Misdiagnosis of Heart Condition Yields $3 Million to Decedent's Family

author by Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 24, 2017

Accident & Injury Medical Malpractice Accident & Injury  Personal Injury Lawsuit & Dispute  Lawsuit 

Summary: Blog post about a misdiagnosed heart condition that led to an award of $3 million when it caused decedent's death.

Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

In the case of Olsens v. Owlia, the estate of a man who died after his heart condition had been misdiagnosed filed medical malpractice lawsuits against two doctors, although only one of the doctors went to trial.

Andrew “Joe” Olsen suffered from aortic stenosis, a narrowing of the valve leading to the left ventricle of the heart. Olsen’s primary doctor, Stephen Bryant, of Litchfield Internal Medicine, was aware that Olsen had aortic stenosis but reportedly believed it was not worsening. Olsen was often sent for periodic echocardiograms to monitor his heart. At one point, Olsen was sent to a cardiologist, Dr. Dariush Owlia of Hartford. The patient's estate claim that Owlia never reviewed the results of the echocardiogram. Bryant, in turn, continued to provide Olsen with the same treatment. Had the results been reviewed, the estate’s attorneys allege, the doctors would have discovered that the narrowing had progressively worsened. Olsen’s condition deteriorated over the next year and a half and in 2009 he died of heart failure at 67. The estate sued both doctors for wrongful death. At the trial, the estate showed a large photo of a normal echocardiogram and right next to it was a photo of Olsen’s in order to demonstrate to the jury just how compromised Olsen’s heart valve was. The estate said the echocardiogram that was never read by Owlia showed an opening of only 7 millimeters. A follow-up echocardiogram not too long before Olsen’s death showed that opening had shrunk to 6 millimeters.

The decedent's estate said Owlia should have reviewed the echocardiogram and taken the appropriate steps to determine just how severe the aortic stenosis was. They said further testing would have shown that Olsen required an aortic valve replacement surgery. Though the estate’s lawyers said they could not discuss why Bryant was not part of the trial, it was apparent that a settlement had been reached before trial. The doctor argued that it was not up to Owlia to review the echocardiogram results. The doctor presented Bryant as a witness during trial. Bryant admitted on the stand that he had deviated from the appropriate standard of care in his treatment of Olsen.

The jury decided that Bryant was 60 percent at fault and Owlia 40 percent at fault. The jurors awarded $2 million in damages to Olsen’s estate and $1 million to his wife Cynthia for loss of consortium. Because the jury found the doctor who was not a party at the trial to be 60 percent at fault, the decedent's estate will recover $1.2 million.

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained. 

Please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Jeff Forte, Top Connecticut Verdicts & Settlements of 2015, CONN. LAW TRBN. at 8 (June 2016) discussing Cynthia Olsen, Executrix of the Estate of Andrew J. Olsen, Deceased, and Cynthia Olsen, Individually v. Dariush Owlia, et al.

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.

© 2025 LAWYER.COM INC.

Use of this website constitutes acceptance of Lawyer.com’s Terms of Use, Email, Phone, & Text Message and Privacy Policies.