State appeals court upholds verdict in 2017 Excela stent cases; several others still pending in court system |

State appeals court upholds verdict in 2017 Excela stent cases; several others still pending in court system

Rich Cholodofsky
Excela Health Westmoreland Hospital in Greensburg

A state appellate court affirmed a 2017 Westmoreland County jury verdict that cleared a doctor and Excela Health of wrongdoing for implanting cardiac stents into a patient who claimed they were unnecessary.

The appeal involved a lawsuit filed by a North Huntingdon man who claimed five of the seven stents he received in 2008 during three procedures at Excela Health Westmoreland Hospital in Greensburg were not medically required. One procedure resulted in life-threatening complications, the lawsuit claimed.

Stents are mesh tubes used to widen and improve blood flow in blocked arteries.

During the three-week trial, lawyers for Steven Sensenich contended Dr. Ehab Morcos intentionally pressured his patient to have cardiac procedures he did not need and that the hospital was aware of the over stenting and did not promptly seek to stop them from occurring.

Sensenich challenged the jury verdict and claimed that Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court Judge Anthony Marsili, who presided over the trial, gave faulty instructions to the jury. The jury deliberated one hour before ruling in favor of the doctor and hospital.

The three-judge panel of the Superior Court ruled the error did not impact the verdict.

“Although the instruction should not have been given at all, the jury was told that it did not apply to claims of unnecessary stenting. The jury rejected Mr. Sensenich’s claim that the stenting procedures were unnecessary when it specifically found that Dr. Morcos did not fail to obtain informed consent, did not commit a battery, and was not negligent in his treatment of Mr. Sensenich,” according to the Superior Court decision.

Sensenich’s lawsuit was the first of more than 100 cases filed against Morcos, his partner, Dr. George Bou Samra, and Excela.

Excela in early 2011 sent letters to 192 patients disclosing they may have received unnecessary stents from Morcos and Bou Samra in 2009 and 2010. Sensenich’s cardiac procedures were the year prior and not part of Excela’s disclosure.

Most of the lawsuits filed against the doctors and Excela have been settled out of court.

Deputy Court Administrator Carol Petrosky said 45 lawsuits were still pending at the end of January. Attorney Victor Pribanic, who represented Sensenich, is the lawyer of record for all but one of the remaining lawsuits. He said he expects another three or four consolidated cases to go to trial, possibly this year.

“I continue to contend the conduct of the physicians and hospital were deplorable,” Pribanic said.

Excela spokeswoman Robin Jennings, in an email Thursday, said the hospital will not comment on pending legal cases.

Meanwhile, Petrosky said it is unclear when the remaining stent cases would be addressed in court. Marsili has retired, and a new judge has not been assigned to oversee the cases. Marsili, who is working part-time as a senior judge, could be called in to hear any motions filed, she said.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.