Facts

This is a medical malpractice action arising out of a Dec. 24, 2007 surgery performed by defendant vascular surgeon at defendant medical center.

Plaintiff was admitted for resection of a carotid body tumor. Though a rare benign condition where the tumor lodges near the carotid artery, defendant surgeon claimed to have performed at least six such excisions in his career and that this was a routine procedure that should not require an overnight stay. Defendant surgeon failed to properly anticipate the need for a saphenous vein graft and elected to use the internal jugular vein as a graft causing blood to clot.

Plaintiff suffered a stroke and neurological deficits. Defendant medical center nursing staff did not immediately recognize the post-operative symptoms of stroke, which contributed to the severity of plaintiff's neurological deficits. By the time these were fully appreciated, defendant surgeon returned to perform an emergency second operation. This time, defendant surgeon utilized a graft of the saphenous vein from the thigh.

Defendant doctor never dictated an operative report for this second emergency surgery where the multiple problems from the first surgery would have been documented.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the doctor fell below the standard of care which caused her residual injuries, including failing to review the CT films pre-operatively of the carotid body tumor and seeking additional film studies to properly plan the operation; failing to research and understand the potential complications of this surgery; and failing to have the assistant surgeon or surgical nurse prepare the thigh for harvest of the saphenous vein graft as part of the planned procedure and after discovering the tumor was embedded in the artery and required a graft.

Plaintiff also contended that the doctor failed to utilize the internal jugular vein as a graft of the carotid artery in this type of procedure given that the sizes of the vessels did not match, which caused the blood to embolus resulting in a brain infarct and neurological damage (i.e. stroke); failed to utilize a stint when encountering problems so that the proper vein could be harvested from the thigh; failed to monitor the patient in the immediate hours post-operatively so as to recognize the stroke symptoms and return to the operating room timely to correct and eliminate neurological deficits of a stroke.

Plaintiff also claimed that the doctor failed to document the second surgery in the form of an operative report and discovered this only after he received notice of the "intent to sue" from plaintiff one year later; and that the nursing staff failed to properly monitor plaintiff's post-operative condition and recognize stroke symptoms thereby aggravating the residual problems.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The surgeon contended that he acted within the standard of care at all times and nothing the nursing staff did or failed to do contributed to plaintiff's injuries.

Injuries

Plaintiff suffered a severe stroke, which immediately led to complete loss of movement on the entire left side of her body, which required three weeks of in-house intensive care, and occupational and speech rehabilitation. This was followed by six months of outpatient therapy and nearly another year of weekly therapy, examinations, and treatment by a neurologist. Within 18 months, she fully recovered except for left-handed motor skills, which prevented her from returning to her pre-accident employment as a pattern maker in the garment industry.

Result

The case settled for $1,025,500 ($1 million from surgeon, $22,500 from hospital).