The civil case of Yvette and Rick Hannon vs. Shands came to a head Thursday as attorneys from both sides gave their closing arguments.

Defense Attorney John Jopling began by challenging the responsibility of the parents of Nathan Hannon, the teenager who died Oct. 29, 1999 from complications with a shunt in his brain.

“Yvette Hannon failed to complete Nathan’s vital signs before she left to pick up her co-worker Dr. (Bob) Pinello that morning,” Jopling said.

“Where is the evidence that Nathan Hannon’s condition worsened overnight?” Jopling asked, noting that Yvette Hannon had not written any such information down on her son’s medical chart the morning she took him to her job for medical care.

“Pinello did a full regular examination,” Jopling said. “Every person that has come into this courtroom, including the plaintiffs’ witnesses, the doctors, and even the parents told you that Bob Pinello did nothing wrong.”

He proceeded.

“Here’s what is contested — is what that they (the doctors) did do and what was the plan, he said. “Dr. Pinello sent Nathan over to have a CT scan and to be evaluated by Dr. (Bob) Spendell. Both of these health care providers recognized that Nathan had a possible problem with his shunt.”

Jopling argued that the parents “had no reason to believe that a shunt series was not completed in Colorado, but what they did know was that Nathan needed to see his neurologist when he returned to Florida, and that didn’t happen.”

Jopling defended the doctors.

“There isn’t any if, ands or buts about what their plans were for Nathan Hannon that day. After reviewing the CT results, and after Spendell spoke with Pinello they agreed they were going to put him in the emergency room.”

He explained that Dr. Spendell acted on information received from another physician, stating, “we have an abnormal CT, but can’t tell if is an acute or chronic condition. The point is,” Jopling said, “Spendell wasn’t taking chances on that. He said to himself, I’m going to put this child in the emergency room and I’m going to do my own evaluation. But why didn’t he?” Jopling asked. “It’s because he came out and Rick Hannon and his son were gone.”

Jopling said two witnesses testified that Rick said he didn’t want to put Nathan in the ER because of the medical cost of a co-pay.

And Jopling questioned, “Why didn’t his mother Yvette Hannon bring Nathan to the ER since she was the one who had always done so in the past.

Jopling said, “It was her way of avoiding an argument with Rick about the cost of the ER, so she decided I’ll let Rick make that decision.”

Yet, Jopling said, Rick testified that he left because doctors told him, “We know there’s something wrong with his head, we’re not head doctors, he needs to see a head doctor and good luck.”

Jopling shifted gears.

“It’s clear that the Hannons had every right to make the decision they did; it was clearly their decision,” Jopling said. However, he asked jurors, “Is it inherently believable to you that Dr. Spendell, knowing Nathan so well, would say oh well, good luck.”

Jopling argued that there was no evidence as to how long it would have taken Nathan Hannon to go into the ER. and if necessary, be transferred.

Jopling alluded to a different scenario, with a no-win ending.

He asked, “What if he had gone into cardiac arrest at Shands Live Oak, what kind of lawsuit would they be facing–that would be a lawsuit in and of itself of a whole different caliber.”

Regardless, Jopling argued, “Dr. Spendell was trying to convince Yvette Hannon that Nathan should be brought into the ER.”

But once Yvette placed the call to the neurosurgeon, Jopling said, “what Dr. Spendell did was reasonable because otherwise what he would have been asked to do is overstep the recommendation of a neurosurgeon–someone with expertise in Nathan’s condition.”

Jopling revisited the idea of Nathan falling through the cracks, as pointed out earlier in the case by the plaintiff’s defense, but turned the tables onto the parents.

“Where was the crack?” Jopling asked. “If there was a crack that Nathan fell through it was when his parents decided not to place him in the emergency room,” he said. “If they had even done what (the Colorado doctor) had told them months earlier, then this tragedy may have been prevented.”

Jopling challenged the parents complaint of mental anguish and stress, saying, “The biggest stressor in Mrs. Hannon’s life is this lawsuit, not anything caused by my clients’ actions or decisions.”

Jopling relayed his final statements, saying, “There is no justice either way in Nathan Hannon’s death, and for them to argue that there was some type of injustice is ludicrous. Bad things do happen to good people,” he said. “What you can do in Nathan Hannon’s death, regardless of what you think about Dr. Spendell’s actions, is compound a true injustice by placing the blame inappropriately.”

Jopling returned to his seat.

Christian Searcy, the Hannons’ attorney, approached jurors for the last time with his closing rebuttal.

“He (Jopling) addressed comparative negligence of the parents,” Searcy said, “but the weight has shown that these parents were good parents and did everything they could for their son,” he said, pointing over at his clients.

