Marathon Runner Paralyzed After Childbirth Stroke Wins $35.4 Million Verdict Against Dedham Medical
Won by Lubin & Meyer.
A Norfolk Superior Court jury awarded Andrea Larkin $35.4 million after finding that Dedham Medical Associates failed to document a known brain abnormality, leaving her obstetrician unaware of a condition that made vaginal delivery dangerous.
What happened
In 2004, Andrea Larkin was a competitive marathon runner living in Walpole, Massachusetts. After running the Boston Marathon that year, she developed dizzy spells and went to Dedham Medical Associates, where Dr. Jehane Johnston ordered an MRI and a CAT scan. The imaging revealed brain abnormalities that, under standard protocol, required Johnston to enter Larkin into a registry of patients with certain conditions, so that any future treating physician could access the information.
Johnston never made that entry. Larkin recovered from her symptoms, continued her life, and became pregnant. When she went into labor in 2008, her obstetrician had no knowledge of the brain findings from four years earlier. That information would have triggered a cesarean section. Instead, Larkin delivered vaginally. Within hours of giving birth to her daughter Alexa, she suffered a massive stroke.
Larkin woke from a medically induced coma unable to walk, speak, or eat. By the time of trial, she retained movement only in her right arm and required around-the-clock care. Her family had spent more than $200,000 per year on out-of-pocket care costs. She had been a teacher before the stroke.
Benjamin Novotny of Lubin and Meyer took the case to trial in Norfolk Superior Court. The theory was straightforward: a single administrative failure, Dr. Johnston omitting Larkin from the patient registry, set off a chain of events that stripped a healthy 35-year-old woman of her ability to move, speak, and care for her newborn child.
In May 2015, the jury returned a verdict of $35.4 million. With pre-judgment interest, the total judgment came to just over $41 million. Dedham Medical Associates stated it disagreed with the finding and intended to pursue available legal measures, but no reduction was reported in coverage at the time of the verdict.
Sources
This account is drawn from contemporaneous public reporting and the court record.