Managing Your Practice

Uknown County (Mont) District Court—A 38-year-old woman underwent a routine Pap on November 5, 1997. The nurse assured her that she would be contacted if the results were abnormal. On November 10, the pathology report indicated “atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance” (ASCUS). However, the staff never notified the patient of her results and her chart was returned to central filing.

In February 2000, the woman returned for a routine gynecologic exam where she learned of her 1997 results. She underwent a colposcopy and biopsy that showed Stage IIA squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix and vagina. She was successfully treated with radiation therapy and chemotherapy.

The case settled for $750,000.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Uknown County (Mont) District Court—A 38-year-old woman underwent a routine Pap on November 5, 1997. The nurse assured her that she would be contacted if the results were abnormal. On November 10, the pathology report indicated “atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance” (ASCUS). However, the staff never notified the patient of her results and her chart was returned to central filing.

In February 2000, the woman returned for a routine gynecologic exam where she learned of her 1997 results. She underwent a colposcopy and biopsy that showed Stage IIA squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix and vagina. She was successfully treated with radiation therapy and chemotherapy.

The case settled for $750,000.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Uknown County (Mont) District Court—A 38-year-old woman underwent a routine Pap on November 5, 1997. The nurse assured her that she would be contacted if the results were abnormal. On November 10, the pathology report indicated “atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance” (ASCUS). However, the staff never notified the patient of her results and her chart was returned to central filing.

In February 2000, the woman returned for a routine gynecologic exam where she learned of her 1997 results. She underwent a colposcopy and biopsy that showed Stage IIA squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix and vagina. She was successfully treated with radiation therapy and chemotherapy.

The case settled for $750,000.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Queens County (Ny) Supreme Court—A 56-year-old woman underwent a vaginal hysterectomy with cystocele/rectocele repair. Six months postoperatively, she presented to her Ob/Gyn with a closed and shallow vagina. The physician then performed 4 unsuccessful dilatation procedures.

Another surgeon attempted vaginal reconstruction but also was unsuccessful. The woman now has a permanently closed vagina and cannot have sex.

In suing, the patient contended that the physician failed to prescribe estrogen preoperatively to pretreat atrophic vaginal tissue. Further, she maintained that the doctor excessively resected vaginal mucosal tissue.

The Ob/Gyn argued that the patient’s closed vagina was a result of adhesions, a normal complication of this type of surgery.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.1 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Queens County (Ny) Supreme Court—A 56-year-old woman underwent a vaginal hysterectomy with cystocele/rectocele repair. Six months postoperatively, she presented to her Ob/Gyn with a closed and shallow vagina. The physician then performed 4 unsuccessful dilatation procedures.

Another surgeon attempted vaginal reconstruction but also was unsuccessful. The woman now has a permanently closed vagina and cannot have sex.

In suing, the patient contended that the physician failed to prescribe estrogen preoperatively to pretreat atrophic vaginal tissue. Further, she maintained that the doctor excessively resected vaginal mucosal tissue.

The Ob/Gyn argued that the patient’s closed vagina was a result of adhesions, a normal complication of this type of surgery.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.1 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Queens County (Ny) Supreme Court—A 56-year-old woman underwent a vaginal hysterectomy with cystocele/rectocele repair. Six months postoperatively, she presented to her Ob/Gyn with a closed and shallow vagina. The physician then performed 4 unsuccessful dilatation procedures.

Another surgeon attempted vaginal reconstruction but also was unsuccessful. The woman now has a permanently closed vagina and cannot have sex.

In suing, the patient contended that the physician failed to prescribe estrogen preoperatively to pretreat atrophic vaginal tissue. Further, she maintained that the doctor excessively resected vaginal mucosal tissue.

The Ob/Gyn argued that the patient’s closed vagina was a result of adhesions, a normal complication of this type of surgery.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.1 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Queens County (Ny) Supreme Court—A 31-year-old woman presented to her physician with complaints of abdominal pain and nausea. A sonogram was performed, and she was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Three months later, however, large bilateral adnexal masses ruptured, resulting in tuboovarian abscesses and necessitating a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

In suing, the woman claimed that the physicians did not review the sonogram report and erroneously diagnosed her with IBS. Had the clinician properly diagnosed the masses, he could have performed an ovarian cystectomy prior to their rupture, thus preserving her fertility. The physician contended that the woman’s longstanding history of severe endometriosis and a prior myomectomy precluded her from having children naturally.

