Medical Malpractice Defense

No one wants to face lit­i­ga­tion. No one wants to nav­i­gate the con­fus­ing and often unset­tling world of lawyers and judges. But some­times lit­i­ga­tion is unavoid­able. In these cas­es, the skill and expe­ri­ence of the med­ical mal­prac­tice attor­neys at Tiemeier & Stich is unpar­al­leled. Effec­tive, respon­sive and dili­gent, we have defend­ed a wide array of cas­es for prac­ti­tion­ers of many spe­cial­ties, help­ing clients get from point A to point B in the most effi­cient man­ner pos­si­ble. Some­times that means achiev­ing the best out­come by quick­ly set­tling a case. Oth­er times, those results might only be won at tri­al. Either way, we work close­ly with the physi­cians and prac­tices we rep­re­sent, using our long-stand­ing rela­tion­ships in the med­ical com­mu­ni­ty to retain well-known physi­cian experts and to under­stand every aspect of the med­ical details that are involved. Greg Tiemeier, in par­tic­u­lar, is wide­ly known and respect­ed around the coun­try for his more than two decades worth of exper­tise and suc­cess in oph­thal­mol­o­gy cas­es.

No one wants to face lit­i­ga­tion. No one wants to nav­i­gate the con­fus­ing and often unset­tling world of lawyers and judges. But some­times lit­i­ga­tion is unavoid­able. In these cas­es, the skill and expe­ri­ence of the med­ical mal­prac­tice attor­neys at Tiemeier & Stich is unpar­al­leled. Effec­tive, respon­sive and dili­gent, we have defend­ed a wide array of cas­es for prac­ti­tion­ers of many spe­cial­ties, help­ing clients get from point A to point B in the most effi­cient man­ner pos­si­ble. Some­times that means achiev­ing the best out­come by quick­ly set­tling a case. Oth­er times, those results might only be won at tri­al. Either way, we work close­ly with the physi­cians and prac­tices we rep­re­sent, using our long-stand­ing rela­tion­ships in the med­ical com­mu­ni­ty to retain well-known physi­cian experts and to under­stand every aspect of the med­ical details that are involved. Greg Tiemeier, in par­tic­u­lar, is wide­ly known and respect­ed around the coun­try for his more than two decades worth of exper­tise and suc­cess in oph­thal­mol­o­gy cas­es.

Recent Results

  • With­ers v. Ander­sen. Lead coun­sel with Dan Mauk in fail­ure to diag­nose epidur­al hematoma on MRI, result­ing in par­tial paral­y­sis. Two-week tri­al before Judge Cross in Ara­pa­hoe Coun­ty result­ed in defense ver­dict. Plaintiff’s coun­sel Pene­lope Clor and Mike Kane. Sep­tem­ber 26 to Octo­ber 8, 2015.

  • Bar­rett v. Roe. Solo tri­al defend­ing Dr. Roe in alleged fail­ure to prompt­ly treat retained lens frag­ment after com­pli­cat­ed cataract (4+) surgery. One-week tri­al before Judge Jones in Den­ver Dis­trict Court result­ed in defense ver­dict. Plaintiff’s coun­sel Jerome V. Porter. June 15–19, 2015.

  • McGill v. Bat­ten­house. Lead defense coun­sel with Dan Mauk and Co-defense coun­sel Writer Mott and Rebec­ca Klymkows­ki of Ara­pa­hoe Coun­ty Attorney’s office in prison health case, fail­ure to diag­nose pon­tine stroke. Two-week tri­al before Judge Jack­son in Fed­er­al Dis­trict Court result­ed in $12 mil­lion ver­dict for plain­tiff (the mat­ter was resolved after tri­al pur­suant to agree­ment). Eri­ka Gross­man, Anna Hol­land Edwards, plaintiff’s coun­sel. Decem­ber 1–12, 2014.

  • Moore v. Rich­heimer. Solo tri­al defend­ing Dr. Rich­heimer in alleged fail­ure to time­ly diag­nose reti­nal detach­ment fol­low­ing cataract surgery, result­ing in com­plete vision loss in one eye. One-week tri­al before Judge Eliff in Den­ver Dis­trict Court result­ed in defense ver­dict. Jere­my Cave, plaintiff’s attor­ney. Sep­tem­ber 3–9, 2013.

  • Czar­ni­ak v. 20/20 Insti­tute. Co-Coun­sel with Scott Las­sater and Randy Sego defend­ing 20/20 Insti­tute in case alleg­ing mal­prac­tice for enter­ing wrong data in the excimer laser (increas­ing the astig­ma­tism to +7.00), and an adver­tis­ing claim for vio­la­tion of the Col­orado Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion Act. Neg­li­gence was admit­ted for the incor­rect data entry, but dam­ages and the fraud­u­lent adver­tis­ing claim were dis­put­ed. Plaintiff’s low­est set­tle­ment demand before and dur­ing tri­al was $1.0 mil­lion. Two-week jury tri­al before Judge Matsch in Fed­er­al Dis­trict Court in Den­ver result­ed in a $66,030 award to the plain­tiff on the admit­ted neg­li­gence claim. Ver­dict for 20/20 on the fraud­u­lent adver­tis­ing claim. Todd Krouner, Dianne Car­li­no and Kei­th Cross, Plaintiff’s attor­neys. April 29- June 9, 2013.

  • In Novem­ber of 2012, Mr. Tiemeier defend­ed an oph­thal­mol­o­gist and optometrist for alleged fail­ure to diag­nose and delay in refer­ral of a pitu­itary tumor in a 44-year-old-man, result­ing in apoplexy and bilat­er­al blind­ness. After a two week tri­al in El Paso Coun­ty Dis­trict Court, the jury returned a com­plete defense ver­dict with­in two hours.

    In May of 2012, Mr. Tiemeier suc­cess­ful­ly defend­ed an urgent care physi­cian for alleged neg­li­gence in fail­ing to prop­er­ly and time­ly treat and refer an eye ulcer which devel­oped into a corneal infec­tion requir­ing corneal trans­plant. After a 7‑day tri­al in Dou­glas Coun­ty Dis­trict Court, the jury found in favor of the defen­dant.

  • In Jan­u­ary of 2012, a patient lit­i­gat­ed a case against a Fam­i­ly Prac­tice spe­cial­ist for severe post­par­tum hem­or­rhage result­ing in mother’s car­diac arrest and sub­se­quent coma, with result­ing brain injuries. The hos­pi­tal set­tled pri­or to tri­al. The plain­tiff alleged fail­ure to pro­vide prop­er pre­na­tal care, ass­es as “high-risk” patient, prop­er­ly and time­ly treat the uter­ine bleed­ing and obtain con­sul­ta­tion and refer­ral to obstetrician/gynecologist. Mr. Tiemeier suc­cess­ful­ly defend­ed this two week jury tri­al in Adams Coun­ty Dis­trict Court.

  • In April of 2009, an unhap­py LASIK patient lit­i­gat­ed a case against an oph­thal­mol­o­gist, with Mr. Tiemeier defend­ing. After a one week tri­al in Den­ver Coun­ty, the jury returned a defense ver­dict in under 25 min­utes. The Judge award­ed costs, which were col­lect­ed.

  • In August of 2008, Mr. Tiemeier suc­cess­ful­ly defend­ed a local oph­thal­mol­o­gist in an action brought by a patient after an unsuc­ces­ful retrob­ul­bar injec­tion pri­or to cataract surgery. The Dou­glas Coun­ty jury returned a defense ver­dict for his client in 22 min­utes, and costs were award­ed against the plain­tiff in excess of $30,000.