Just Verdicts Podcast Episode #50

Brown v. Medical Faculty Associates

Refer A Case

Fill out the form below to schedule a free evaluation.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

$25 Million Verdict for Delayed Cancer Diagnosis

Katie Bertram and Kieran Murphy

In episode 50 of the Just Verdicts podcast, host Brendan Lupetin of Lupetin & Unatin and attorneys Katie Bertram and Kieran Murphy of Bertram & Murphy discuss the latter’s exceptional $25 million verdict for a client whose cancer diagnosis was delayed by three years. The trial served as a masterclass in strategic framing, demonstrating how a “light touch” on damages and a focus on corporate accountability can empower a jury to award a full and fair amount.

The Just Verdicts podcast, hosted by attorney Brendan Lupetin, delves into compelling medical malpractice, medical negligence, and catastrophic personal injury cases. Each episode breaks down successful civil trials by featuring interviews with the trial lawyers, who discuss the innovative strategies, challenges, and key moments that led to significant verdicts for their clients.

Subscribe to Just Verdicts

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, Omal Brown, was a 43-year-old engineer and creative force in the DC jazz community who was diligent about his health.

  • The Initial Oversight: In 2018, Brown presented to his primary care physician (PCP) with a new, unusual lump in his left chest – which the legal team strategically reframed as a “breast lump” to emphasize its seriousness. The PCP allegedly failed to take the lump seriously.
  • Missed Opportunities: Although an X-ray resulted in a suggestion for follow-up CT scans or an ultrasound, the PCP reportedly told Brown everything was fine.
  • Misdiagnosis: When a biopsy was finally performed, the pathologist misread the slides. It was only after a nearly three-year delay – compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic – that the tumor was correctly identified as angiosarcoma.
  • The Consequences: By the time of the correct diagnosis, the cancer had metastasized, transforming a potentially curable condition into a terminal one.

Theories of Liability

The legal team focused the trial on the systemic and individual failures of the medical practice, rather than just the medicine itself.

  • The Informed Consent “Queen”: Katie Bertram utilized an informed consent claim, reframing it as a “shared decision-making” dialogue. They argued that even if the doctor didn’t think a CT was necessary, Brown had a right to know it was an option so he could choose for his own body.
  • Systemic Failures: The trial revealed the PCP was responsible for 2,000 patients, leading to a narrative of a disorganized practice where critical information fell through the cracks.
  • Independent Verification: The team leveraged the fact that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) eventually correctly identified the original pathology slides as angiosarcoma, providing an unassailable “standard of care” benchmark for the jury.

Strategic Decisions and Hurdles

The attorneys made bold, focus-group-driven choices that ran counter to traditional trial wisdom.

  • Removing the Economic Anchor: In an incredibly rare move, the team decided not to put in any economic loss claims, despite having a viable claim for upwards of $7 million in lost wages and $1 million in medical bills. Focus groups showed that highlighting the huge financial loss actually made the jury nitpick the plaintiff’s career and feel “hopeless” about his terminal status.
  • The “Purple Box” Strategy: By removing the economics, the attorneys “stripped” the defense of their ability to argue over speculation or numbers, forcing them to fight on the ground where the defense was weakest: liability.
  • The “Fearless” Cross: Kieran Murphy conducted a tactful cross-examination of the retired PCP, using her own records to show she didn’t understand how to use the electronic medical record (EMR) system to properly notify patients of critical results.

The Closing Argument

The closing argument emphasized the “human loss” and the value of the 25 years of life that were taken from Mr. Brown.

  • The Iceberg Analogy: The team used an image of an iceberg to represent the client’s damages—noting that while he appeared healthy in the courtroom, the vast majority of his pain and loss remained hidden beneath the surface.
  • The “Selfish” Choice: Katie Bertram highlighted a poignant moment from the trial where Brown testified that he felt “selfish” choosing to take a nap instead of visiting his mother. This small anecdote was used to illustrate how the diagnosis changed every relationship and waking moment of his life.
  • The Anchor: Under DC law, which allows attorneys to suggest numbers, the team anchored the jury with a range of $20 million to $28 million.

The Verdict

The jury deliberated for just over five hours before returning a significant award.

  • The Award: $25 million (rendered as a single-line verdict for all non-economic harms).
  • The Reaction: The verdict provided a profound sense of closure for Mr. Brown, who shared a tearful, relieved embrace with his legal team – a moment Katie Bertram described as one of the most rewarding of her 35-year career.

Need to refer a medical malpractice or personal injury case in Pennsylvania?

Lupetin and Unatin, Attorneys at Law, handle catastrophic injury and medical malpractice cases in Pennsylvania. If you are interested in co-counseling, local counseling, or referring a case, visit our attorney referral page.

What can we help you find?

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors