Jacobs v. Sharma, et. al.

Oct 24, 2013

OUTCOME: Verdict of $1,121,364.00

The plaintiff was a 32-year-old man who suffered a minor L-1 compression fracture as a result of an ATV accident. He was taken to the Loudoun Hospital emergency room where he came under the care of ne ... urosurgeon Dr. Mudit Sharma, who prescribed pain medication and a back brace for the first six weeks following the fracture. The patient had decreasing pain, decreasing pain medication needs and was back to work full time as a construction superintendent when he attended his second post-fracture followup visit with Dr. Sharma. Because an intervening CT scan had shown "possibly slightly more compression" of the fracture, Dr. Sharma recommended that the patient undergo a spine surgery called kyphoplasty in order to prevent kyphosis (hunchback) in the future. Kyphoplasty is a minimally invasive spine surgery during which cement is injected into the spinal bones through hollow needles in order to provide stability to the fracture and pain relief to the patient. Kyphoplasty is a procedure for patients with compression fractures caused by bone cancers, osteolysis or osteoporosis, and people with conditions that prevent normal healing of bones. According to published professional standards and guidelines, kyphoplasty was "absolutely contraindicated" for patients like the plaintiff, those patients with traumatic compression fractures and patients clearly improving on non-surgical management. During the surgery, the defendant misplaced razor sharp instruments and bone drills through the plaintiff's spinal canal bilaterally and injected hot cement, which tracked back through the misplaced instrument tracts depositing the cement into the patient’s spinal canal. Plaintiff alleged kyphoplasty was an unnecessary surgery for which he was an improper candidate. He also alleged that the surgery had been performed incorrectly. At the time of the surgery, the defendant was seven months out of his neurosurgery residency, had recently taken a one-day training course on the kyphoplasty procedure, and was in the process of gathering the 100 surgical cases he needed in order to complete the oral portion of his neurosurgical board certification. The plaintiff argued that this was a case of a surgeon needing a patient, not a patient needing a surgery. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was a proper candidate, and leakage of cement is just a known complication. The jury deliberated two and a half hours before returning a verdict for the Plaintiff.