Inside a $207 Million Verdict: What Every Physician Should Know About Malpractice Trials
The Doctors’ Lounge · Aug 13, 2026 · 1:03:17
The Doctors’ Lounge · Aug 13, 2026 · 1:03:17
Listen in the Podli app 🎧
Follow your favourite podcasts, listen offline and in the car with CarPlay and Android Auto, and always pick up where you left off. Free to try.
Episode Summary
In 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 Markers
00:19 Special Tuesday episode and guest introduction: Heather Tereshko
03:22 Heather's background in malpractice defense
05:40 The $207M Penn verdict: how the case started
09:20 Why this is a typical "bad baby" case
11:49 EMR drop-downs and documentation gaps at the center of the case
14:45 The cord blood dispute and the mechanism-of-injury fight
16:01 Judge excludes key testimony on the blood draw
18:33 Inside the verdict slip: factual cause vs. increased risk of harm
25:50 Why "increased risk of harm" doesn't fit this case
27:20 The "team theory" of liability and how the verdict sheet was structured
31:39 Breaking down the $207M damages award
33:06 The life expectancy fight: 29 years vs. 70 years
36:20 Anchoring tactics and the Jalen Hurts salary comparison
39:21 How contingency fees work in Pennsylvania
42:04 "There's no winning": defensive medicine and no-win scenarios
45:14 When health system interests diverge from the individual physician's
46:25 Downstream effects: why community hospitals drop OB services
47:39 No-fault alternatives: New Zealand and Florida's birth injury fund
51:57 Expert witness accountability — or the lack of it
55:58 Venue selection and how it reshaped Philadelphia verdicts
59:04 Damage caps and why economic damages remain unbounded
1:01:54 What physicians can realistically lobby for
1:06:06 Closing thoughts
Substack 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-medical
Penn verdict case breakdown post: https://anishkokamd.substack.com/p/twelve-people-three-hours-a-207-million
Co-Host Handles
@anish_koka and @drdigiorgio
Show Handle
@drsloungepod
Subscribe Links
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/44vw8eirsKKnjgNIrdDvrR
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-doctors-lounge/id1832097658
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheDoctorsLoungePod
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
