$50M Verdict in Alabama Wrongful Death Cardiac Malpractice

A Mobile County jury has returned a $50 million verdict in a wrongful-death medical malpractice case arising from the death of Dan Haas following cardiac care in December 2020. The matter was tried over 13 days in Mobile County Circuit Court before Judge Ben Brooks and focused on whether outpatient management and discharge decisions failed to address an allegedly life-threatening coronary blockage. The plaintiffs contended that Haas presented with symptoms consistent with a serious cardiac event and should have been hospitalized and treated with routine anticoagulation. The defense response was not publicly detailed in the available record at the time of the verdict.

The Patient’s Presentation and the Alleged Clinical Missed Opportunity

According to the account presented at trial, Haas returned from a hunting trip on Dec. 24, 2020, experiencing shortness of breath and severe pain between his shoulder blades. The next day, on Christmas Day, he contacted cardiologist Dr. John Galla, who instructed him to come to the office on Dec. 28. The plaintiffs’ theory centered on the progression of symptoms and the significance attributed to them, arguing they reflected a potentially emergent condition requiring inpatient evaluation and monitoring rather than outpatient follow-up.

The family alleged that Galla failed to adequately treat a life-threatening blockage and that Haas was sent home when he should have been admitted. They contended Haas died that night, making the timing of the clinical decision-making a central causation issue for the jury. In addition to the immediate discharge decision, plaintiffs argued that Haas was later cleared for elective eye surgery approximately a week afterward and was advised to take blood thinners after the surgery—facts offered to show a course of care they asserted was inconsistent with the risks posed by his cardiac condition as they understood it.

Trial Evidence on Standard of Care, Causation, and Damages

At trial, the plaintiffs presented cardiology expert testimony that hospitalization and routine blood thinners would have materially altered the outcome. According to the plaintiffs’ case, their experts opined that if Haas had been kept in the hospital and treated with standard anticoagulation, his chance of survival would have exceeded 99 percent. That testimony framed both the standard-of-care dispute and the proximate-cause argument, translating clinical decision points into a measurable likelihood of survival that jurors could evaluate against the allegations of negligence.

Plaintiffs’ counsel also emphasized the importance of contemporaneous medical records and the inferences the jury could draw from them regarding what occurred and how the care was documented. Attorney Skip Finkbohner said in a statement that the plaintiffs “relied on the contemporaneous medical records,” and asserted that the defense position challenged the accuracy of those records. The verdict ultimately awarded $50 million, reflecting the jury’s acceptance of the plaintiffs’ account on liability and damages in a wrongful-death framework under Alabama law.

The Verdict’s Procedural Posture and What Comes Next

The case was tried in Mobile County Circuit Court before Judge Ben Brooks over 13 days, culminating in the jury’s $50 million award. The defendants identified in the matter were Dr. John Galla and Cardiology Associates of Mobile. Attorneys for the defense were not reached for comment in the reported account, and the specific defenses presented at trial were not detailed in the available summary of the proceedings.

Post-verdict, the litigation may move into typical post-trial practice, including motions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, alleged trial errors, or the amount of the award, as well as potential appellate review. Broader implications are likely to center on how juries evaluate documentation disputes and probability-of-survival testimony in medical negligence cases involving rapid deterioration. According to court filings, the plaintiffs were represented by Cunningham Bounds, a Mobile-based firm involved in the trial presentation.