 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Specialty: |
Surgical Oncology |
Categories: |
Surgery and Informed Consent |
Defendant: |
Surgical Oncologist |
Plaintiff: |
Husband, as executor of the estate |
Result: |
Claim denied |
A 65-year-old female patient with history of hepatitis, cirrhosis, and recent kidney failure underwent an MRI which showed a 2.5 cm lesion on the liver adjacent to the gall bladder. Her surgeon planned a resection of the lesion by open abdominal surgery. During the procedure, he encountered heavy bleeding from the liver requiring him to remove the gallbladder. Samples were sent to pathology which showed no malignancy. Post-op, the patient developed liver and kidney failure. Her condition deteriorated and she died 10 days later.
A claim was filed by the husband alleging that the surgeon did not advise the patient of other options and should not have performed an open abdominal procedure.
Expert reviews were mixed, however a supportive expert agreed to testify if the case went to trial. Based on this, the claim was denied.
Almost 18 months later, the patient's husband filed a complaint with the Board of Registration in Medicine (BRM) against the surgeon, which resulted in a formal hearing. After hearing the case in February 2008, the BRM decided to take no further action. As the statute of limitations had tolled, the case was closed with no payment.
|
 |
|
|
Specialty: |
OB/GYN |
Categories: |
Surgery and Informed Consent |
Defendant: |
Obstetrician |
Plaintiff: |
Patient |
Result: |
Defense Verdict |
The patient was a 46-year-old female patient with history of urine incontinence which was exacerbated by coughing, sneezing, jumping, laughing, and intercourse. She requested a hysterectomy; her obstetrician suggested treating her incontinence with a laparoscopic Burch bladder neck suspension. The obstetrician explained that he had only done three of these procedures. The patient was comfortable with that.
The surgery was successfully performed in February 1998. The patient alleges that she had constant pain following the surgery. In October 2000, she had a cystoscopy which revealed two tacks in the bladder from the original procedure. These were removed and patient felt improvement, but six months later she was again complaining of pain. The patient was admitted to the hospital and a third tack was removed from her bladder.The patient alleges she has incontinence problems again along with pain.
Suit was filed by the patient alleging that the obstetrician was negligent in the manner in which he performed the surgery and that he did not obtain the proper informed consent. A supportive expert stated that the procedure was done properly and that, quite often, foreign objects placed in the body migrate.
This case went to trial in January 2008, which lasted six days. The jury deliberated only 90 minutes before returning a verdict in favor of the defendant physician.
|
 |
|
|
Specialty: |
OB/GYN |
Category: |
OB |
Defendant: |
Obstetrician |
Plaintiff: |
Mother, as parent and guardian |
Result: |
Dismissed for lack of prosecution |
A 31-year-old female obstetrical patient with a history of herpes was followed prenatally by her obstetrician. Her visits were listed as being normal until February 2000, when she was admitted for cramping and was given IV fluids. Once her cramping stopped, the patient was discharged and placed on bed rest.
In March 2000, the patient was noted to have a reduced volume of amniotic fluid and—at 34 5/7 weeks gestation—the decision was made to deliver the baby (via cesarean section because of an active herpetic lesion). Birth weight was 3lbs. 8 oz. and the female infant was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit. She was diagnosed with growth retardation, but was healthy on physical exam.
At age two, the child began to exhibit emotional and behavioral problems with speech and language delay. She was diagnosed with a mild seizure disorder. Over the next few years, she was diagnosed with mild cerebral palsy.
Suit was filed by the mother alleging that her obstetrician failed to properly monitor the amniotic fluid level, and failed to recognize the signs of poor fetal well-being, which led to the development of cerebral palsy. As the case progressed, the mother failed to answer interrogatories submitted by defense counsel and a motion to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution was filed and allowed by the court.
|
|
|
|
Specialties: |
Hematology, Internal Medicine, and Radiology |
Category: |
Diagnosis |
Defendants: |
Hematologist, Internist, and Radiologist |
Plaintiff: |
Son, as executor of father's estate |
Result: |
Plaintiff verdict in the low range |
A 75-year-old male patient with history of angioedema was referred to an insured hematologist to rule out abdominal lymphadenopathy. A CT scan completed in June 2001 showed a 9 mm finding in the right lower lobe of the lung described as a possible cavitary lesion.
In October 2002, a lung CT identified a 3.7 cm mass in the left upper lobe. Biopsy of the mass showed non-small cell carcinoma with metastases to the bone, brain, and liver. The patient died three months later.
When the 2002 CT scan results were received, the patient’s primary care physician (PCP) noted the 2001 scan and looked back to compare it. She saw that there were irregular findings in the earlier scan and that no biopsy was ever done. The PCP questioned the hematologist as to why she was never notified of the abnormal CT from June 2001. The hematologist allegedly sent two letters to the PCP, who claims she never saw them. In the record, the hematologist states that he will follow up with PCP, but this (apparently) was never done. Expert reviews were critical relating to the standard of care, but supportive with relation to the causation, stating that even if the cancer had been diagnosed in 2001, it would not have changed the outcome.
The case was submitted to binding arbitration at the end of 2007, with the arbitrator finding in favor of the plaintiff with damages awarded against the hematologist in the low range. This would indicate that the arbitrator felt there was credibility to the plaintiff’s position that the earlier diagnosis would have improved the outcome. |
|
|
|
|
|
