Example Cerebral Palsy Complaint in Pennsylvania Part 7 of 8

  1. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that utero-placental insufficiency, IUGR, and gestational hypertension could be fatal to Ms. Plaintiff’s twins (including Baby Plaintiff).
  2. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that utero-placental insufficiency, IUGR, and gestational hypertension could cause serious permanent injury, including, but not limited to, permanent organ damage and brain injury to Ms. Plaintiff’s twins (including Baby Plaintiff).
  3. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that high-risk pregnancy patients such as Ms. Plaintiff who are suffering from pregnancy complications such as utero-placental insufficiency, IUGR, and gestational hypertension require continuous monitoring and surveillance for worsening of their condition and signs and symptoms of fetal hypoxia and injury.
  4. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that high-risk pregnancy patients such as Ms. Plaintiff who are suffering from pregnancy complications such as utero-placental insufficiency, IUGR, and gestational hypertension require a competent nursing staff skilled at identifying, recognizing, documenting, and communicating to other healthcare providers when a high-risk patient pregnancy with twins is experiencing signs and symptoms of utero-placental insufficiency, IUGR, gestational hypertension, fetal hypoxia, and fetal injury.
  5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it needed to select and retain competent nurses who were properly trained to identify, recognize, document, and to communicate with other healthcare providers signs and symptoms of utero-placental insufficiency, IUGR, gestational hypertension, fetal hypoxia, and fetal injury.
  6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to select and retain competent nurses that could identify, recognize, document, and communicate with other healthcare providers fetal heart strip abnormalities, including, but not limited to, late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity.
  7. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to develop policies, procedures, protocols, guidelines, order sets, and training materials regarding the interpretation of fetal heart strips and fetal heart strip abnormalities, including, but not limited to late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity.
  8. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to develop policies, procedures, protocols, guidelines, order sets, and training materials for nurses and physicians regarding identifying and communicating to other healthcare providers when a high-risk twin patient pregnancy with twins is experiencing signs and symptoms of pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency.
  9. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to develop policies, procedures, protocols, guidelines, order sets, and training materials regarding treating high-risk twin pregnancy patients when they are experiencing signs and symptoms of pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency.
  10. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to develop policies, procedures, protocols, guidelines, order sets, and training materials regarding nurses going up the chain of command if a physician or another healthcare provider fails to adequately respond to a high-risk patient pregnant with twins who is experiencing pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency.
  11. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to develop policies, procedures, protocols, guidelines, order sets, and training materials regarding the supervision and training of physician residents and fellows who are caring for high-risk patients pregnant with twins who are suffering from complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency.
  12. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that the steroid betamethasone is required to be administered prior to birth in high-risk pregnancies to premature fetuses to develop the fetuses’ lungs and to prevent utero-placental insufficiency.
  13. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to develop policies, procedures, protocols, guidelines, order sets, and training materials to ensure that medications such as betamethasone, which are ordered for high-risk twin pregnancy patients, are actually administered to the patient to develop the baby’s lungs and prevent complications, such as utero-placental insufficiency.
  14. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it needed to select and retain competent physicians, residents, and fellows who were properly trained to identify, recognize, document, treat, and to communicate with other healthcare providers that a high risk pregnancy patient is experiencing signs and symptoms of utero-placental insufficiency, IUGR, gestational hypertension, fetal hypoxia, and fetal injury.
  15. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to select and retain competent physicians, residents, and fellows that could identify, document, and communicate to other healthcare providers fetal heart strip abnormalities, including, but not limited to, late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity.
  16. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to select and retain competent physicians, residents, and fellows that could properly treat a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who has fetal heart strip abnormalities, including, but not limited to, late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity.
  17. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to select and retain competent physicians, residents, and fellows that could identify the risk of harm to high risk twin pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff if they were prematurely discharged from the hospital when they were suffering from IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency.
  18. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to select and retain competent physicians to train and supervise physician residents and fellows in the performance of their duties in caring for high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff on June 16, 2017 until June 20, 2017.
  19. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to develop policies, procedures, protocols, guidelines, order sets, and training materials to ensure that physician residents and fellows were properly trained and supervised by attending physicians in the care and treat of high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff on June 16, 2017 until June 20, 2017.
