Skip to main content

Jury Clears Doctor in Spinal Injection Meningitis Lawsuit

Jury Clears Doctor in Spinal Injection Meningitis Lawsuit

By Sohini Chakraborty
5 min read
Jury Clears Doctor in Spinal Injection Meningitis Lawsuit

Case Background

Diana Kuhlke filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against pain management physician Joseph Savino, his practice Pain Care of Oregon, LLC, and Crater Lake Surgery Center, LLC in Jackson County Circuit Court, Oregon. Kuhlke alleged that Savino negligently performed a spinal injection that caused her to develop bacterial meningitis, resulting in hospitalization and ongoing medical complications. The case proceeded to a jury trial under Kuhlke's First Amended Complaint, and on August 20, 2025, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the Defendants were not negligent.

Cause

According to the First Amended Complaint, Savino performed a C7-T1 interlaminar epidural steroid injection under fluoroscopic guidance on Kuhlke on June 22, 2020. Pain Care of Oregon, LLC and Crater Lake Surgery Center, LLC were Oregon corporations, and Savino served as an agent, servant, or employee of both entities. Savino also operated under the assumed business name "Pain Specialists of Southern Oregon" and acted within the course and scope of that employment at the time of the procedure.

Injury

Kuhlke alleged that following the injection, she experienced intense pain, headache, severe meningismus, discomfort, and fever. She reported her symptoms to Savino and his staff in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit immediately after the procedure and made several additional calls to Savino's office that afternoon to report her worsening condition. Later that same day, Kuhlke went to the hospital, where physicians discovered air in her intracranial space and diagnosed post-procedural bacterial meningitis. The First Amended Complaint alleged that Savino's negligence caused Kuhlke to suffer both acute and chronic harm, including meningitis, arachnoiditis, headaches, fear, stress, pain, and discomfort, as well as a lengthy hospitalization. Kuhlke spent a week in the hospital and required additional medical care for ongoing symptoms.

Damages Sought

Kuhlke sought up to $400,000 in noneconomic damages for pain, suffering, and interference with her normal and usual activities from the date of injury into the future. She also sought $120,000 in estimated economic damages for medical expenses incurred from the date of injury through the time of the amended filing, along with costs and disbursements. The total claim amounted to $520,000.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Plaintiff: Diana Kuhlke

·       Counsel for Plaintiff: David J. Linthorst

Defendants: Pain Care of Oregon, LLC | Joseph Savino, personally and doing business as "Pain Specialists of Southern Oregon” | Crater Lake Surgery Center, LLC

·       Counsel for Defendants: Thomas F. Armosino

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Kuhlke's First Amended Complaint alleged that Savino was negligent in multiple respects during and after the injection procedure.

Failure to Perform Sterile Preparation

Kuhlke alleged that Savino failed to perform the sterile preparation of the neck in a diligent manner to prevent infectious and chemical procedural complications.

Use of a Neurotoxic Antiseptic Agent

The amended complaint alleged that Savino used an antiseptic agent that was a known neurotoxin in an interventional pain management procedure that included percutaneous entry into the neuraxial space, without confirming that the antiseptic agent was completely dry.

Failure to Recognize Subarachnoid Space Violation

Kuhlke alleged that Savino failed to recognize a violation of the subarachnoid space during the procedure, putting her at a predictable risk for a post-dural puncture headache, a refractory cerebrospinal fluid leak, meningitis, encephalitis, and arachnoiditis.

Failure to Perform Serial Aspirations

The amended complaint alleged that Savino failed to perform serial aspirations at the beginning, the middle, and the end of the injection to ensure that the needle did not migrate during the procedure.

Inadequate Post-Procedure Response

Kuhlke alleged that Savino failed to promptly respond to the concerning post-procedural signs and symptoms she exhibited in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit and in multiple follow-up calls to his office that afternoon. Specifically, she alleged that Savino failed to evaluate her for a cerebrospinal fluid leak, meningitis, or encephalitis, and failed to send her to the emergency department for further evaluation and treatment.

Defense

The Defendants filed their answer to the original complaint on October 13, 2022. They admitted that Pain Care of Oregon, LLC and Crater Lake Surgery Center, LLC were Oregon corporations, that Savino served as an agent and employee of both entities, and that Savino performed the C7-T1 interlaminar epidural steroid injection under fluoroscopic guidance on Kuhlke. The Defendants further stated that Kuhlke was a patient with chronic spine pain who had undergone multiple injections in the past and gave her full and informed consent to Savino to proceed with the planned procedure before the injection was performed. The Defendants denied all other allegations in the complaint and raised one affirmative defense, asserting that the complaint failed to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief.

Jury Verdict

On August 20, 2025, the jury returned its verdict in Jackson County Circuit Court. The jury answered "No" to the threshold question of whether the Defendants were negligent in one or more of the ways alleged in the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and whether any such negligence was a cause of injury to the Plaintiff. Because the jury found no negligence, the verdict was entered in favor of the Defendants, and the jury did not reach the question of damages.

Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]

About the Author

SC

Sohini Chakraborty

Sohini Chakraborty is a lawyer, with over two years of experience in legal research and analysis. She specializes in working closely with expert witnesses, offering critical support in preparing legal research and detailed case studies.