United States Withdraws Appeal Of Medical Malpractice Judgment
Harrisburg - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that it withdrew an appeal of an April 20, 2017 district court decision that included findings of fact and conclusions of law, and its verdict and judgment on May 9, 2017.
In this FTCA medical malpractice action, the district court entered a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs Christina Late and Nathan Armolt, individually, and as parents and natural guardians of D.A., a minor. The court awarded plaintiffs $103,967.10 in past medical expenses; $5,000,000 in past and future noneconomic damages; and $3,553,616 in lost earnings and fringe benefits. The court also awarded plaintiffs future medical expenses at a present value of $9,309,503.90 and at a future value of $32,984,383.50.
The future value payment of $32,984,383.50 will be provided to the Clerk’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Clerk will deposit the money in an interest bearing account. The Clerk will then make yearly payments to the Plaintiffs per the Court’s schedule for the next 74 years. All interest earned in the account will be returned to the United States at the end of the 74 years or when the minor dies, whichever occurs first.
According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the United States often files protective notice of appeal, while the Solicitor General’s Office determines whether an appeal should be continued. In this case, the Solicitor General’s Office determined that an appeal should not proceed. Because of attorney-work product and deliberative-process considerations, no further information can be provided about this decision.
“The United States Attorney’s Offices throughout the country are tasked with defending government employees accused of medical malpractice, and there are times when district courts will find our employees negligent,” said U.S. Attorney Freed. “Our mission, however, is to defend the government’s employees and to limit damages with the assistance of medical and economic experts. We respect the court’s decision in this matter, and wish nothing but the best for the minor child and his parents.”
# # #