  20. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to develop policies, procedures, protocols, guidelines, order sets, and training materials for the resolution of disputes between attending physicians and fellows regarding the care and treatment of high-risk pregnancy patients, such as Mother Plaintiff, and for the resolutions of such disputes in a manner that is safe for the patient.
  21. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that if Ms. Plaintiff was discharged from Stoneleigh Hospital on June 18, 2017 with her twins at approximately 34 weeks gestation, she would suffer a medical emergency necessitating an emergency delivery of her twins in the next week, which would result in one or both of her twins suffering death or hypoxic injury, including, but not limited to, a permanent brain injury and organ damage.
  22. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that if one or both of Ms. Plaintiff’s twins suffered a hypoxic injury prior to 35 weeks of gestation, the twins could not receive head and/or body cooling to prevent permanent neurological injury and/or permanent organ damage per Stoneleigh Hospital protocol.
  23. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that head and/or body cooling could prevent permanent neurological injury and organ damage to a child suffering from hypoxic injury, such as Baby Plaintiff on June 20, 2017.
  24. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that if Ms. Plaintiff was discharged from Stoneleigh Hospital on June 18, 2017, she and her twins would not be continuously monitored for worsening of her pregnancy complications, such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency.
  25. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that as of June 18, 2017, it was dangerous to discharge Ms. Plaintiff from Stoneleigh Hospital and to not continuously monitor her because of her pregnancy complications that created a high-risk for fetal death and/or permanent fetal neurological and physical injury.
  26. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that if Ms. Plaintiff was discharged from Stoneleigh Hospital on June 18, 2017, she would suffer a medical emergency in the next week requiring the immediate delivery of her twins while not admitted to the hospital, and that there would be a substantial delay in responding to this medical emergency because she not admitted to the hospital. As a result of this delay in delivery, Defendant GoodLife Health knew or should have known that Ms. Plaintiff’s twins would suffer hypoxia, permanent injury, or fetal death.
  27. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it was required to develop policies, procedures, protocols, guidelines, order sets, and training materials to ensure that high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who are approximately 34 weeks pregnant and suffering from pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency are not discharged from the hospital when there is a substantial danger that one or both twins will suffer fetal death or neurological damage and physical injury.
  28. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that Ms. Plaintiff twins were suffering hypoxia on June 20, 2017 and required an emergency cesarean section immediately upon her arrival to Stoneleigh Hospital in order to prevent fetal death, neurological damage, or organ damage.
  29. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that to comply with its obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) that it needed to select and retain competent physicians who were properly trained in obstetrics, gynecology, and maternal-fetal medicine and to supervise all persons such as the Defendants Dr. A and Dr. S who practice obstetrics, gynecology, and maternal-fetal medicine at GoodLife Medical Group, t/d/b/a GoodLife Maternal-Fetal Medicine locations and at Stoneleigh Hospital.
  30. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital had a duty to supervise the competence of its staff members through the use of safety supervisory tools such as clinical practice guidelines, rules, protocols, checklists, and standing orders that were designed to provide safe and appropriate planning for pregnant women, including assessing and identifying women that are safe to be discharged from the hospital and those that should be delivered and/or admitted for continuous monitoring.
  31. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital had the non-delegable duty and Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and Baby Plaintiff, had the right of patient safety supervision so as to ensure her and her twin’s safety and well-being while be treated at Stoneleigh Hospital on June 16, 2017 until June 18, 2017, and on June 20, 2017.
  32. Proper patient safety supervision by Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital was not performed because GoodLife health had deliberately and intentionally decided to violate the known legal duty to supervise all persons practicing medicine within the hospital to appease the licensed and trained professional including those charged with preventing hypoxic and permanent injury to high-risk pregnancy patients and their unborn twins. However, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that the need for patient safety supervision of the medical staff charged with preventing hypoxic and permanent injury to high-risk pregnancy patients and their unborn twins was necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who are suffering pregnancy complications.
  33. Because Stoneleigh Hospital performed no patient safety supervision, no safety assessment, safety checklist, and/or oversight procedures regarding the risks to patients such as Mother Plaintiff who were suffering from pregnancy complications was performed prior to her discharge from Stoneleigh Hospital on June 18, 2017. As a result, Ms. Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital on June 18, 2017 and her unborn twins were exposed to a substantial danger of fetal death and/or permanent neurological and physical injury.
