YORK COUNTY, Pa. — In what has been described as a landmark ruling, a York County jury awarded a staggering $23.87 million to James Spangler, a 58-year-old man from Manchester, Pennsylvania, marking the largest medical malpractice payout in the history of the county. The verdict surpassed the previous record by more than triple, underscoring the severity of the errors made during a spinal surgery that left Spangler with severe disabilities.
In October 2019, Spangler checked into WellSpan York Hospital seeking relief from spinal stenosis, a painful condition that affects the spine. The procedure he underwent, known as a laminoplasty, was meant to alleviate his discomfort. Instead, it drastically altered the course of his life. According to his legal team, during the operation, the attending neurosurgeon, Dr. Joseph Krzeminski, improperly inserted a screw directly into Spangler’s spinal cord. Despite multiple alarms from the intraoperative monitoring system, indicating a grave error, Krzeminski completed the procedure.
The consequences of this mistake were immediate and catastrophic. Spangler awoke paralyzed, unable to move. His condition was not addressed with the urgency it required—over 10 hours elapsed before he underwent an MRI, and an additional 12 hours passed before corrective surgery was attempted. Despite years of intensive physical therapy since then, Spangler has only regained limited mobility and continues to endure severe, life-altering disabilities.
Before his life was irrevocably changed by the surgery, Spangler was employed as a mechanic at Harley Davidson, where he worked for 26 years, demonstrating a long history of skilled labor. The lasting impact of the surgery’s complications has stripped him of his ability to continue in that capacity.
The case was aggressively pursued by Iddo Harel, a partner at the Philadelphia-based law firm Ross Feller Casey, who secured the verdict on a Thursday after an eight-day trial presided over by Judge Matthew Menges. The jury delivered a unanimous decision in less than an hour, highlighting the compelling nature of the evidence presented.
During the trial, Harel argued not just the medical facts but also the credibility of the defense. He noted that jurors can clearly see through attempts to obscure the truth. In this case, the defendants’ own experts eventually concurred with the plaintiff’s allegations during the trial, demonstrating a significant shift in the proceedings.
Reacting to the verdict, WellSpan Health expressed disappointment, citing the evidence they presented. The hospital is considering its options for an appeal. Nonetheless, the organization reaffirmed its commitment to patient safety and high-quality care.
Judge Menges was commended for conducting the trial with impartiality and expert oversight, ensuring that both sides had a fair opportunity to present their cases, yet the evidence overwhelmingly supported Spangler’s claims.
This verdict not only raises questions about surgical standards and monitoring but also serves as a grim reminder of the devastating consequences medical errors can have on a patient’s life. As legal analysts observe this case, many see it as potentially setting a precedent for how future malpractice cases could be adjudicated, particularly in Pennsylvania.