Cy Goldberg, Warren Holland and Claire Neiger successfully obtained a nonsuit verdict on behalf of two (2) physicians and a hospital in a Philadelphia County medical malpractice action involving allegations of permanent brain damage, cognitive disability, sleep deprivation, depression and severe restless leg syndrome. The plaintiff, a physician formerly employed by the defendant-hospital, alleged that the defendants failed to order and follow up on necessary blood work after he underwent gastric bypass surgery in 2006. According to the plaintiff, the failure to obtain blood work led to iron deficiency which led to brain damage, restless leg syndrome and sleep deprivation. The plaintiff further alleged that as a result of his impairments, he could no longer practice medicine and was terminated from his position as a physician and educator at the defendant-hospital. The plaintiff and his wife sought approximately two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) in past and future wage loss as well as significant damages for past and future non-economic damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium. Over the course of five (5) days of trial before the Honorable Judge Lisa Rau, the plaintiff called multiple expert witnesses to opine on the applicable standard of care, causation and economic damages. The plaintiff also called several fact witnesses and treating physicians to testify regarding his condition both before and after his bariatric surgery. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, the GMR team successfully argued that a nonsuit should be entered in favor of the defense because the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the defendant-physicians breached the applicable standard of care. The GMR team noted that it was undisputed that the defendant-physicians ordered the necessary tests and made repeated attempts to follow up with the plaintiff. Because the plaintiff could offer no excuse as to why he failed to heed the defendant-physicians’ orders, the Court granted the defendants’ motion and entered a nonsuit against the plaintiff. The Court further noted that in addition to the plaintiff’s failure to offer any evidence regarding a breach of the standard of care, a nonsuit was appropriate because, as a matter of law, the plaintiff knew or should have known that he had a potential cause of action more than two (2) years prior to filing suit and thus violated the applicable statute of limitations.