User login
Cases reprinted with permission from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements and Experts, Lewis Laska, Editor, (800) 298-6288.
The patient, a 50-year-old Pennsylvania woman, underwent a hysterectomy after a uterine fibroid was identified by her treating gynecologists. Because the woman had a history of breast cancer, her doctors also decided to remove her ovaries during the procedure.
According to the patient, her bladder and ureter were transected during the surgery, necessitating a temporary catheter. She was monitored for a year until she changed urologists and underwent a second surgery, during which the ureter was successfully repaired.
The plaintiff claimed that the only way for such an injury to have occurred without negligence was if she had developed scar tissue, and there was no evidence of scar tissue.
The defendants claimed that injury to the ureter is a known complication of the procedure in question. The defendants also claimed that the injury was caused by an electrocautery device that was used during the hysterectomy, and that the actual hole developed two days later and was identified when blood was detected in the plaintiff’s urine.
Outcome
According to a published report, a defense verdict was returned.
Comment
Fortunately, we do not require surgeons to be perfect. Transecting a ureter is a known, though infrequent, complication of hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy. The injury was discovered and treated, and that is what is necessary. A thorough explanation and apology can go a long way to prevent lawsuits. Who knows whether open communication and a caring attitude might have prevented this one? —JP
Cases reprinted with permission from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements and Experts, Lewis Laska, Editor, (800) 298-6288.
The patient, a 50-year-old Pennsylvania woman, underwent a hysterectomy after a uterine fibroid was identified by her treating gynecologists. Because the woman had a history of breast cancer, her doctors also decided to remove her ovaries during the procedure.
According to the patient, her bladder and ureter were transected during the surgery, necessitating a temporary catheter. She was monitored for a year until she changed urologists and underwent a second surgery, during which the ureter was successfully repaired.
The plaintiff claimed that the only way for such an injury to have occurred without negligence was if she had developed scar tissue, and there was no evidence of scar tissue.
The defendants claimed that injury to the ureter is a known complication of the procedure in question. The defendants also claimed that the injury was caused by an electrocautery device that was used during the hysterectomy, and that the actual hole developed two days later and was identified when blood was detected in the plaintiff’s urine.
Outcome
According to a published report, a defense verdict was returned.
Comment
Fortunately, we do not require surgeons to be perfect. Transecting a ureter is a known, though infrequent, complication of hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy. The injury was discovered and treated, and that is what is necessary. A thorough explanation and apology can go a long way to prevent lawsuits. Who knows whether open communication and a caring attitude might have prevented this one? —JP
Cases reprinted with permission from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements and Experts, Lewis Laska, Editor, (800) 298-6288.
The patient, a 50-year-old Pennsylvania woman, underwent a hysterectomy after a uterine fibroid was identified by her treating gynecologists. Because the woman had a history of breast cancer, her doctors also decided to remove her ovaries during the procedure.
According to the patient, her bladder and ureter were transected during the surgery, necessitating a temporary catheter. She was monitored for a year until she changed urologists and underwent a second surgery, during which the ureter was successfully repaired.
The plaintiff claimed that the only way for such an injury to have occurred without negligence was if she had developed scar tissue, and there was no evidence of scar tissue.
The defendants claimed that injury to the ureter is a known complication of the procedure in question. The defendants also claimed that the injury was caused by an electrocautery device that was used during the hysterectomy, and that the actual hole developed two days later and was identified when blood was detected in the plaintiff’s urine.
Outcome
According to a published report, a defense verdict was returned.
Comment
Fortunately, we do not require surgeons to be perfect. Transecting a ureter is a known, though infrequent, complication of hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy. The injury was discovered and treated, and that is what is necessary. A thorough explanation and apology can go a long way to prevent lawsuits. Who knows whether open communication and a caring attitude might have prevented this one? —JP