Delaware Physical Therapy Malpractice Settlement: $600,863.01
The Inkell Firm secured a $600,863.01 recovery for a client whose physical therapist ignored his surgeon’s express post-operative restrictions, telling him “I know better” before instructing him to perform a movement that re-herniated his spinal disc and required a second emergency surgery.
The case was litigated for more than two years, through expert discovery, a mock-jury focus group, and pretrial trial preparation, before resolving through mediation and a formal Rule 68 Offer of Judgment on the eve of trial.
Case Summary
- Settlement Amount: $600,863.01, resolved via mediation and an accepted Rule 68 Offer of Judgment
- Case Type: Medical Malpractice — Physical Therapy Negligence and Lack of Informed Consent
- Location: New Castle County, Delaware (Superior Court of the State of Delaware)
- Key Issue: A physical therapist directed our client to perform a movement that violated his surgeon’s explicit post-surgical restrictions, causing a recurrent disc herniation and a second surgery
- Result: $600,863.01 secured for our client shortly before trial
A Surgery That Was Supposed to Fix the Problem
Our client underwent a right L4-5 microdiscectomy on August 23, 2021, to repair a herniated disc that had been causing him pain and limiting his mobility. The surgery was complicated by a deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a recognized risk of the procedure, but was otherwise successful. His surgeon placed him under clear restrictions during recovery: no bending at the waist, and no lifting more than fifteen pounds.
His surgeon recommended physical therapy to support his recovery, and our client began treatment on September 16, 2021.
One Physical Therapy Session Undid It
The physical therapist’s own records noted our client’s post-surgical restrictions. Despite that, the therapist instructed him to bend at the waist. When our client told the therapist that his surgeon had specifically restricted that movement, the therapist told him to do it anyway, saying, “I know better.”
As soon as our client performed the forward bend at the therapist’s insistence, he felt a “pop” in his lower back and the return of the same radiating leg pain that had led to his first surgery, pain he had not felt since that surgery. An MRI confirmed a recurrent herniation at the same disc level. He required a second surgery on September 27, 2021, during which the DVT from his first surgery expanded, causing additional pain, swelling, and loss of mobility.
Building a Malpractice and Informed Consent Case
The Inkell Firm filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware (New Castle County) against the physical therapy practice, alleging medical negligence and lack of informed consent. Physical therapists are healthcare providers under Delaware’s Medical Malpractice Act (18 Del. C. ch. 68), and the practice was held responsible for its therapist’s conduct under respondeat superior.
The informed consent count was central to the case: the therapist never told our client that the maneuver he was being asked to perform carried a risk of re-injury, never offered a safer alternative, and overrode the restriction his surgeon had already given him.
Preparing for Trial
The case was litigated for more than two years. The firm retained a physical therapy standard-of-care expert and an orthopedic surgery expert to establish causation, took depositions of the treating therapist and other witnesses, and ran a focus group to pressure-test the case in front of a mock jury ahead of trial. A trial by a jury of twelve was scheduled, and the parties filed pretrial stipulations in February 2026.
The Defense’s Arguments
The defense denied liability throughout the case. Its retained orthopedic spine expert opined that our client’s re-herniation had nothing to do with the physical therapy visit at all, arguing that his own preexisting degenerative disc disease and the altered biomechanics from his first surgery put him at an “extraordinarily high risk for recurrent disc pathology irrespective of any rehabilitative event,” and that ordinary daily activities during his recovery — getting in and out of a car, a chair, or bed — would have placed more stress on his spine than the therapist’s evaluation did. In short: the defense’s position was that a second herniation was inevitable, wear and tear from Mr. Willey’s own body and prior surgery, not anything the therapist did.
That position was difficult to reconcile with the treating therapist’s own deposition testimony. Under oath, he acknowledged that our client told him his surgeon had instructed him not to bend forward, that he responded by telling our client he simply wanted to evaluate his range of motion, and that our client bent forward at his direction and immediately reported pain. He also agreed, as a general matter, that a physical therapist who does not listen to a patient and needlessly endangers them should be held responsible for the harm that results.
Resolution: $600,863.01
With trial approaching, the parties went to mediation on March 5, 2026. The following day, the defense formalized its position with a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment of $600,000, inclusive of fees and costs. Our client accepted, and the case resolved for a total recovery of $600,863.01, paid by the defendant’s liability carrier and satisfied on the record with the Court in March 2026.
Why This Case Matters
Patients recovering from surgery are often at their most vulnerable when they are handed off from a surgeon to a physical therapist, a home health aide, or another provider. This case is a reminder that every provider in that chain has an independent duty to respect a patient’s medical restrictions, not override them, and to obtain informed consent before asking a patient to do something that carries a risk they haven’t been told about.
At The Inkell Firm, we represent patients in:
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a physical therapist be sued for medical malpractice in Delaware?
Yes. Physical therapists are healthcare providers under Delaware’s Medical Malpractice Act, and claims against them follow the same pre-suit and expert requirements as claims against physicians and hospitals.
What happens if one provider overrides restrictions set by another?
A provider who disregards a documented medical restriction set by another treating provider, especially after being told about it directly, can be held liable for the injuries that result.
What is a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment?
A Rule 68 Offer of Judgment is a formal, court-recognized offer to resolve a case for a specific amount. If accepted, it results in a judgment being entered against the defendant, giving the plaintiff a more certain and enforceable resolution than an informal settlement.
Does informed consent apply outside of surgery?
Yes. Any healthcare provider, including physical therapists, has a duty to disclose the material risks of a recommended treatment or maneuver and to offer safer alternatives when they exist.
How is a physical therapy malpractice case proven?
These cases typically require expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care, medical records showing what the therapist knew and did, and expert causation testimony connecting the therapist’s conduct to the injury.
What if the defense says the injury would have happened anyway?
Defendants in spine injury cases frequently argue that a patient’s own degenerative condition, not the provider’s conduct, caused the injury. That defense can be overcome with medical testimony and, where available, the provider’s own admissions about what they knew and did at the time.
Contact The Inkell Firm
If a healthcare provider ignored your surgeon’s restrictions or failed to warn you about the risks of a recommended treatment, contact The Inkell Firm to discuss your options.
Call: (302) 297-7775
Email: intake@inkellfirm.com
Contact Page: https://inkellfirm.com/contact-us/
Disclaimer: Every case is different. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. The client’s name has been withheld to protect his privacy. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.