Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Leslie Jill Mieth v. Yorktown Health and Diagnostic
Date: 06-28-2008
Case Number: Unknown
Judge: Robert Barnet, Jr.
Court: Circuit Court, Delaware County, Indiana
Plaintiff's Attorney: Scott Starr, Logansport, Indiana
Defendant's Attorney: Unknown
Description:
Leslie Jill Mieth sued Yorktown Health and Diagnostic and others for failing to properly diagnose and treat a malignant melanoma cancer on her foot. She claimed that defendants failed to have appropriate pathological examination of tissue removed from her foot in 2002. Plaintiff claimed that Mohammed S. Bahrami, then practicing at Yorktown Health and Diagnostic, removed a tumor from Jill Mieth's left foot on Aug. 23, 2002. The tumor was not sent to a pathology lab for testing as planned, and the patient was never informed of that oversight. A second tumor removed from Mieth's foot by a podiatrist in September 2003 tested positive for malignant melanoma.
She claimed that the care that she received was below the standard of care.
She claimed that the care that she received was below the standard of care.
The defenses asserted by defendants are not available.
Outcome:
Plaintiff's verdict for $3.25 million.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Unknown
Defendant's Experts:
Unknown
Comments:
Editor's Note: The maximum amount that Plaintiff will be awarded in Indiana may be $1.25 million.
About This Case
What was the outcome of Leslie Jill Mieth v. Yorktown Health and Diagnostic?
The outcome was: Plaintiff's verdict for $3.25 million.
Which court heard Leslie Jill Mieth v. Yorktown Health and Diagnostic?
This case was heard in Circuit Court, Delaware County, Indiana, IN. The presiding judge was Robert Barnet, Jr..
Who were the attorneys in Leslie Jill Mieth v. Yorktown Health and Diagnostic?
Plaintiff's attorney: Scott Starr, Logansport, Indiana. Defendant's attorney: Unknown.
When was Leslie Jill Mieth v. Yorktown Health and Diagnostic decided?
This case was decided on June 28, 2008.