponge. Plaintiff underwent surgery to drain the abscess, during which time the retained sponge and the gallbladder were also removed. Just a few weeks later, Plaintiff underwent subsequent surgery for further draining of the abscess. Thereafter, Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against the hospital as well as the surgeon who performed the 2004 esophagectomy.
When the Plaintiffs filed their Certificates of Merit, as required in all medical malpractice cases, they indicated that they would be relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, as opposed to relying on expert testimony to establish negligence. After discovery was completed, Attorneys Feeney and McBride filed a motion for summary judgment, which argued, in short, that under Pennsylvania law, the Plaintiff's case does not fall under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor and that to survive said motion they would need testimony to establish that the abscess, which was the precipitating event for the 2008 surgery, was caused by the retained sponge. Furthermore, Attorneys Feeney and McBride argued that because the Plaintiffs filed their Certificates of Merit as relying on res ipsa loquitor, Pennsylvania law precluded them from presenting expert testimony. With summary judgment looming, Plaintiffs asked for the motion to be held in abeyance until they could take various fact witness depositions of Defendant medical providers from the 2004 and 2008 surgeries. Over the Defendants' objection, the court granted Plaintiffs leave of court and reopened discovery to allow Plaintiffs to complete these depositions. After Attorneys Feeney and McBride defended these depositions, they submitted further memoranda of law indicating that Plaintiffs had failed to meet their causation burden based on recent Pennsylvania case law.
Shortly thereafter, the court granted the Defendants motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against them. This motion was granted approximately two weeks prior to the start of jury trial. Not only did this save client exposure from a potentially large jury award, but also saved them the cost of trial and necessity of attendance of busy nurses and physicians during the duration of the trial.
Mr. Feeney is a partner and Mr. McBride an associate in Weber Gallagher's Medical Professional Liability practice. Both are resident in the Scranton office. Mr. Feeney, who has more than two decades' experience defending the interests of physicians and health care organizations throughout eastern Pennsylvania, can be contacted at 570.961.2120 or firstname.lastname@example.org. Mr. McBride can be reached at 570.961.2527 or email@example.com.
This case involved a March 31, 2009 spinal surgery and placement of a posterior fusion device. The Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Shakil failed to adequately achieve a fusion at the L4-L5 disk level and also alleged that Plaintiff was not a proper candidate for the surgery at issue.
Both our Defense expert, Dr. David Abraham and Dr. Shakil testified that after the Plaintiff did not respond to initial conservative care measures, Dr. Shakil properly moved forward with the option of surgery. Additionally, there was expert testimony that the surgery at issue was performed well within the standard of care, and that the patient seemed to initially respond to the surgery and be satisfied with the surgical outcome. During the trial, Gene Feeney was able to effectively cross examine the Plaintiff as to prior testimony that she had no prior history of back pain before presenting to Dr. Shakil. After a short deliberation, the Lehigh County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Defendants.
Miller v. Sacred Heart Hospital, 753 A.2d 829 (Pa. Super. 2000)
Gregorio v. Zeluck, 678 A.2d 810 (Pa. Super. 1996)
570.961.2099 ext. 2233