Facts

In April 2004, plaintiff Tamatha De La Cruz sustained injuries when she underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The procedure was performed by defendant Mario Gonzalez, a surgeon. The plaintiff sued, claiming medical malpractice.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that the defendant made an incision so that he could place the trocar, but he pushed the trocar too hard. As a result, the trocar was placed on the plaintiff's lumbar vertebrae. Further, the force caused a tear to the anterior and posterior walls of her aorta. This resulted in a potentially life threatening situation. The plaintiffs also contended that the defendant was aware of the emergency situation, as bleeding occurred. He thus turned the laparoscopic procedure to an open laparotomy and repaired the tears to the aorta. According to plaintiff's surgery expert, in a laparoscopic procedure, a tearing of the aorta is not expected and signifies negligence.

Moreover, after the surgery, the defendant admitted to plaintiff's family that he applied too much force to the trocar. The defendant even stated in his deposition that he probably admitted this to the family.

Further, the plaintiff had a c-section five weeks before the surgery, and the defendant failed to note that her abdominal musculature was still thinned out.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contested liability. The plaintiff's fascia yielded to the normal force applied by the defendant. This was not anticipated. Further, the defendant used the same technique in numerous other laparoscopic procedures and never encountered a problem. The defendant also provided for an adequate pneumoperitoneum.

Settlement Discussions

Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 998, the plaintiff demanded $275,000 and her husband demanded $50,000 for his loss of consortium claim.

Specials in Evidence

Plaintiff claimed $10,000.

Injuries

The plaintiff experienced profuse bleeding from the tear to the aorta, and had to undergo a blood transfusion. She also suffered from a myocardial infraction during the surgery due to the stress on her heart, which resulted from the loss of blood. According to plaintiff's cardiology expert, the heart damage caused plaintiff to have a shorter life expectancy. The plaintiff's plastic surgery expert opined that the plaintiff sustained a large abdominal scar. The defendant challenged the damages. According to the defendant's cardiology expert, plaintiff had a pre-existing cardiomyopathy that stemmed from her pregnancy and childbirth. This condition was not induced by the surgery.

Result

The jury determined that defendant was not negligent.

Deliberation

4.5 hours

Poll

9-3 (rejecting negligence)

Length

13 days