  34. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that they had a duty to ensure the safety of Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) by selecting and retaining only competent nurses, physicians, residents, and fellows. This duty included, but was not limited to: 1) hiring only competent nurses and physicians that are properly trained to recognize and identify fetal heart strip abnormalities in a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 2) hiring only competent nurses that are properly trained to communicate with other healthcare providers, including physicians and charge nurses, when a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff is experiencing fetal heart strip abnormalities, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 3) hiring only competent nurses and physicians that are properly trained to treat a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff experiencing fetal heart strip abnormalities, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 4) hiring and training competent residents and fellows who know how to recognize, identify, and treat a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who is experiencing fetal heart strip abnormalities, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 5) hiring and training nurses and physicians that are competent in identifying and treating pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency in high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who are approximately 34 weeks pregnant with twins; 6) hiring and training physicians, fellows, and residents who are competent to identify and assess the risk associated with failing to continuously monitor and/or deliver a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who was approximately 34 weeks pregnant with twins and suffering from pregnancy complications on June 18, 2017; 7) hiring and training physicians, fellows, and residents who are competent in realizing when to not to discharge a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who is pregnant with twins and suffering pregnancy complications on June 18, 2017; and 8) hiring and training physicians, fellows, and residents who are competent in responding to a high-risk pregnancy patient’s need for an emergency cesarean section, such as the one required for Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017.
  35. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital was deliberately, recklessly, and negligently derelict in the performance of its legal duty to select and retain only competent nurses and physicians to protect high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who was pregnant with twins from hypoxic injury and/or fetal death. Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital was deliberately, recklessly, and negligently derelict in the performance of its legal duty by: 1) failing to hire only competent nurses and physicians that are properly trained to recognize and identify fetal heart strip abnormalities in a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 2) failing to hire only competent nurses that are properly trained to communicate with other healthcare providers, including physicians and charge nurses, when a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff is experiencing fetal heart strip abnormalities, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 3) failing to hire only competent nurses and physicians that are properly trained to treat a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff experiencing fetal heart strip abnormalities, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 4) failing to hire and train competent residents and fellows who know how to recognize, identify, and treat a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who is experiencing fetal heart strip abnormalities, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 5) failing to hire and train nurses and physicians that are competent in identifying and treating pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency in high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who are approximately 34 weeks pregnant with twins; 6) failing to hire and train physicians, fellows, and residents who are competent to identify and assess the risk associated with failing to continuously monitor and/or deliver a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who was approximately 34 weeks pregnant with twins and suffering from pregnancy complications on June 18, 2017; 7) failing to hire and train physicians, fellows, and residents who are competent in realizing when to not to discharge a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who is pregnant with twins and suffering pregnancy complications on June 18, 2017; and 8) failing to hire and train physicians, fellows, and residents who are competent in responding to a high-risk pregnancy patient’s need for an emergency cesarean section, such as the one required for Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017.
  36. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital had the legal duty to ensure Ms. Plaintiff and her unborn twin’s (including Baby Plaintiff) safety and well-being by formulating, adopting, and enforcing adequate rules and policies to prevent fetal death or hypoxic injury and organ damage, including permanent brain damage.
  37. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that they had the legal duty to ensure Ms. Plaintiff and her unborn twin’s (including Baby Plaintiff) safety and well-being by formulating, adopting, and enforcing adequate rules and policies to ensure quality of care for high-risk twin pregnancy patients who are at high-risk of fetal death or hypoxic injury and organ damage, including permanent brain damage. This duty included, but was not limited to: 1) having adequate policies and procedures for the hiring, selection, training, and supervision of physician fellows such as Dr. A in the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of high-risk pregnancy patients, such as Mother Plaintiff; 2) having adequate policies and procedures for the proper training and supervision of physician fellows such as Dr. A regarding the safe decision-making regarding discharging high risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff from the hospital on June 18, 2017 versus delivering her twins via cesarean section and/or admitting her to the hospital with continuous fetal heart monitoring; 3) having adequate policies and procedures in place regarding the safe discharge of high-risk pregnancy patients, such as Mother Plaintiff from Stoneleigh Hospital on June 18, 2017; 4) having and enforcing safety supervision tools such as clinical practice guidelines, rules, protocols, checklists, and standing orders that were designed to provide safe and appropriate planning for pregnant women, including assessing and identifying women that are safe to be discharged from the hospital and those that should be delivered and/or admitted for continuous monitoring such as Mother Plaintiff on June 18, 2017; 5) having adequate policies and procedures in place regarding the transportation via ambulance from the maternal-fetal medicine clinic at Apple Hill to Stoneleigh hospital for pregnant patients who are suffering a medical emergency such as Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017; 6) having policies