For the 25 years prior to my retirement on 9/31/95 I was a full-time professor on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (PENN). In 1993 a malpractice lawsuit was filed against me on behalf of a patient who died under my care in 1991, and this case was scheduled for trial in late October 1998. About 6 weeks prior to the scheduled start of the trial, I was informed by the lawyer provided for my defense by PENN (as the primary insurer) that a decision had been made by the medical school legal office that I was guilty of malpractice and that they were prepared to offer settlement in an estimated amount of $750,000-1,000,000. I was shocked and angered by this totally unilateral decision since (1) they made the decision without ever even discussing any of the facts in this case with me, and (2) In my expert professional opinion there had been no malpractice involved with the clinical care of this patient.

I demanded a meeting with the attorney assigned to my defense and with the chief attorney of the Office of Legal Affairs at the medical school. I was accorded this meeting in mid-September, but prior to the presentation of the factual material that I had prepared to refute the allegations of the plaintiff, I was told by the medical school attorney that their decision was already made, and "nothing that I was going to say was going to change their minds!" I was told that their decision was based on the premises that (1) I was guilty of malpractice, and (2) even if I were not guilty, this case could not be won before a "Philadelphia jury." Beyond this, they informed me that I had no recourse to their decision unless I were to hire (and pay for) my own attorney to proceed with my defense. This proposal was made in the full knowledge that I was not personally liable for even a penny of any award (by settlement or trial) under the conditions of my insurance coverage by PENN.

Understanding the mentality and operative philosophy of the medical school hierarchy (as already amply demonstrated), I knew full-well that the only opportunity I had to defend my reputation was to put a roadblock in the way of the ill-informed, intransigent and unilateral decision of PENN. Since the proposed settlement offer required the acquiescence of the CAT Fund, as the principal underwriter of the contemplated award, I decided to appeal to the CAT Fund as my last possible line of defense.

I wrote a detailed analysis of the facts in the case and sent it to the CAT Fund with the request that they not cooperate with the proposed settlement offer by PENN, thus forcing a trial unless PENN was able to accomplish settlement for a sum not exceeding $200,000, a circumstance over which I had absolutely no influence or veto. The entire proceeding was further complicated by the fact that only 5 weeks remained before the trial and I had been long scheduled to be out of the country for three of those weeks.

My letter was followed by a number of lengthy telephone conferences with representatives of the CAT Fund elaborating my factual defense against the charges and addressing the valid concerns of the CAT Fund personnel, in no way minimized by the behind the scenes contrary arguments and coercive threats by the PENN legal office. It must be further acknowledged that in no way was this going to be an easy case to defend. The patient was a prominent person who died dramatically of an undiagnosed disease, albeit with a clinical presentation and findings that were most atypical. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s experts had misrepresented the facts in their written opinions (and subsequently lied at trial). In the end, the CAT Fund listened, evaluated the arguments and made the courageous decision to permit me my "day in court" by refusing the PENN decision to "railroad" my interests.