VERDICT $30,953,181 Ohio verdict against the hospital only. The case was settled under a confidential high/low agreement reached before the verdict.
While on HRT, patient with serious health concerns has stroke
DR. F PRESCRIBED oral hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to treat the menopausal symptoms of a 46-year-old patient. The following year he prescribed an estrogen patch and continued treating her for another 3 years until he died. Then Dr. G took over the patient’s care. She remained on some form of HRT until she suffered a stroke 2 years later. She suffered significant cognitive impairment and could no longer drive or work.
PATIENT’S CLAIM She should have been evaluated more thoroughly and weaned from artificial hormones. She had high blood pressure and high cholesterol, was overweight, and had a family history of cardiovascular problems.
PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The patient’s stroke was not necessarily related to HRT. In fact, it could have been caused by her cardiac condition.
VERDICT Missouri defense verdict.
Was laparoscopy to remove an ovary contraindicated?
A 39-YEAR-OLD WOMAN underwent multiple surgeries performed by her ObGyn: tubal ligation, dilation and curettage, hysteroscopy, and emergent hysterectomy. Following the hysterectomy, during which the ovaries were not removed, she had significant left upper quadrant pain. Ultrasonography revealed two cysts on the left ovary. During recommended surgery to remove the ovary, the physician continued laparoscopic dissection despite complications caused by extensive omental adhesions. The surgery lasted 5 hours, after which the patient required 2 days of hospitalization. Within 24 hours of leaving the hospital, she returned to the emergency room with fever, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. A CT scan indicated a probable leak from the sigmoid colon. Follow-up surgery showed perforation of the sigmoid colon and a colostomy was placed. The patient developed acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation and mechanical ventilation during a 2-week hospitalization.
PATIENT’S CLAIM Because of her prior abdominal surgeries, laparoscopic surgery was contraindicated. Once begun, it should have been converted to an open procedure. Also, the physician should have recognized the injury to the sigmoid colon and treated it immediately.
PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Perforation is a known risk of laparoscopy, and the patient was informed of this.
VERDICT $437,438 Maryland verdict.
Nephrectomy is necessary after ureteral injury
A 52-YEAR-OLD WOMAN with a history of fibroids was told by her ObGyn, Dr. H, that the tumors had grown. After undergoing a recommended hysterectomy performed by Dr. H, the patient experienced ongoing pain. Three months after the surgery, she consulted Dr. J, who diagnosed ureteral obstruction. The patient then underwent surgical repair of the obstruction, but suffered permanent kidney damage. Nephrectomy was performed a month later.
PATIENT’S CLAIM Dr. H was negligent because he injured the ureter during the hysterectomy and was also negligent for failing to recognize the injury.
PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Ureteral injury is a known complication of the procedure. Also, the patient’s symptoms were inconsistent with such an injury.
VERDICT Tennessee defense verdict.