Facts

Plaintiff LaSharrell Rhoden, a middle-aged female, had longstanding issues with pelvic pain due to the presence of ovarian cysts. Conservative treatment was provided for the cysts over months though the pain and problems did not resolve. Defendant Harold Peart, M.D., ultimately took Plaintiff into surgery in September 2009, with a pre-operative plan to perform a bilateral salpingo oophorectomy. The oophorectomy was not performed due to the presence of extensive adhesions, which complicated the surgery. Portions of the cysts were removed after they were decompressed. An appendectomy also was required as one of the cysts was adherent to the appendix. The bowel was inspected and noted to be intact at the time of closing. Plaintiff was stable post-operatively for three days, and was discharged home on the third day by defendant.

Approximately 32 hours later, Plaintiff was rushed to emergency room at which point she was leaking fecal matter from her surgical incision and was in septic shock. A bowel laceration was thereafter identified and repaired.

Plaintiff was in a coma, and eventually required an iliostomy. Following months of inpatient treatment, Plaintiff improved, the iliostomy was eventually reversed, and Plaintiff ultimately returned to baseline.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged multiple breaches of the standard of care by defendant. These included the failure to consult a general surgeon or gynecologic-oncologist pre-operatively; the failure to provide appropriate bowel prep pre-operatively; the failure to perform an appropriate inspection of the bowel intra-operatively; the failure to consult a general surgeon or gynecologic-oncologist intra-operatively; and the failure to complete a bilateral salpingo oophorectomy.

Plaintiff finally alleged Defendant breached the standard of care by discharging her home on post-operative day three.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended he complied with the standard of care in all respects. There was no reason to consult with a general surgeon or gynecologic-oncologist pre-operatively as the surgery in question was primarily a gynecologic surgery, and it was impossible to predict how complicated the surgery would be. The bowel prep was appropriate and complied with the standard of care. The bowel was appropriately inspected intra-operatively and no injury was apparent.

Defendant argued the bowel injury was a partial thickness laceration incapable of being appreciated at the time of surgery.

Defendant contended there was no reason to call a general surgeon or gynecologic-oncologist intra-operatively as there was never a concern the bowel had been injured during the surgery in question. The failure to complete a bilateral salpingo oophorectomy was appropriate and in compliance with the standard of care based upon Defendant's use of medical judgment and the risks associated with completing a BSO.

Finally, Defendant contended the discharge of the patient on post-operative day three was in compliance with the standard of care as plaintiff was stable at all junctures preceding the discharge.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $340,000. Defendant made no offer.

Damages

$340,000

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

INSURER: Norcal Mutual Insurance Company.

Deliberation

45 minutes

Poll

11-1

Length

eight days