America’s Top 100 LLC recently selected Mark Perry as one of Pennsylvania’s Top 100 Attorneys. The lifetime achievement selection is made by invitation only after a multi-phase selection process including third-party research and statistical analysis of the candidate’s professional experience, achievements, significant case results, as well as community impact and peer reputation.
Mark Perry and Mary Montoro successfully opposed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. In an Order issued on July 21, 2017, Judge James A. Gibbons denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in a Lackawanna County case, Scarnato and Dugan v. The Scranton Endoscopy Center, et al., No. 2014-CV-5339. In their Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants failed to appropriately clean and disinfect colonoscopes in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions, allegedly subjecting the Plaintiffs and hundreds of putative class members to colonoscopies with improperly disinfected instruments and potential exposure to infections and/or illnesses. In his Memorandum & Order denying class certification, Judge Gibbons held that Plaintiffs failed to adequately demonstrate the numerosity required by Pa.R.Civ.P. 1702(1), as Defendants established through discovery that the proposed class included only forty-seven (47) patients, all of which had been identified, notified, informed of the potential risks, and offered free testing. The Court did not consider Defendants’ arguments concerning the remaining four (4) elements of Rule 1702, as it was determined that Plaintiffs had not established the first element. Thus, pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1710(e), Judge Gibbon ordered this action to proceed against Defendants by the named Plaintiffs alone.
Mark Perry successfully defended a CRNA at an arbitration in a matter involving claims of professional negligence. Plaintiff claimed that he was severely injured during a colonoscopy because the CRNA utilized the wrong method of anesthesia and inappropriately monitored the patient during the colonoscopy. The wife filed a loss of consortium claim. Plaintiffs argued that the CRNA should have intubated the patient and utilized general anesthesia because of Plaintiff’s significant cardiac history including pacemaker, atrial fibrillation, past myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and low ejection fraction. Plaintiffs also allege that during the procedure the CRNA failed to properly monitor the patient’s condition, which caused respiratory arrest, which led to anoxic encephalopathy and significant brain damage. Attorney Perry argued that the CRNA used the appropriate choice of anesthesia, monitored anesthesia care (“MAC”), instead of general anesthesia because MAC was the safest and least invasive method of anesthesia for the patient.
Further, Attorney Perry argued that the CRNA closely and appropriately monitored the patient during the procedure and acted promptly to initiate CPR, which actually helped to save the patient’s life. Attorney Perry also argued that the Plaintiff’s alleged brain injury was not caused by the lack of oxygen, but was part of the normal aging process.
Mark Perry and Mary Montoro recently obtained a victory for an otolaryngologist in a Wrongful Death trial in Orange County, New York. The Decedent was a seventy year old man who arrived in the Emergency Department at 3:00 in the morning, complaining of a severe sore throat and inability to breathe. The otolaryngologist was called from home, arrived at the hospital within a half hour, and attempted to perform an emergency fiber optic procedure and ultimately a cricothyrotomy, which failed. The Decedent died on the operating room table after a full code was called. The Plaintiffs’ alleged that the ENT should have proceeded immediately to the cricothyrotomy, and that during the performance of the cricothyrotomy the ENT should not have attempted to switch from an endotracheal tube to a tracheostomy tube.
Mark and Mary successfully argued through the Defendant ENT and expert witnesses that the ENT met the standard of care, and that the doctor performed the appropriate sequence of procedures to gain access to the Decedent’s airway.