Defense Win for Gross McGinley in Heart Misdiagnosis Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
In June 2025, a three‑week jury trial ended in a victory for Gross McGinley LLP. The firm represented a cardiologist and a regional hospital accused of medical malpractice. The patient sued after experiencing serious heart trouble. He claimed that a doctor failed to properly diagnose and treat him. The patient alleged he suffered a cardiac arrest because the doctor overlooked apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a rare heart condition.
The patient argued that this error caused serious medical complications and a long recovery. He and his lawyers said the doctor acted negligently and missed a diagnosis that any diligent doctor would have spotted. The patient sued both the doctor and the hospital and asked for an award.
Cause of the Dispute
The patient came to the doctor complaining of breathing difficulty and chest discomfort. The doctor examined him, performed routine testing, and ultimately concluded the patient suffered from hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The patient disagreed. According to the patient, he suffered from apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a rare thickening of the heart muscle. The patient said this condition required urgent treatment, and its misdiagnosis caused long‑term damage and a near‑fatal cardiac arrest.
The patient sued the doctor and the hospital for medical malpractice. He argued that the doctor failed to recognise this rare heart condition and failed to provide the right treatment. According to the patient, this mistake caused serious complications that could have been prevented.
Injury
The patient claimed he suffered a cardiac arrest that nearly ended his life. According to court documents, this resulted in long‑term effects, including breathing problems, chest discomfort, and ongoing medical care. The patient argued that if the doctor had acted correctly, he would have been treated properly and would have avoided the complications.
He brought a claim for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and long‑term impacts related to the misdiagnosis.
Damages
The patient asked for a seven‑figure award, stating that the error caused significant medical costs and long‑term impacts. His lawyers argued that the doctor and the hospital acted negligently and that their mistake caused serious harm and lifetime medical needs.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The case lasted three weeks and was closely watched in the local legal and medical communities. The patient’s lawyers argued that the doctor ignored the signs of apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. They said this rare condition required early detection and quick treatment.
The patient presented medical records and called expert witnesses. These witnesses stated that an alert doctor would have identified the patient’s condition and started treatment right away. According to their testimony, the patient’s heart suffered serious damage because of the delayed diagnosis.
The doctor and the hospital responded that the patient’s condition was not apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy at all. The doctor stated that the patient suffered from hypertensive cardiovascular disease. This is a common condition caused by long‑term high blood pressure. The doctor explained that every test and examination he conducted pointed clearly to this diagnosis. He acted based on the patient’s clinical presentation and test results, and his approach was in line with standard medical practice.
Defense Argument
The defense argued that even the best doctor would have acted the same way. They called their own medical experts, who explained the patient’s test results and confirmed that the patient suffered from hypertensive cardiovascular disease, not the rare apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. These experts stated that the patient had long‑standing breathing issues, including COPD and asthma, which shaped the doctor’s medical decisions.
Through witness testimony, medical records, and cross‑examination, the jury learned about the patient’s long medical history. This included a long‑standing breathing problem that required inhalers and a nebuliser. The patient had been using these treatments every few hours. The patient had also been treated for pulmonary embolism and pneumonia. According to the doctor, these medical conditions shaped his clinical decision-making.
Throughout the proceedings, the patient’s attorneys pressed for accountability, focusing on the fact that their client suffered serious complications after the doctor failed to identify the right heart condition. Meanwhile, the doctor and the hospital’s attorneys emphasised that medical practice depends on making the best decision based on available evidence, and in this case, the doctor acted reasonably and met the applicable standard of care.
The Jury’s Decision
After three weeks of trial and seven hours of deliberation, the jury announced its verdict. The jury sided with the doctor and the hospital. It found that the patient suffered from hypertensive cardiovascular disease, and that the doctor acted appropriately based on that diagnosis. The jury ruled that the doctor and the hospital acted within the standard of care and were not liable for the patient’s claims.
Importantly, the jury only found in favour of the doctor and the hospital. The patient had also sued additional medical staff, but the jury ruled for those staff members as well.
Significance of the Case
This verdict is a win for medical professionals, highlighting the challenges of diagnosing rare medical conditions. It confirms that doctors must make decisions based on available evidence, and when those decisions align with medical standards, the doctor and hospital should not be held liable.
The case also serves as an example for future malpractice trials, reminding both patients and medical staff that medical outcomes can be complex and that a bad result does not always mean medical error.
Source Credit:
Summary based on the publicly announced verdict by Gross McGinley LLP, highlighting the successful defense in a medical malpractice trial involving a cardiologist and a regional hospital.