According to a published report, a $375,000 verdict was returned. The court then ruled that the defendant obstetrician was entitled to a set-off against the verdict for the earlier $159,000 settlement. This reduced the plaintiff’s verdict to $216,000.
Failure to Diagnose Colon Cancer in Clinical Trial Subject
In August 2000, a 56-year-old man with a five-year history of Crohn’s disease was referred to Dr. B. for enrollment in a clinical trial of recombinant human interleukin 11 for treatment of Crohn’s disease.
Before seeing Dr. B., the patient had undergone abdominal CT. This revealed a 1.0-cm lesion on the liver that a radiologist had pronounced benign. The CT report was given to Dr. B., who recommended a laparotomy as the best strategy for the patient’s condition. However, the patient chose not to have the surgery and instead opted to participate in the clinical study.
Several times during his treatment with Dr. B., the man complained of abdominal pain, diarrhea, and constipation. He continued to participate in the study until March 2001, when he went to a hospital with abdominal pain. At that time, Dr. B. withdrew the patient from the drug trial.
One month later, the man returned to Dr. B., who recommended surgery once again. In August, the patient went to a second hospital with worsening abdominal symptoms. He received a diagnosis of colon cancer with metastasis to the liver. He died one week later.
The plaintiff alleged negligence in the failure to diagnose and treat the decedent’s colon cancer. The matter was ultimately tried against Dr. B. alone. The plaintiff claimed that Dr. B. should have followed up on the decedent’s abdominal CT, including investigation and treatment of the liver lesion. The plaintiff also claimed that the decedent’s reported abdominal pain, diarrhea, and constipation were not properly treated; earlier diagnosis of the decedent’s colon cancer would have increased his chance of survival, it was argued.
Dr. B. denied any negligence, main-taining that the decedent had not followed his recommendation for a laparotomy at the first visit and had ignored subsequent recommendations for surgery. He also defended his reliance on the radiologist’s opinion that the liver lesion was benign. If the cancer had already metastasized by the time he first saw the decedent, then there was nothing he could have done to change the outcome, he argued.
According to a published account, a defense verdict was returned.
Vascular Compromise After Surgery for Complex Tibia Fracture
After a serious motorcycle crash, a 39-year-old man was taken to a hospital emergency department, where he was treated by the defendant orthopedist for a complex tibia fracture and dislocation. Because vascular compromise in the leg was a concern, regular circulatory checks were ordered. Surgery was performed two days later, and the plaintiff began rehabilitation on day 4 of his hospitalization.
Two days later, nurses identified vascular compromise in the man’s foot, which was attributed to a popliteal artery injury. Surgery was performed, but the patient’s condition necessitated an above-the-knee amputation.
The plaintiff claimed that the amputation was required because of failure to provide proper monitoring or to identify the arterial injury. The defendants argued that the man’s care and monitoring were proper and that the need for amputation resulted from the serious injury he sustained in the motorcycle crash.
According to a published report, the jury awarded $604,000 in damages, with 70% negligence assessed to the orthopedist and 30% to the hospital.