|
 |
| Results |
The
recoveries in these cases are not necessarily indicative of
recoveries in similar cases in the future, as each case must
be decided on its own facts and circumstances.
|
| Medical
Malpractice case settles for $3 million dollars |
Walter
H. Emroch and Thomas J. McNally obtained a $3 million dollar
settlement for a 50 year old woman in February of 2003. On January
23, 1999, the plaintiff, then age 46, a resident of Emporia,
Virginia, traveled to Washington, DC to undergo a gynecological
operation to remove a large cyst that had developed in her abdomen.
The defendant doctor had previously treated the plaintiff for
obstetrical and gynecological conditions and had successfully
handled a previous high risk pregnancy of the plaintiff.
Unfortunately, during the January 23, 1999 surgery, the defendant
doctor, believing that he might have cut and/or ligated with
a suture the plaintiff's right ureter, performed what is referred
to as an indigo carmine dye test. After performing the indigo
carmine dye test, which is not adequate to rule out a ligated
ureter, the defendant doctor erroneously concluded that the
ureter was not ligated or damaged and closed the plaintiff's
operative site.
Over the course of the next several days, the plaintiff developed
post-operative signs and symptoms of ureteral damage, including
complaints of back pain, elevated creatinine, blood in her urine,
nausea and fever. Despite being aware of her post-operative
signs and symptoms of ureteral damage, the defendant failed
to timely investigate the cause of those symptoms and failed
to request a consult with a urologist to rule out ureteral damage.
Eight days after the surgery, the doctor obtained a consultation
by a urologist who concluded the plaintiff had a right ureteral
obstruction. On February 4, 2000, twelve days after the initial
surgery, the urologist, along with a transplant specialist,
attempted to repair the ureter; however, by that time the ureter
was beyond repair and had to be removed along with her right
kidney, which could not be relocated due to extensive swelling,
scarring and adhesions from the ligation. By September, 1999,
due to the loss of the right kidney, the plaintiff's kidney
function, which had been relatively stable, began a precipitous
decline and she was compelled to begin dialysis treatment in
May, 2000.
Complicating the case for the plaintiff was the fact that the
plaintiff was a diabetic who had pre-existing renal disease
which caused some divergence of opinion between the plaintiff's
expert nephrologists. The plaintiff's treating nephrologist
opined that starting in approximately 2006, the plaintiff would
have been on dialysis for 18 months, even had she not been injured,
prior to receiving a kidney transplant. Another nephrology expert
opined that because of the plaintiff's very slow indolent course
of declining kidney function, the plaintiff would not have needed
the dialysis prior to obtaining a kidney transplant. Plaintiff
also alleged a reduction in her life expectancy of six to seven
years due to the accelerated need for dialysis.
The defense experts opined that the defendant did not violate
the standard of care and suggested that the right ureteral blockage
was not caused by a stitch or ligature, but was due to pre-existing
disease. However, the plaintiff's pathologist actually observed
a suture or ligature granuloma. Lastly, the defense experts
opined that the injury did not cause as much dialysis as claimed
because the plaintiff would have had to undergo dialysis anyway,
and that her injury was due primarily to the lack of more aggressive
treatment by her doctors and/or the plaintiff's non-compliance
with medical recommendations. |
|
|
|
