Maricopa County Jury Issues Verdict in Medical Negligence Wrongful Death
A 14-year-old was injured in a car crash and taken to the hospital. Doctors evaluated him but did not find any serious internal injuries. The next day, he died from undiagnosed internal perforations. His parents sued, claiming medical staff failed to properly monitor and diagnose his condition.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
About Wrongful Death Injuries
Wrongful death claims arise when a car accident fatality is caused by another party's negligence. These cases compensate surviving family members for their losses and the decedent's pain and suffering.
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $3,000,000
- County
- Maricopa County, AZ
- Resolved
- 1997
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Wrongful Death
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Fatal septic shock due to peritonitis secondary to two small bowel perforations
Settlement Context
This verdict-plaintiff of $3,000,000 is near the median of $2,500,000 for wrongful death cases resolved by verdict-plaintiff. The typical range is $640,000 to $10,900,000, based on 54 cases in our database.
Case Overview
On March 9, 1997, a 14-year-old patient sustained injuries in an automobile collision and was transported by air ambulance to Maricopa Medical Center in Maricopa County, Arizona. There, an attending surgeon and two residents evaluated the patient. A CAT scan showed no signs of spinal injuries or bowel perforation, and the patient remained under observation. The following day, March 10, 1997, the patient died from septic shock, attributed to undiagnosed small bowel perforations.
The plaintiffs, representing the deceased, subsequently filed a lawsuit. They alleged spoliation of evidence and negligence, claiming the medical staff failed to adequately monitor the patient and properly diagnose the condition. The defendant attending surgeon contended that the residents did not inform him of the patient's deteriorating condition. The county defendants argued that the patient did not exhibit signs or symptoms consistent with a perforated bowel.
Both sides presented expert testimony during the three-week trial. Jurors deliberated for one day. However, the available record does not specify the jury's verdict or the final outcome of the case.
Understanding This Case
- This case went to trial and resulted in a jury verdict. Verdicts can yield higher awards but carry the risk of receiving nothing if the jury rules against the plaintiff.
- This case was resolved in Maricopa County, Arizona. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
- Resolved in 1997, this case reflects the legal and economic conditions of that period, including medical costs, insurance practices, and jury award trends at the time.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome differs from typical similar cases
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Want to check your case value?
Get a free case evaluation to understand what your motor vehicle accident case might be worth based on cases like this in Maricopa County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
A plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging a nurse negligently administered an injection, causing permanent injury. The plaintiff, who received injections for migraine headaches, claimed the defendant nurse failed to properly calculate anatomical landmarks before administering Phenergan in the right hip area. The plaintiff asserted that the caustic material was injected near the sciatic nerve, causing immediate severe pain, numbness, and a permanent limp. The plaintiff later developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and underwent surgical implantation of a neurostimulator for pain management. The defendant denied negligence, arguing the injection was not given in the wrong area and was unrelated to the plaintiff's complaints. The defendant noted a lack of immediate documentation for the plaintiff's pain complaints. The plaintiff countered that she reported immediate pain to the nurse and made documented complaints the following day. The plaintiff also argued that the nurse's deposition testimony, which demonstrated her landmark calculation, indicated an improper starting point for the injection. The defendant further suggested the plaintiff's difficulties stemmed from a car accident occurring several weeks after the injection. The plaintiff disputed this, stating the collision primarily resulted in cervical complaints and did not cause new hip issues, emphasizing consistent hip pain reports since the injection. After a week-long trial, the jury found for the plaintiff, awarding $2,000,000 for past and future pain and suffering. This award was subsequently reduced to $755,000 to comply with Maryland's medical malpractice cap on non-economic damages for the year the cause of action arose.
A plaintiff filed a lawsuit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming severe and permanent injuries. The plaintiff sought damages for significant pain, suffering, discomfort, emotional distress, and a diminished ability to enjoy life. During the proceedings, both sides presented expert medical testimony. The plaintiff's experts included specialists in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Sports Medicine, Osteopathic Medicine, and Physical Therapy. The defendant's expert was also a specialist in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. The case concluded with an award of $779,627 to the plaintiff.
A vehicle collision occurred in May 2008 on Stony Brook when a teenager, pulling from a private drive, struck a childcare worker's vehicle. The childcare worker sustained soft-tissue neck pain and was transported to the emergency room. Liability for the collision was later established by summary judgment. The injured worker subsequently filed a lawsuit in Louisville, seeking damages for medical bills, lost wages, impairment, and pain and suffering. The plaintiff's case was complicated by involvement in a second crash a month later, though injuries were distinguished. The defendant disputed the claimed injuries, citing credibility, lack of objective proof, and a "threshold" defense. The jury found the plaintiff met the medical expense threshold but did not sustain a permanent injury. Ultimately, the jury awarded the plaintiff $8,184 for medical expenses but $0 for lost wages, impairment, and pain and suffering, resulting in a total verdict of $8,184. A judgment consistent with this verdict was entered. The plaintiff later moved for a new trial, arguing the verdict was inadequate. The defendant countered, citing credibility issues. The motion was pending as of June 2016.
A plaintiff alleged bilateral rotator cuff injuries resulted from paramedics' forceful removal of the plaintiff from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, presumably alleging negligence in the plaintiff's care. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in September 2006, concluding the case in favor of the defense.
A motor vehicle collision occurred in Mesa County, Colorado, involving a vehicle operated by the defendant and another car carrying the plaintiff as a passenger. The plaintiff alleged the incident caused permanent personal injuries, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and resulted in medical expenses and economic losses. The plaintiff filed a vehicular liability action in the Colorado District Court, Twenty-First Judicial District, County of Mesa, claiming the defendant's negligence. Allegations included failing to operate the vehicle prudently, maintain a proper lookout, obey traffic control devices, driving at an excessive speed, and failing to stop at a red light. The plaintiff sought damages for the alleged harm. In response, the defendant denied the allegations of negligence. The defendant also asserted affirmative defenses, including claims of failure to state a claim, culpable conduct, and failure to mitigate damages. The parties subsequently filed a notice with the court indicating that they had reached a settlement in the action.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.