Stewart v. Rumisek, et al

Case Background

Kimberly Stewart filed a medical malpractice case against two cardiologists for misdiagnosing her and recommending the implantation of a pacemaker that she did not need. She alleged medical negligence, and breach of standard of care, seeking damages for the losses she suffered as a result of the misdiagnosis.

The case was filed in the [Case number: 22C01-1908-CT-1271]

Cause

On May 30, 2014, Kimberly Stewart visited the emergency room at Kentuckiana Medical Center in Clarksville. She complained of headaches and a fainting episode. The hospital admitted her for evaluation. On May 31, 2014, Dr. Anis Chalhoub, a cardiologist employed by Cardiovascular Specialists, P.S.C., consulted on her case.

Chalhoub diagnosed Stewart with vasovagal syncope (fainting due to a slow heartbeat) and proposed changing her medication while monitoring her condition. He consulted cardiothoracic surgeon Dr. John Rumisek for a second opinion. Rumisek disagreed with Chalhoub’s assessment. He concluded Stewart had Sick Sinus Syndrome, a heart conduction issue requiring a pacemaker. Although Rumisek documented his agreement with Chalhoub in the records, conflicting notes suggested Chalhoub may have altered his diagnosis after their discussion. Ultimately, Chalhoub informed Stewart she needed a pacemaker to survive.

On June 2, 2014, Rumisek implanted a pacemaker at Kentuckiana Medical Center. The next day, another surgeon performed a second procedure to correct a misplaced pacemaker lead. Complications arose when the surgical site became infected. On July 18, 2014, over a month later, Rumisek conducted a third surgery to remove infected tissue and reposition the pacemaker under the muscle.

Two years later, on July 1, 2016, Dr. Igor Singer, a new cardiologist treating Stewart, informed her that her original diagnosis had been incorrect. Singer stated she had vasovagal syncope and did not need a pacemaker. Later that year, another cardiologist, Dr. Garimella, confirmed Singer’s findings. Garimella also noted that Stewart’s pacemaker was functioning less than 1% of the time.

Damages

Stewart sought compensatory damages if her claims succeeded. Stewart initially claimed $86,186 for medical expenses and $5,000,000 for pain and suffering. However, she later chose not to pursue the medical expense claim when presenting her case.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Defendant(s): Dr. John Rumisek | Dr. Anis Chalhoub| Kentuckiana Medical Center
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Mark E. Hammond | Rachel Dalton Dearmond | David S. Strite
    • Experts for Defendant(s): Dr. Bryan Foy

Claims

Stewart presented her case to a medical review panel, contesting the necessity of her pacemaker implantation. The panel consisted of Dr. Michael Robertson (Cardiology, Indianapolis), Dr. Gregory Dedinsky (Surgery, Columbus), and Dr. Stephen Hornak III (Cardiology, Richmond).

Stewart argued that Dr. Chalhoub and Dr. Rumisek had misdiagnosed her condition, leading to the unnecessary implantation of a pacemaker. She claimed this misdiagnosis caused her to undergo additional surgeries to address complications arising from the initial procedure. Stewart emphasized that these interventions would not have been required if her condition had been correctly identified.

After reviewing the case, the medical review panel unanimously concluded that the care Stewart received did not violate the cardiology standard of care. Following this determination, Stewart filed a lawsuit, reiterating her allegations against the doctors for their alleged diagnostic errors and the subsequent medical procedures. Initially, she named Dr. Rumisek, Dr. Chalhoub, and their employer, Kentuckiana Medical Center, as Defendants. However, as the litigation advanced, some parties were removed from the case, resulting in changes to the original lineup.

Stewart dismissed her direct medical negligence claims against Kentuckiana Medical Center (KMC) and withdrew her claim for punitive damages. This left only credentialing claims against KMC. Additionally, Dr. Chalhoub passed away on June 30, 2021, and his estate was substituted as a co-Defendant in the case.

The court bifurcated the trial into two phases. The first phase addressed the medical malpractice claims against Dr. Chalhoub and Dr. Rumisek. If Stewart succeeded in phase one, the second phase would address her claims of negligent hiring and supervision against the medical groups, as well as the credentialing claims against KMC.

Defense

Dr. Rumisek, the estate of Dr. Chalhoub, and their employer defended against Stewart’s claims, denying any breach of the standard of care. Rumisek maintained that his diagnosis was accurate and asserted that he had reached it independently of Chalhoub’s assessment.

Meanwhile, Chalhoub’s estate argued that his only action had been to request a consultation with Rumisek. The estate emphasized that seeking a second opinion is never negligent and contended that Chalhoub had not committed any negligence in his role.

Expert Testimony

Plaintiff Stewart presented Dr. David Martin, an electrophysiologist from Boston, Massachusetts, as her trial expert. She also introduced the videotaped deposition of her subsequent treating cardiologist, Dr. Igor Singer. Both Dr. Martin and Dr. Singer testified that Sick Sinus Syndrome is a permanent condition and confirmed that Stewart did not have it when Dr. Singer began treating her and does not have it currently. Based on this, they concluded that Stewart had been misdiagnosed.

Dr. Bryan Foy, a cardiothoracic surgeon from Naperville, Illinois, served as the defense expert for Dr. Rumisek. Dr. Foy testified that the diagnosis of Sick Sinus Syndrome was reasonable under the circumstances and that the pacemaker implantation was medically justified.

Jury Verdict

The case was tried in New Albany before a jury that included individuals with medical knowledge. Following deliberations, on August 16, 2024, the jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of Dr. Rumisek and the estate of Dr. Chalhoub. The court subsequently entered a consistent judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Court Documents:

Available upon request