“The fallacy in that logic is that the parents weren’t doctors,” he said.

Searcy took jurors quickly through the events of the night of Oct. 28 and the early morning of Oct. 29.

“Mrs. Hannon took Nathan to the clinic, because she realized the situation was beyond her knowledge as a parent,” Searcy said. “She had checked his neck valve, and took him to the clinic and began charting his primary symptoms.”

Searcy displayed a medical care policy, as presented by a previous doctor and witness in the case.

“The doctors that day had a responsibility to take responsibility for the patient,” Searcy said. “This policy was not followed — they did not take responsibility for the patient.”

He alluded that what that same doctor testified, should have happened. “But this was not a Shands policy,” he said. “So, Nathan Hannon sat in the hallway of Shands Live Oak and nobody performed an evaluation, took a history on him, checked his vital signs or cared for him,” Searcy said. “That means, Dr. Spendell did not take on this patient and take responsibility for him.”

Instead Searcy said, “The only examination was performed by a physician’s assistant at 8:20 that morning in the clinic and Nathan was never assessed again until he died.”

Searcy argued, “If you’re monitoring the patient then you can intervene if there is dangerous changes in his condition, but no one monitored him to see when the serious warning signs started happening.”

He suggested, “If there would have been an intervention, then this never would have happened.”

He challenged the defense’s argument that Yvette Hannon’s only motive was in winning by saying, “If that was the standard that we went by then no one would ever get justice when wronged.”

He took a step back.

“Nearly all the witnesses you (the jury) have heard worked for Shands. They came in an told untruths, malicious gossip morphed into statements,” Searcy said.

“Shands had to talk with these people before we ever came in and talked to these folks,” he said. “There were constant contradictions in details trying to disparage the believability of Nathan Hannon’s parents, but (Shands) has an indefensible cause. They kept trying to victimize the victim to take your eyes off the truth,” he argued. “But don’t be misled by what’s not evidence.”

He once again suggested failure on the part of the Shands medical practitioners.

“A patient must be monitored so that if a precipitous increase in pressure does occur, that can be brought back down,” he said.

“Pinello didn’t think this was an emergency,” Searcy said. “Spendell will say now that he treated it like a shunt failure, but from his actions, we don’t see that he treated it in that way.”

Searcy said that a major error occurred on Spendell’s part in the very first conversation he had with Dr. Pinello on the morning of Oct. 29, 1999 regarding Nathan Hannon.

“Spendell didn’t recognize in that first call that this was out of his scope of work. He had the responsibility to contact a neurologist and to follow that expertise in monitoring the patients care, so as to prevent the patient’s condition from worsening,” Searcy said.

He further defended his clients.

“It was the parents intention to have Nathan’s shunt checked at age 15, and after the Colorado incident and the all-clear from the neurologist there, they felt it was safe not take him again to be seen until before the year’s end,” Searcy said.

He alluded back to the day of Oct. 29.

“There isn’t any evidence that the Hannons were negligent, certainly if they were emergency room personnel, but they were parents; parents advised to go to Shands UF via private occupancy,” he said.

Searcy them moved on to the question of personal damages.

“Nathan Hannon should be alive today; that’s what this case is about,” he said. “It’s about the psychic trauma these folks have suffered. If doctors hadn’t done anything wrong then these parents wouldn’t be her today. For 10 long years, they have gotten up every day to bring justice in their son’s senseless death.”

Searcy called the Hannons’ loss of their son “the most powerful lost of mankind.”

He advised jurors not to be lead astray by what he called the defense’s “unsubstantiated arguments.”

He continued to plea for justice on his clients’ behalf.

“There should be justice from this terrible injustice,” he said. “There was a definite departure from the standard of care on the hospital’s part, and to allow him to sit in that hallway and not be treated and monitored was careless.”

He reiterated his clients’ stance.

Nathan Hannon never would have died but for the negligence of Shands and it’s medical group. They overlooked the basic primary level of care that every medical practitioner must give and every patient has the right to receive,” he said.

Searcy then attacked the defense’s lead client.

“Spendell needed to act with humility and good sense by contacting a neurosurgeon and getting aid with this patient’s care. He was supposed to admit Nathan to the ER. if the CT scans appeared to be critical, but failed to do.”

Searcy brought the tone back down for his close.

“The truth is (the Hannons) took their son into Shands clinic where they got their medical care. They trusted the people there, but because of failure after a CT scan and reckless disregard for the patients care–he’s no longer here,” he said. They can’t have their son back, but through you (the jury) and our government they can finally have justice after 10 years.

Trial ended Thursday with both sides and jurors ordered back at 9:30 a.m. Friday to await jury instruction and deliberation.