News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
When, after three weeks of testimony and four days of jury deliberation, the malpractice trial of two University Health Services (UHS) physicians and a private gynecologist finally came to an end on Tuesday, questions facing UHS officials were only beginning.
The Middlesex Superior Court awarded cancer patient Gena Glicklich nearly $400,000 in damages, and determined that Dr. Alan R. Spievack--one of the UHS doctors--was responsible for $339,979 of that figure.
Dr. Joan R. Golub, the gynecologist, was found responsible for almost $60,000, and the other UHS physician, Dr. Jennifer Jones--who is now practicing medicine in Tennessee--was cleared of the charges.
UHS officials must now determine Spievack's fate at UHS. Although the verdict had no immediate affect on his employment status at the service, Dr. Warren E. C. Wacker, director of UHS, said earlier this week that UHS's quality assurance committee will review the case.
Glicklich had charged that Spievack, Golub and Jones were negligent in failing to correctly diagnose and treat a cancerous lump in her right breast which has spread to her brain and become inoperable. Doctors say Glicklich may die within a year.
Raymond J. Kenney Jr., Spievack's attorney, said earlier this week that his client had not yet decided whether to appeal the verdict.
In addition to reviewing Spievack's case, officials will also review UHS's general procedure for treating patients, Wacker said.
During testimony and in an interview after the verdict was announced, Glicklich indicated that UHS was in part responsible for her improper treatment. "I feel sorry for [Spievack]--I feel sorry that he was caught up in a system that makes it difficult for a doctor to get to know his patients," she said.
Although Wacker defended UHS's system for treating patients and said that the jury's decision in no way implicated UHS, he added that the service will review its method for patient care because "in any case like this it's a good idea to take a look at your procedures."
But although Wacker said he intends to review UHS procedure, he added that he has not yet decided exactly how to go about doing so.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.