Unnecessary laparotomy: $625,000 award
A woman in her 20s reported cramping and rectal bleeding to her ObGyn. Pelvic and rectal examinations were normal. Her family physician's exam and a gastroenterologist's rectal exam and colonoscopy were all normal. A radiologist (Dr. A) identified a 3-cm by 6-cm mass on transvaginal ultrasonography. A computed tomography (CT) scan read by another radiologist (Dr. B) confirmed the mass. After receiving the radiologists' reports, the ObGyn told the patient that she had a small tumor that needed immediate removal. No mass was found during exploratory laparotomy.
Three years postsurgery, after trying to conceive, the patient underwent exploratory laparoscopy to evaluate her fallopian tubes. A surgeon found significant pelvic adhesions occluding the left fallopian tube. He lysed the adhesions and resected the left fallopian tube.
PATIENT'S CLAIM: The patient sued the ObGyn and both radiologists, alleging that the unnecessary surgeries resulted in reduced fertility.
Postoperatively, the ObGyn told the patient that the surgery, performed for "nothing," was the radiologists' fault, and that she would have no trouble conceiving. He later blamed her fallopian tube damage on a diagnosis of chlamydia that was successfully treated years earlier with no evidence of reinfection.
The ObGyn disregarded Dr. A's recommendation for a CT scan with rectal contrast; instead he ordered oral contrast. The ObGyn also ignored Dr. B's recommendation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
The mass misidentified by the radiologists was described in 2 different places on the anterior wall of the bowel, both outside the purview of a gynecologist. Given the uncertain diagnosis, referral to a general surgeon was mandated; exploratory laparotomy was not indicated. The ObGyn never referred the patient to a general surgeon for evaluation or sent records or films to the surgeon whom he claimed to have consulted before surgery. The general surgeon denied that any such discussion occurred. The surgeon's first contact with the patient occurred when he was called into the operating room because the ObGyn could not find a mass; the patient was under anesthesia and her abdomen was open.
DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE: The ObGyn claimed that he had developed a plan with the general surgeon before surgery: if the mass was a uterine fibroid, he would remove it, but if the mass was mesenteric, the surgeon would operate.
The ObGyn was justified in performing surgery based on the patient's complaints and the radiologists' findings.
The radiologists contended that, since neither of them expressed certainty, both requested further studies, and neither suggested surgery, their treatment was consistent with the standard of care.
VERDICT: A $625,000 Pennsylvania verdict was returned, finding the ObGyn 100% liable.
Both ureters injured during TAH
A 49-year-old woman underwent total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) for removal of a uterine fibroid performed by her gynecologist and a surgical assistant. The patient had limited urine output immediately after surgery, no urinary output overnight, and abdominal pain. The gynecologist ordered a urology consultation. A CT scan showed bilateral ureteral obstruction; an interventional radiology study confirmed a blockage due to severance of both ureters. A nephrostomy was performed and, 6 weeks later, the ureters were reimplanted.
PATIENT'S CLAIM: The severing of both ureters was a negligent surgical error. While the risk of injuring a single ureter is a recognized complication of TAH, it is unacceptable that both ureters were severed.
DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE: Standard of care was met: bilateral ureteral injury is a known risk of TAH. Before surgery, the patient was fully informed of the risks and signed a consent agreement. There was no intraoperative evidence that the ureters had been damaged. The injuries were detected as soon as medically possible and timely and successfully treated.
VERDICT: An Illinois defense verdict was returned.
Failure to detect breast cancer: $21.9M verdict against radiologist
A woman went to a diagnostic imaging service for ultrasonography (US) after an earlier US was suspicious for a breast mass. She had a history of left breast pain and swelling that had been treated with antibiotics. The radiologist interpreted the second ultrasound as showing no masses; he noted skin thickening and a lymph node abnormality.
Nine months after initial US, the patient had a breast biopsy performed in another state. She was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer.
PATIENT'S CLAIM: The radiologist failed to properly interpret the findings of the second ultrasound.
PHYSICIAN'S DEFENSE: The radiologist contended that he was not liable because the technologist failed to place the transducer over the breast lump. The first US films were not provided for comparison.