and procedures in place to resolve disputes regarding patient management and care between maternal-fetal medicine supervising physicians and fellows; 7) having policies and procedures in place regarding fetal heart monitoring, including identifying, documenting, and communicating fetal heart abnormalities, including, but not limited to decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 8) having nursing policies and procedures in place regarding going up the chain of command when nurses disagree with a physician’s proposed plan of action; 9) having policies and procedures in place regarding the training and supervision of residents discharging patients, such as Dr. F discharging Mother Plaintiff on June 18, 2017; 10) having policies and procedures for communication between nurses and physicians regarding fetal heart rate abnormalities, such as late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 11) having policies and procedures for the proper administration of medications, including betamethasone, the second dose of which was not administered to Mother Plaintiff on June 18, 2017; 12) having policies and procedures in place for timely performing emergency cesarean sections, such as the one performed on Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017; 13) having proper policies and procedures in place for timely performing emergency cesarean sections; and 14) having proper policies and procedures in place for immediately placing patients on fetal heart monitors when arriving to Stoneleigh Hospital suffering medical emergencies related to the patient’s pregnancy, such as the emergency experience by Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017.
  38. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital was deliberately and recklessly derelict in the performance of their legal duty to prevent permanent hypoxic injury and brain damage to high risk twin pregnancy patients by failing to formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for patients, such as Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff). Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital’s dereliction of duty included the following: 1) failing to have adequate policies and procedures for the hiring, selection, training, and supervision of physician fellows such as Dr. A in the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of high-risk pregnancy patients, such as Mother Plaintiff; 2) failing to have adequate policies and procedures for the proper training and supervision of physician fellows such as Dr. A regarding the safe decision-making regarding discharging high risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff from the hospital on June 18, 2017 versus delivering her twins via cesarean section and/or admitting her to the hospital with continuous fetal heart monitoring; 3) failing to have adequate policies and procedures in place regarding the safe discharge of high-risk pregnancy patients, such as Mother Plaintiff from Stoneleigh Hospital on June 18, 2017; 4) failing to have and enforce safety supervision tools such as clinical practice guidelines, rules, protocols, checklists, and standing orders that were designed to provide safe and appropriate planning for pregnant women, including assessing and identifying women that are safe to be discharged from the hospital and those that should be delivered and/or admitted for continuous monitoring such as Mother Plaintiff on June 18, 2017; 5) failing to have adequate policies and procedures in place regarding the transportation via ambulance from the maternal-fetal medicine clinic at Apple Hill to Stoneleigh hospital for pregnant patients who are suffering a medical emergency such as Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017; 6) failing to have policies and procedures in place to resolve disputes regarding patient management and care between maternal-fetal medicine supervising physicians and fellows; 7) failing to have policies and procedures in place regarding fetal heart monitoring, including identifying, documenting, and communicating fetal heart abnormalities, including, but not limited to decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 8) failing to have nursing policies and procedures in place regarding going up the chain of command when nurses disagree with a physician’s proposed plan of action; 9) failing to have policies and procedures in place regarding the training and supervision of residents discharging patients, such as Dr. F discharging Mother Plaintiff on June 18, 2017; 10) failing to have policies and procedures for communication between nurses and physicians regarding fetal heart rate abnormalities, such as late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 11) failing to have policies and procedures for the proper administration of medications, including betamethasone, the second dose of which was not administered to Mother Plaintiff on June 18, 2017; 12) failing to have policies and procedures in place for timely performing emergency cesarean sections, such as the one performed on Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017; 13) failing to have proper policies and procedures in place for timely performing emergency cesarean sections; and 14) failing to have proper policies and procedures in place for immediately placing patients on fetal heart monitors when arriving to Stoneleigh Hospital suffering medical emergencies related to the patient’s pregnancy, such as the emergency experience by Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017.

Contact Us For a Free Consultation

1Free Consultation

2Available to talk NOW - 24/7

3No fees unless you WIN

Miller & Zois clients have received over $100 Million in verdicts and settlements. Let us fight for you!

Client Reviews

★★★★★
They quite literally worked as hard as if not harder than the doctors to save our lives. Terry Waldron
★★★★★
Ron helped me find a clear path that ended with my foot healing and a settlement that was much more than I hope for. Aaron Johnson
★★★★★
Hopefully I won't need it again but if I do, I have definitely found my lawyer for life and I would definitely recommend this office to anyone! Bridget Stevens
★★★★★
The last case I referred to them settled for $1.2 million. John Selinger
★★★★★
I am so grateful that I was lucky to pick Miller & Zois. Maggie Lauer
★★★★★
The entire team from the intake Samantha to the lawyer himself (Ron Miller) has been really approachable. Suzette Allen
★★★★★
The case settled and I got a lot more money than I expected. Ron even fought to reduce how much I owed in medical bills so I could get an even larger settlement. Nchedo Idahosa

Contact Us

Free Consultation (800) 553-8082 Call 24/7