Andrew Garson continued his string of courtroom achievements with a unanimous defense verdict on June 22, 2023, successfully defending two obstetricians and a local hospital center in a maternal death case.

The patient had undergone a Cesarean section due to labor difficulties. She died later that day, due to a cardiopulmonary arrest caused by a blood clot which developed in her legs, then traveled to her heart and lungs, leading to her death. The patient’s attorney contended that defendants had failed to properly evaluate and recognize she was at “extremely high risk’ for fatal clotting. Counsel maintained she was in extremely poor health due to morbid obesity, nutritional deficiencies, suspected cardiovascular problems, as well as the increased risk of clotting due to pregnancy, hormonal changes, and related conditions. Additionally, it was argued that the admission evaluation for clotting problems in pregnant patients was improperly performed, and that defendants violated the hospital’s protocol in this assessment. Plaintiffs’ highly credentialed obstetrical expert testified that the simple measure of prescribing a safe, effective blood thinner medication would have prevented this disastrous outcome. Instead, the patient experienced considerable suffering, comparing her collapse and death to slowly drowning at the bottom of a swimming pool. During closing argument, Counsel asked the jurors to return a minimum of 12 million dollars for the patient’s daughter in a wrongful death claim, and at least 2 million dollars for the patient’s pain and suffering as she recognized her death was imminent.

Mr. Jakub successfully defended an orthopedic surgeon before a Queens County jury against claims that he caused permanent paralysis and neurologic dysfunction while performing a total hip replacement surgery.

Mr. Jakub’s client performed a right total hip replacement surgery on his patient in July 2012, following which the patient was diagnosed with a “foot drop” and subsequent EMG and nerve conduction studies revealed damage to the popliteal and tibial branches of the patient’s sciatic nerve. The plaintiff, a 68 year old married female is required to ambulate with a brace and cane and her condition was conceded to be permanent.

The case was tried for two weeks before a Queens County jury which unanimously concluded, after only 20 minutes of deliberations, that the surgeon did not depart from accepted standards of practice in the surgery and determined that the nerve damage was in fact attributable to a known risk of properly performed surgery.

On March 27, 2017 Mr. Jakub presented “The Defendant Doctor and the Deposition: Pitfalls, Opportunities and Practical Advice” at The American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians & Gynecologists Annual Conference held in Palm Springs, California.

The lecture exposed physicians in a high risk medical specialty to the realities of litigation, the questioning of their decision making processes and provided real world insight into the methods in which claims against physicians are built and defended. Mr. Jakub delivered this presentation to several hundred obstetrician-gynecologists from all over the country an then presided over a lively question and answer session which allowed the physicians to gain a further understanding of the true nature of a malpractice deposition and the opportunities such a deposition presents to enhance the doctor’s defense.

On April 18, 2016, a Manhattan jury returned a unanimous defense verdict in favor of a New York City physician defended by Louis E. Jakub. Mr. Jakub’s client, a renowned plastic surgeon, performed a mastopexy (breast lift) procedure and inserted implants in a 47-year-old female actress and television producer. Post operative breast asymmetry was identified and required two corrective surgeries. The patient then developed multiple infections and a wound breakdown which necessitated surgical removal of the infected implants during a lengthy hospitalization. The patient went on to develop significant pain and motion limitations in her arms due to the build up of scar tissue. Further surgery was performed by another plastic surgeon to relieve the pain and reduce the scarring. At trial, the plaintiff claimed the initial surgery was negligently performed and that a revision procedure was undertaken prematurely which resulted in an infection and wound breakdown. Plaintiff also argued at trial that the surgeon failed to properly advise her of the risks associated with the surgeries and failed to obtain an informed consent