Thursday, August 31st, 2017
Gentry Locke for the Defense
Circuit Court for the County of Richmond
Gentry Locke successfully represented property owners in a zoning dispute. The County’s zoning administrator approved plans for the property owners to build a two-story garage on their property, and the zoning administrator certified that the plans fully complied with the County’s Zoning Ordinance. However, unbeknownst to the property owners, the zoning administrator did not review the zoning application or the building plans. In good faith reliance on the zoning administrator’s certification of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, the property owners built the garage. Several months after construction was completed, the County claimed that the garage did not comply with the height restrictions in the Zoning Ordinance, and brought an enforcement action against the property owners.
The trial court ruled that the property owners were entitled to relief under Virginia Code § 15.2-2311(C). That statute provides that a decision or determination by the zoning administrator cannot be modified after 60 days when the property owner reasonably relies in good faith upon that determination to his detriment. The trial court held that the property owners were entitled to the safe harbor created under Virginia Code § 15.2-2311(C) because they relied in good faith upon the erroneous determination by the zoning administrator. The County appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
On August 31, 2017, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The court held that the property owners had a vested right to the use of their property in violation of a zoning ordinance where they relied in good faith upon a determination of the zoning administrator that the building plans complied with the zoning ordinance.
Board of Supervisors of Richmond County v. Rhoads, 294 Va. 43 (2017).
Saturday, August 5th, 2017
Gentry Locke for the Plaintiff
Fairfax County Circuit Court
Karen Ebersole was 55 years old when a right middle cerebral artery bifurcation aneurysm was incidentally found on MRI. She was a candidate for both neurosurgical and neuro-endovascular intervention. She ultimately chose to pursue a neuro-endovascular “coiling” procedure to be performed by the defendant doctor. Ironically, the defendant doctor was one of the partners at Fairfax Radiological Consultants, Ms. Ebersole’s long-time employer. The procedure was performed on May 6, 2013 under general anesthesia. The paralytic drug rocuronium was used for paralysis at the beginning of the procedure to facilitate intubation. The plan was to place coils inside the aneurysm and use a balloon catheter as a scaffolding to prevent the coils from falling out of the aneurysm while they were being placed.
Up until 2:23pm everything went as expected. However, at approximately 2:27pm, Karen “moved” on the table. At 2:29pm, angiography revealed a massive MCA laceration outside of the aneurysm (not in the aneurysm).
Each of the two defendants in this matter, the surgeon and the anesthesiologist, blamed each other for Karen moving and for causing Karen’s death.
The defendant doctor, the interventional neuroradiologist, testified that Karen “bucked and jerked, lifting her head at least 6-8 inches off the table.” He told his partner (who was observing the procedure) that Karen was “light on anesthesia.” As evidence, he pointed to the fact that Dr. Nguyen (anesthesiologist) re-dosed the paralytic drug rocuronium immediately after the alleged bucking and jerking. After the procedure, the defendant doctor told the family that Karen was “light on anesthesia” and that this caused his balloon catheter to ram forward through the MCA distal to the aneurysm, causing a massive laceration.
Dr. Dung Nguyen, the anesthesiologist, testified that Karen’s head was tightly taped to the table and could not have moved. He testified “that head never moved one millimeter”, and “no one touched that head” (to re-tape it after she moved), and that the defendant doctor’s story was “fiction.” He also testified that during the procedure after the MCA injury, he called his risk manager, Dr. Steven Lussos, to ask what he should do. Dr. Lussos came to the cath lab and took a picture on his cell phone of Karen lying on the table during the procedure. This photo showed that her head was “pristine,” and properly/tightly taped to the table such that it could not have moved 6-8 inches off the table. After the procedure, Dr. Nguyen refused to ever work with the defendant doctor again.
Gentry Locke attorneys called every witness who was in the room during the procedure. No one saw the alleged “bucking and jerking lifting her head at least 6-8 inches off the table.” Everyone saw some minor movement of the legs. Several witnesses testified that immediately prior to the movement of the legs, the defendant doctor was “test inflating” the balloon inside of Karen’s head. Though he denied this, we had objective radiographic evidence showing that he had, in fact, done so.
It turned out that this was a brand new balloon that inflated/deflated differently than other balloons. This was the defendant doctor’s first time using this balloon on a human being, and it was brought to the cath lab by a Stryker product representative (who was present for the procedure but mysteriously vanished when it came time for depositions).
In his case, Dr. Nguyen called two anesthesiologists who testified that no one else saw what the defendant doctor claimed, and that “you would have to be blind, deaf, and an idiot to not see the patient buck and jerk 2-3 times lifting her head 6-8 inches off the table.” They also testified that the defendant doctor’s story was scientifically unsupportable.
Dr. Nguyen also called interventional neuroradiologist Dr. Mary Jensen who ultimately conceded that Karen’s death was the result of overinflation of the balloon by the defendant doctor, and that the defendant doctor used the balloon contrary to the manufacturer’s clear warnings and instructions.
The jury deliberated for about 6 hours. The jury awarded $3.37M to each of her adult children, plus medical expenses, funeral expenses, and interest from the date of death. This amounted to $7,000,779.83 pre-interest, or roughly $8,767,776.66 with interest. According to Virginia Lawyers Weekly, this award was the largest jury verdict amount awarded in Virginia in 2017.
