An Oakland County jury returned an approximately $14.2 million verdict on October 12, 2026, in favor of Brittani Jeffries, a Novi mother of three who alleged she was left disabled after a hospital failed to recognize that she was suffering a stroke. An Oakland County jury returned an approximately $14.2 million verdict for Brittani Jeffries on October 12, 2026. Courtroom presentation focused on a sequence of emergency department and inpatient decisions that, according to the plaintiff, delayed stroke recognition beyond critical treatment windows. The matter also highlighted how documentation and bedside monitoring protocols can become central evidence when deterioration occurs over multiple shifts and care settings.
Emergency Presentation and Initial Assessment at Ascension Providence Hospital Novi
On November 19, 2020, Jeffries was 32 years old when her husband found her on the floor at about 3:30 p.m. She could not speak or stand, her eyes were open, and she was gripping her right arm. An ambulance transported her to the emergency department at Ascension Providence Hospital Novi, where she arrived at 4:39 p.m. Triage staff documented lethargy, disorientation, inability to follow commands, and inability to provide a medical history. She also could not walk or stand at that time.
The emergency room physician, defendant Dr. Nicholas Dyc, noted she was nonverbal and not following commands. According to the plaintiff’s account of the care, the team initially suspected a drug overdose and later focused on a urinary tract infection as the explanation, despite a urine test described as only weakly positive in an otherwise healthy 32-year-old. No neurologist was consulted, and more detailed imaging that the plaintiff contended would have shown a blocked blood vessel was not ordered. The complaint theory presented to the jury centered on the premise that the patient’s neurological deficits were present early and were not treated as stroke indicators.
Inpatient Course, Missed Neurological Checks, and Delayed Stroke Code
After admission, the plaintiff’s condition did not improve. Late that evening, defendant physician assistant Jeffry Belan, PA-C, ordered nurses to perform neurological checks every four hours, described as bedside assessments of grip, speech, and ability to follow commands. Those checks were not performed, according to the plaintiff’s trial presentation, either by Belan or by other staff. During this period, Jeffries remained unable to speak, unable to respond to verbal stimuli, and unable to walk.
A neurological check was eventually performed at 9:33 a.m., at which point staff documented right-sided weakness and slurred speech. A stroke code was called at about 10:40 a.m., more than 16 hours after arrival. The malpractice theory presented to the jury was not limited to a single decision point; it emphasized a cascade spanning the emergency department and the inpatient unit, across multiple shifts. Multiple individuals and the hospital were named as defendants, reflecting allegations that responsibility was distributed among an ER doctor, a physician assistant, an internist, and several nurses.
Time-Sensitive Stroke Treatment and the Extent of the Claimed Harm
The plaintiff’s case highlighted that stroke care is time dependent. Tissue plasminogen activator, or t-PA, is a clot-dissolving medication that can be administered only within a few hours of when a patient was last known to be well, and thrombectomy outcomes improve when the procedure is performed sooner. By the time the stroke was identified, the plaintiff contended she was outside the window for t-PA and in a very late window for thrombectomy. The thrombectomy was performed more than 20 hours after she was last seen well.
After the thrombectomy, bleeding developed in her brain, and surgeons removed part of her skull to relieve pressure. She underwent a second thrombectomy, required ventilator support, and remained hospitalized until December 11, 2020. Following discharge, she spent months in a rehabilitation facility. At the time of trial, she was 37 and described as living with permanent physical and cognitive impairments. Her speech impairment was characterized as so severe that defense counsel could not cross-examine her, and the evidence presented to jurors included that she could not work and could not care for her children without significant support.
Trial Presentation, Damages Evidence, and Key Takeaways for Future Litigation
At trial, the plaintiff relied on the medical record to argue that the standard of care required recognition of stroke indicators and timely escalation, including neurological consultation, appropriate imaging, and consistent bedside monitoring after admission. The plaintiff’s team framed the narrative around what was documented at arrival, what was ordered, and what was not carried out over time, using the chart to connect early symptoms to later deterioration. Testimony was presented from experts in emergency medicine, neurology, neuroradiology, and life care planning, with damages tied to the projected costs associated with long-term needs.
The plaintiff was represented by Sommers Schwartz, with senior shareholder Kenneth Watkins and associate Sara Mićković serving as trial counsel. The jury returned an approximately $14.2 million verdict for Jeffries. In broader terms, the verdict underscores how plaintiffs may seek to prove liability in delayed-diagnosis stroke cases by aligning timestamps, ordered protocols, and neurological status documentation with treatment windows that narrow by the hour.
