Bilateral mastectomy: nipples not spared
A 46-YEAR-OLD WOMAN UNDERWENT prophylactic bilateral mastectomy. A plastic surgeon drew presurgical markings on the day of surgery; the breast surgeon removed the nipples.
PATIENT’S CLAIM All parties had agreed the nipples would be spared. The plastic surgeon drew improper markings and failed to remind the breast surgeon prior to surgery that the nipples would be preserved.
PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The breast surgeon was at fault for misinterpreting the markings.
VERDICT The patient reached a pretrial settlement with the breast surgeon. The case proceeded against the plastic surgeon. A Maryland defense verdict was returned for the plastic surgeon.
Signs of intrauterine growth restriction; stillborn child
AT 24 WEEKS’ GESTATION, a 17-year-old woman who smoked reported spotting. An ultrasound demonstrated significant fetal growth restriction. The mother was hospitalized to assess the spotting; no testing was ordered to assess fetal growth. When blood was not found in the birth canal, she was discharged. During the next month, she saw the ObGyn three times; testing indicated that the fetus was at least 3 weeks behind the stage of pregnancy. The ObGyn did not order additional testing nor consult a specialist. At 31 weeks’ gestation, ultrasonography found no fetal heart tones. The stillborn was delivered by cesarean section.
ESTATE’S CLAIM A wrongful death suit was filed by the parents, who also claimed lack of informed consent concerning the risk of stillbirth in the presence of intrauterine growth restriction.
PHYSICIANS’ DEFENSE The mother’s smoking was mentioned at trial as a possible explanation of why fetal development was delayed. The ObGyn denied negligence.
VERDICT A $800,000 Maryland verdict was awarded to the parents.
Three BrCa patients share $72.6 M
THREE MENOPAUSAL WOMEN took Premarin (conjugated estrogens) plus Provera (medroxyprogesterone), and/or Prempro (conjugated estrogens/medroxyprogesterone acetate). Each discontinued hormone therapy after being diagnosed with hormone-positive breast cancer.
PATIENTS’ CLAIM The only source of hormonal stimulation for their cancer was the use of estrogen plus progestin.
DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE Science is currently unable to determine precisely what causes breast cancer. Each plaintiff had risk factors.
VERDICT The three cases were consolidated to a reverse-bifurcated trial, with causation and damages assessed first. The Pennsylvania jury found the Wyeth Pharmaceutical products to be factual causes of the patients’ cancer, and awarded a total of $72.6 million in compensatory damages. The parties settled for confidential amounts before the liability phase began.