Inside a $207 Million Verdict: What Every Physician Should Know About Malpractice Trials

Send us Fan MailEpisode SummaryIn a special Tuesday episode, Anish Koka and Anthony DiGiorgio sit down with Heather Tereshko, a Principal at Post & Schell in Philadelphia and a 25-year veteran of medical malpractice defense, to break down the largest medical malpractice verdict in Pennsylvania history — a $207 million judgment against the University of Pennsylvania stemming from a delayed C-section and resulting anoxic brain injury. Using the case as a launching pad, the three walk through how verdict slips are constructed, why Pennsylvania's "increased risk of harm" standard makes cases easier for plaintiffs to win, how EMR documentation gets weaponized against physicians on the stand, how life-care-plan and non-economic damages get inflated (including "anchoring" tactics like invoking Jalen Hurts's salary), and why juries so often disregard clinical guidelines in favor of narrative and sympathy. The conversation closes with a practical, if sobering, discussion of what physicians could realistically lobby for — tighter expert witness standards, damage caps, and organized legislative pressure — and why none of it is coming easily.Chapter Markers00:19 Special Tuesday episode and guest introduction: Heather Tereshko03:22 Heather's background in malpractice defense05:40 The $207M Penn verdict: how the case started09:20 Why this is a typical "bad baby" case11:49 EMR drop-downs and documentation gaps at the center of the case14:45 The cord blood dispute and the mechanism-of-injury fight16:01 Judge excludes key testimony on the blood draw18:33 Inside the verdict slip: factual cause vs. increased risk of harm25:50 Why "increased risk of harm" doesn't fit this case27:20 The "team theory" of liability and how the verdict sheet was structured31:39 Breaking down the $207M damages award33:06 The life expectancy fight: 29 years vs. 70 years36:20 Anchoring tactics and the Jalen Hurts salary comparison39:21 How contingency fees work in Pennsylvania42:04 "There's no winning": defensive medicine and no-win scenarios45:14 When health system interests diverge from the individual physician's46:25 Downstream effects: why community hospitals drop OB services47:39 No-fault alternatives: New Zealand and Florida's birth injury fund51:57 Expert witness accountability — or the lack of it55:58 Venue selection and how it reshaped Philadelphia verdicts59:04 Damage caps and why economic damages remain unbounded1:01:54 What physicians can realistically lobby for1:06:06 Closing thoughtsSubstack References (Dr. Anish Koka)Referenced during the episode — Anish's Substack posts on the Pennsylvania medical malpractice market and on the Penn ($207M) verdict:PA malpractice market / NAIC data post: https://anishkokamd.substack.com/p/pennsylvania-had-a-functioning-medicalPenn verdict case breakdown post: https://anishkokamd.substack.com/p/twelve-people-three-hours-a-207-millionCo-Host Handles@anish_koka and @drdigiorgioShow Handle@drsloungepodSubscribe LinksSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/44vw8eirsKKnjgNIrdDvrRApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-doctors-lounge/id1832097658YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheDoctorsLoungePod🔗 Connect with the Hosts:• Dutch Rojas on X• Dr. Anthony DiGiorgio on X• Dr. Anish Koka on X• Dr. Dan Choi on X• Dr. Sanat Dixit on X