A woman who experienced lower extremity paralysis following a bypass procedure claimed her treating surgeons negligently caused her injury. The defendants denied liability and claimed they acted within... the standard of care. A Harford County jury found for the plaintiff and awarded her $3,557,398 against two surgeons and their employer. Defense verdicts were entered for an anesthesiologist and his employer.
The plaintiff presented to the medical center for a scheduled aortofemoral bypass procedure. The defendants were the two surgeons responsible for performing the procedure. As a result of the surgical complications, the plaintiff suffered a spinal cord injury that resulted in permanent lower extremity paralysis with loss of mobility.
The plaintiff alleged that the paralysis was the result of massive blood loss during the procedure and the loss was caused by a size disparity between her aorta and the graft placed by the defendants. The plaintiff asserted a medical malpractice claim in which she claimed the defendants used an improper grafting technique and their surgical treatment was below the standard of care required. The plaintiff submitted the post-operative report of the defendant in support of her claim. The report, which was prepared 15 days following the surgery, indicated that the graft used was too big for the aorta.
The defendants disputed liability and maintained that the plaintiff’s care, including the grafting technique used, was reasonable and appropriate. The defendants specifically denied the plaintiff’s paralysis was the result of blood loss, but instead maintained that the complication was a well- documented risk of the procedure caused by clamping the aorta. The defendants further testified that the medical reports submitted by the plaintiff were incorrect. The hospital and another anesthesiologist were initially named in this suit, but were dismissed prior to trial.
Medical malpractice
Surgical Error Causes Permanent Back Injury
N/A
OUTCOME: $1,045,000
On September 26, Plaintiff, a 64 year old male, presented to the Defendant Hospital and reported low back pain and symptomatology which had worsened. A prior MRI confirmed disc pathology at L4-5 and S1.... After examination, the Defendant’s personnel advised the Claimant to undergo surgery for correction of his condition.
After a pre-operative visit on October 5, the Plaintiff underwent the surgery on October 9, at the Co-Defendant Hospital. Contrary to the standards of care, the Defendant’s personnel improperly placed pedicle screws at the L4-5 level, as well as the S1 level. In fact, during the operative procedure (via neuromonitoring,) the Defendant’s personnel were alerted that he may have placed the pedicle screws in an inappropriate anatomical position. As a direct and proximate result of improper pedicle screw placement, the Plaintiff suffered damaged nerve roots at anatomical areas including, but not limited to, L5 and S1. Post-operatively, the Plaintiff developed a foot drop in addition to severe pain, loss of sensation, and severely compromised bowel and bladder function.
Notwithstanding these findings, the Defendants negligently continued in failing to timely diagnose the etiology of his condition and intervene. In fact, it was not until October 13, that an MRI was belatedly performed which documented inappropriate placement of the pedicle screws. Then, the Plaintiff was finally returned to an operating room where the Defendant’s personnel removed the offending pedicle screw in the L5 distribution, but failed to remove the screws which were inappropriately placed at the S1 distribution. Tragically, this surgery proved too little too late. The damage and disability inflicted was permanent.
Medical malpractice
Failed C-Section Intervention Results in Loss of Child
N/A
OUTCOME: $1,000,000
On March 19, the Plaintiff contacted her prenatal doctors to advise that she was leaking fluid and/or mucus. She was advised to go to the Hospital, and initially refused. Subsequently, she proceeded to... the Defendant hospital for further care and treatment in the labor and delivery area. It is alleged that she arrived at approximately 10:00 p.m. and leakage of amniotic fluid was confirmed. The Defendant physician first saw Plaintiff after she was admitted and was advised of her condition and the fact that she was at the hospital.
At approximately 10:08 p.m., duly authorized agents and/or employees of the Defendant Hospital began a fetal monitoring strip which revealed a lack of beat-to-beat variability, as well as decelerations, including late decelerations which required immediate evaluation and intervention. It is alleged that the nursing staff and/or other duly authorized agents and/or employees of the Defendant Hospital failed to appropriately interpret the fetal monitoring strip which showed the infant, in utero, to be stressed. It is asserted that the Defendant physician, as well as hospital personnel failed to recognize the non-reassuring strip and failed to provide the close monitoring and surveillance necessary to make a proper determination as to the well-being of the Plaintiff’s unborn baby.
It is asserted that these Defendants failed to make an appropriate evaluation and failed to intervene with a judiciously timed cesarean section. Further, these Defendants negligently started the Plaintiff on Pitocin — a drug designed to artificially augment or strengthen contractions to increase stress brought to bear on the unborn baby. Had these Defendants and each of them conformed with the applicable standards of care, the diagnosis of fetal stress would have been made and a cesarean section would have been completed in an appropriate time frame.
Through the course of the night and the early morning hours, the fetal monitoring strip continued to show lack of beat-to-beat variability, decelerations, late decelerations, and other indications of the need for cesarean section. It is alleged that as time passed, the forces brought to bear on the unborn baby through the negligence of these Defendants exhausted the baby’s reserve and ability to persevere. It is alleged that the hospital personnel ignored the ongoing condition of the Plaintiff’s baby as did her attending obstetrician and gynecologist. In fact, none of the nursing staff or the Defendant entered the Plaintiff’s labor and delivery room between the hours of 12:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. to examine the Plaintiff, assess the condition of the unborn baby, and/or review the fetal monitoring strip. Essentially, the Plaintiff and her baby were abandoned, while the baby continued to languish in the uterus which had become a patently hostile environment.
Predictably, the fetal monitoring strip deteriorated revealing bradycardia, as well as loss of beat-to-beat variability and late decelerations indicative of a frank emergency. It is asserted that notwithstanding a fetal monitoring strip which reflected frank fetal distress and the emergency need for a cesarean section, the Defendants continued to delay until 5:31 a.m. when a cesarean section was finally performed — too little and too late. It is alleged that as a direct and proximate result of the ongoing negligence of these Defendants, the Plaintiff’s baby died, in utero. When the cesarean section was finally performed, the Defendant physician birthed an Apgar 0 – 0 – 0 child. The baby was dead and unable to be resuscitated because of the length of time the baby was left in utero under these circumstances. Had these Defendants and each of them conformed with the applicable standards of care, fetal distress would have been noted on the fetal monitoring strip as required, and a properly timed cesarean section would have been completed resulting in the birth of a healthy and normal child.