Monday, April 3rd, 2017
Gentry Locke for the Plaintiff
Gentry Locke represented a two-year-old girl and her mother’s estate. The girl was riding with her mother and father when their car collided with another car. There was evidence that both drivers had been drinking and one was speeding. Tragically, both of the girl’s parents died in the crash, as well as the driver of the other car. The girl suffered injuries as did the two passengers in the other car.
The estate of the driver of the other car and his insurance company blamed the girl’s mother and grandmother for allowing the girl to ride with her father after he had been drinking. Our clients denied they were blameworthy. Of the available insurance coverage of $1 million for claims of the injured individuals and estates of the deceased, our clients received a total of $920,000 in settlement funds. The court approved this settlement, and all phases of these suits are now concluded.
Friday, January 27th, 2017
Gentry Locke for the Plaintiff
Pulaski County Circuit Court
The driver of a truck on I-81 in Pulaski County rear-ended our client’s car when traffic had come to a stop. He was unable to stop in time as a result of not paying attention to traffic conditions.
As a result of his inattentive driving, our client suffered injuries to her neck and back. Attorneys for the truck driver claimed that her injuries were the result of extensive pre-existing conditions and were not caused by the crash. Despite the dispute over the cause of the injuries, the defense settled the case for $125,000 following depositions of the parties.
Lloyd J. Eisenberg of Maryland was co-counsel on the case.
Wednesday, December 14th, 2016
Gentry Locke for the Defense
Montgomery County Circuit Court, then Supreme Court of Virginia
Gentry Locke defended two subcontractors, along with their performance bond surety companies, against a claim by a general contractor related to a construction project at Virginia Tech. The project was completed in the late 1990s. Virginia Tech pursued a claim for defective work against the general contractor and resolved that dispute for a $3 million settlement. The general contractor then pursued a claim for breach of contract and indemnification against several subcontractors and sureties. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the statute of limitations had run on any claims that the general contractor had against the subcontractors and sureties, and that there was not a valid claim for indemnification.
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2016
Our client was neurologically intact when he was admitted for evaluation to an acute care hospital for possibly unstable cervical fractures. An in-hospital fall caused tetraplegia (a type of paralysis) and a traumatic brain injury. Our attorneys were prepared to present evidence showing that the assigned nurses deviated from the standard of care by not identifying our client as a high falls risk, and by not putting in place high falls risk interventions and injury precautions, including a bed alarm set at the correct sensitivity level.
Friday, November 4th, 2016
Gentry Locke for the Plaintiff
County Circuit Court located in northern Virginia
Gentry Locke represented a woman in her early 40s who underwent a wisdom tooth removal performed by a general dentist. She suffered a permanent nerve injury during the extraction, which she contended resulted from the dentist failing to refer her to an oral surgeon for the procedure. Our client’s experts contended that the removal was too complex for a general dentist to undertake and that the standard of care required referral to an expert in the field of extractions. Had such a referral been made, the tooth would have been extracted without injury to the nerve. Medical experts for the client demonstrated that the nerve injury is permanent. Unfortunately, nothing can be done to correct the injury and the client will require treatment for her symptoms for the rest of her life. After extensive litigation, the case resolved for a confidential amount shortly before trial.
Thursday, August 4th, 2016
Gentry Locke for the Defense
U.S. District Court, Western District, Roanoke Division, VA
The plaintiff sued her former employer, a non-profit, alleging sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation. All claims except for the hostile work environment were dismissed prior to trial. Our client, the employer, denied that harassment occurred and maintained that they were not notified of any harassment until shortly before the employee quit. After a three-day trial, the jury found that the plaintiff had been subjected to a hostile work environment by co-workers but not by the supervisor. The jury also agreed that the employer had no knowledge of the harassment prior to the plaintiff’s abrupt resignation, and a defense verdict was obtained.
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016
Gentry Locke for the Appellee
Circuit Court of Carroll County and the Court of Appeals of Virginia
In a divorce appeal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia has affirmed a trial court’s ruling that the husband deserted the marriage. The desertion finding was supported by evidence that the husband belittled his wife, placed demands on her that she could not meet, and voluntarily left the marriage. The Court also refused the husband a credit for mortgage and car payments he made after the separation. Finally, the Court of Appeals granted our client’s request that the husband pay her attorney’s fees and costs for the appeal. The case is Mabe v. Mabe, 2016 Va. App. LEXIS 185 (2016).
Tuesday, July 19th, 2016
Gentry Locke for the Defense
Giles County Circuit Court
Gentry Locke successfully defended a multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit filed by a former Narrows High School principal against The Virginian-Leader, the local Giles County newspaper.
The mayor of the Town of Narrows wrote a letter to the editor, in his private capacity, which was published by the The Virginian-Leader.
In fall 2015, the former principal filed a 23 count lawsuit claiming, among other charges, defamation. Gentry Locke represented The Virginian-Leader; the mayor was represented by separate counsel.
The Court found that the statements at issue were not defamatory, which was fatal to all claims.
