Facts

In 2007, Georgette Pedraza underwent a robot-assisted laproscopic mass resection performed by Dr. Michael Silverman, an oncologist at the University of California San Diego Medical Center. Part of Silverman's harmonic blade became lodged in Pedraza and he spent an hour and a half searching for the blade, which was ultimately found. Pedraza became septic and went into acute renal failure, acute respiratory failure, and septic shock during her recovery from the surgery.

Pedraza was later diagnosed with fecal peritonitis, and a perforation in her large bowel was later discovered by Dr. Cheryl Saenz, who was covering for Silverman over the weekend. Pedraza underwent a colon resection by Silverman. She was required to wear a colostomy bag for seven months following the surgery. Later she had a re-anastomosis of the colon.

Pedraza and her husband sued Silverman, Saenz, and the Regents of University of California for medical malpractice for the surgical error, negligent treatment and delayed diagnosis.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contends that Dr Silverman had little experience with robotic surgery yet wanted to use that method to remove plaintiff's ovarian cyst. During this process, plaintiff contends he used too much force and inadvertently dislodged a portion of a scalpel in Mrs. Pedraza. Plaintiff contends that Silverman spent a lot of time looking for the instrument, nearly doubling the normal length of the procedure. Further, during the surgery, plaintiff contends he perforated Mrs. Pedraza's bowel and did not recognize it. Allegedly, this was not the first time he had dropped instruments in patients.

Plaintiff contends that Mrs. Pedraza should have been discharged the following day for this kind of surgery, instead she developed a fever of 102.2 and Silverman transferred her care to Dr. Cheryl Saenz, his partner. Plaintiff contends that Saenz did not know about the instrument dislodgement and retrieval into the plaintiff's abdomen that occurred during surgery. When the patient became very sick under her watch, Saenz allegedly gave the patient blood. Plaintiff contends that blood should not have been needed for such a minor surgery. Allegedly, the plaintiff's oxygen level fell to the 40's and Saenz did nothing. Plaintiff contends that Saenz should have taken Mrs. Pedraza back to surgery at a much earlier time to avoid the sequeala that would come with delay. Saenz did not take plaintiff back to surgery. Silverman had to come back to the hospital to operate on the patient four days after the initial surgery. He performed a colostomy and drained the massive fecal perititonitis that was present.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Silverman contends that a product defect existed in the scalpel used, and that it was not created by his use of the product. He further contends that his search of the blade was within the standard of care, and that the duration was due to the size of the patient. Both doctors also contend that the perforation did not occur until three days after the surgery, and it was diagnosed timely. They claimed the perforation was due to the removal of adhesion from Pedraza's colon, which weakened the bowel wall due to stretching, thereby causing the perforation. The two also contend that the perforation was a known risk of the procedure.

Damages

Plaintiffs claimed $300,000 in damages for Mrs. Pedraza and $100,000 for Mr. Pedraza. Defendants denied any liability.

Injuries

Mrs. Pedraza was in the ICU for two weeks and hospitalized for 32 days. She wore a colostomy bag for 8 months along with a drainage bag and then needed an extensive surgery to reconnect her bowel. She claims to continue to have problems with the enormous adhesions from the surgery. She has been hospitalized another 10 days for bowel obstruction from the perforation caused by the dislodgement of the scalpel.

Result

The judge granted the Regents its non-suit motion at the close of testimony. The jury rendered a unanimous verdict for both doctors.

Other Information

According to plaintiffs, the case is on appeal as the judge was challenged prior to the trial because she obtained healthcare from some of the defendants. Allegedly, the judge moved to strike the challenge and then was hostile to the plaintiff's team. Moreover, plaintiffs believe they were denied an objective jury. Plaintiffs contend that one juror disclosed that he was a friend of the judge and he should have been removed, along with employees who worked in the medical area at UCSD. Additionally, plaintiffs claim that their expert doctor was not allowed to testify fully. Moreover, plaintiffs contend that they should not have been precluded from bringing in evidence that the Dept. of Public Health cited the hospital. Plaintiffs objected to the fact that after 40 minutes of cross examination of defendant's expert the judge said that it was more important for the expert to catch his plane and if plaintiff wanted to ask more questions she could do so by phone.

Deliberation

six hours

Poll

11-1 (on Dr. Silverman), 12-0 (on Dr. Saenz)

Length

12 days