-
$100 Million
Medical Malpractice
Largest-ever compensatory verdict
Read More... -
$153 Million
Then-second largest Product
Liability verdict in U.S. history
Read More... -
$38.2 Million
Delaware County
Auto Accident Verdict
Read More... -
$36.4 Million
Workplace Injury
Largest single-victim fatality settlement
Read More... -
$51 Million
Premises Liability/
Civil Rights verdict
Read More...
- Watch Here For Kline & Specter News Alerts
- Kline & Specter challenges Pa. government/school liability cap
- Kline & Specter Courtroom dedicated at Penn Law School
- Waldenberger wins $3M verdict in cancer case
- On TV ⇒The Kline & Specter Squash Center opens at Drexel University
- On TV ⇒ Specter: state should investigate power lines in Pennsylvania death
- Kline, Caputo win $14M verdict in Pennsbury school bus accident case
- On TV ⇒ Tom Kline interviewed on Penn State case by CNN, MSNBC ...
- Kline & Specter named No. 1 Product Liability Firm in the United States
- Tom Kline delivers keynote address at Bench-Bar convention
- $27.6M verdict upheld in promotional video case
- Specter, Safier, Williams win $17.5M med-mal verdict
- On TV ⇒ Shanin Specter comments on the Ellison case, CBS3
- Guerrini wins $15M verdict in teen's death
- Specter featured on Super Lawyers magazine cover
- Tom Kline again No. 1 in PA, firm has nine named Super Lawyers
- PA Superior Court panel upholds $8.75M Blumer verdict
- Kline & Specter wins largest-ever Erie personal injury verdict, $21.6M
- Michael Smerconish joins Kline & Specter
- On TV ⇒ Kline, Inscho, Baldwin obtain $1.8M in psychologist sex case
- Specter, Jones win $27.6 M verdict vs. medical device, video makers
- Kline & Specter named among Best Law Firms in U.S.
- Trunk, Zakeosian win $11.7 million against PHA and property manager
- Kline, Specter named among nation's 500 "Leading Lawyers"
- On TV ⇒ ESPN features the Plevretes case, Shanin Specter
- Tom Kline named Philadelphia Medical Malpractice Lawyer of the Year
- Best Lawyers names Tom Kline No. 1 Phila. personal injury attorney
- See more Kline & Specter stories in the news
Medical Malpractice Lawyers: The Murray Case
Philadelphia Pennsylvania

by Josh Goldstein
March 2, 2010
Penn hospital sued for allegedly turning away uninsured patient
A federal suit filed today charges the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania with refusing a patient because he lacked health insurance, causing an extended delay in care and then significant damage to his brain.
At 7.27 p.m. on May 2, 2008, Marcus Murray, 56, developed chest pain while driving in New Jersey and went to the emergency room at Underwood Memorial Hospital in Gloucester County. After a CAT scan identified a “complex aortic dissection,” efforts were made to transfer Murray, a contractor from Felton, Delaware, to Penn.
Medical records at Underwood indicate that at 10:54 p.m., Penn said it would take Murray and began to arrange for a helicopter to transport him, according to the complaint. Then at 11:50 p.m., an Underwood nurse wrote that Y. Joseph Woo, a heart surgeon at Penn, called and said they would not take Murray “due to no medical insurance,” the suit alleges.
“We received [the complaint] late yesterday and are reviewing our records,” Penn Medicine’s chief of staff Susan Phillips said in a statement. “However, we believe the complaint to be without merit.”
Thomas R. Kline, the lawyer who represents Murray and his wife, said that notes in the Underwood medical records clearly show that Penn “accepted and then refused the patient and refused on a very specific basis.”
The patient now is blind and has brain damage, Kline said.
The case was filed in federal court because, Kline said, in addition to involving medical negligence, the suit alleges that Penn violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act – or EMTALA.
“The statute reads like a legal prescription for what Penn cannot do, but did in this case,” Kline said.
The suit states, “the ‘reverse dumping’ section of EMTALA states that ‘a participating hospital that has specialized capabilities or facilities … shall not refuse to accept an appropriate transfer of an individual who requires such specialized capabilities of facilities if the hospital has the capacity to treat the individual.’”





























