The plaintiff’s 43-year-old decedent was admitted to the hospital through the ER in the early morning hours with respiratory symptoms and complaints. After undergoing several diagnostic tests including a D-dimer test, which proved negative for the presence of protein fragments in the blood that could suggest clot formation, she was admitted to a medical floor by mid-afternoon for further observation, and coded and died unexpectedly in the middle of the night from what proved, by autopsy, to be a silicone pulmonary embolism. She had never revealed at the hospital that, two days earlier, she had undergone illicit injections of silicone into her buttocks for body enhancement by an unlicensed practitioner. The incident was covered by local newspaper and television news stations. The unlicensed practitioner was subsequently tried, convicted and sentenced to nearly a year in jail for her role in causing the decedent’s death, which attracted some renewed publicity. The decedent’s estate then brought a civil action for medical malpractice and wrongful death against the hospital, and some of the doctors and nurses, for failing to prevent her death. In the litigation, family members and friends of the decedent testified that they had visited her in the ER and her hospital room, and she had shown them some still-visible injection marks on her upper buttocks. Neither the decedent nor any of the visitors brought this to the attention of any doctor, nurse or other staff member. The plaintiff was represented by a well-known law firm which argued that the hospital, ER physician, two physicians on the Medical floor, and a nurse, had been negligent in several ways, including by overlooking the injection sites when they examined the patient, or by failing to properly inquire about them. They also alleged that the defendants failed to diagnose an underlying cardiac condition which supposedly served as the direct mechanism of cardiac arrest, and that the presence of this condition should have led to the patient’s observation having been conducted in an ICU or telemetry unit. They asserted that these alleged transgressions resulted in the decedent’s death. Their settlement demand was $2.5 million. We moved for summary judgment on all the causes of action. The court granted our motion, in part, dismissing the cardiac theories and certain other claims and causes of action, but also denied the motion in part. The plaintiff appealed the portion of the decision which granted some aspects of the summary judgment motion. We cross-appealed the portion which denied the other aspects. However, as the deadline for submitting the briefs to the appellate court fast approached, the plaintiff’s attorneys suddenly moved to be relieved of counsel and abandoned their appeal. Their motion to be relieved was granted, and the plaintiff failed to appoint new counsel. Our subsequent motion to dismiss the entire action for failure to prosecute it was granted, and Judgment was entered for the defendants.