The case settled for $365,000.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Queens County (Ny) Supreme Court—A 31-year-old woman presented to her physician with complaints of abdominal pain and nausea. A sonogram was performed, and she was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Three months later, however, large bilateral adnexal masses ruptured, resulting in tuboovarian abscesses and necessitating a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

In suing, the woman claimed that the physicians did not review the sonogram report and erroneously diagnosed her with IBS. Had the clinician properly diagnosed the masses, he could have performed an ovarian cystectomy prior to their rupture, thus preserving her fertility. The physician contended that the woman’s longstanding history of severe endometriosis and a prior myomectomy precluded her from having children naturally.

The case settled for $365,000.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Queens County (Ny) Supreme Court—A 31-year-old woman presented to her physician with complaints of abdominal pain and nausea. A sonogram was performed, and she was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Three months later, however, large bilateral adnexal masses ruptured, resulting in tuboovarian abscesses and necessitating a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

In suing, the woman claimed that the physicians did not review the sonogram report and erroneously diagnosed her with IBS. Had the clinician properly diagnosed the masses, he could have performed an ovarian cystectomy prior to their rupture, thus preserving her fertility. The physician contended that the woman’s longstanding history of severe endometriosis and a prior myomectomy precluded her from having children naturally.

The case settled for $365,000.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Washington County (Wis) Circuit Court—A primipara presented to her Ob/Gyn in labor complaining of pain and fatigue. Because the fetal monitor strips suggested possible abnormal readings, the obstetrician opted to use a vacuum to expedite delivery but was unsuccessful. The physician recommended a cesarean, but the mother refused. After the vacuum device failed once again, the obstetrician attempted forceps delivery. At birth, both the placenta and umbilical cord were infected. The baby was born with severe brain damage. She now suffers from spastic cerebral palsy, requires the use of a wheelchair, and can only communicate via sign language.

In suing, the parents alleged that the physician improperly placed the forceps, causing an obstruction in the blood flow to the fetus’ brain.

The obstetrician contended that the forceps were properly placed and correctly used, and that the child’s brain damage was a result of injuries sustained prior to labor and delivery.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $7.25 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Washington County (Wis) Circuit Court—A primipara presented to her Ob/Gyn in labor complaining of pain and fatigue. Because the fetal monitor strips suggested possible abnormal readings, the obstetrician opted to use a vacuum to expedite delivery but was unsuccessful. The physician recommended a cesarean, but the mother refused. After the vacuum device failed once again, the obstetrician attempted forceps delivery. At birth, both the placenta and umbilical cord were infected. The baby was born with severe brain damage. She now suffers from spastic cerebral palsy, requires the use of a wheelchair, and can only communicate via sign language.

In suing, the parents alleged that the physician improperly placed the forceps, causing an obstruction in the blood flow to the fetus’ brain.

The obstetrician contended that the forceps were properly placed and correctly used, and that the child’s brain damage was a result of injuries sustained prior to labor and delivery.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $7.25 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Washington County (Wis) Circuit Court—A primipara presented to her Ob/Gyn in labor complaining of pain and fatigue. Because the fetal monitor strips suggested possible abnormal readings, the obstetrician opted to use a vacuum to expedite delivery but was unsuccessful. The physician recommended a cesarean, but the mother refused. After the vacuum device failed once again, the obstetrician attempted forceps delivery. At birth, both the placenta and umbilical cord were infected. The baby was born with severe brain damage. She now suffers from spastic cerebral palsy, requires the use of a wheelchair, and can only communicate via sign language.

In suing, the parents alleged that the physician improperly placed the forceps, causing an obstruction in the blood flow to the fetus’ brain.

The obstetrician contended that the forceps were properly placed and correctly used, and that the child’s brain damage was a result of injuries sustained prior to labor and delivery.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $7.25 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Newyork County (Ny) Supreme Court</court>—A gravida at term presented to a hospital in labor at 5:30 AM. Variable decelerations were noted at 8:45, with late decelerations beginning at 9:30. The baby was delivered in acute distress via cesarean at 12:46 PM.

The infant suffered brain damage, resulting in cerebral palsy with normal intelligence. In suing, the mother claimed on behalf of her child that the cesarean should have been initiated at 11 AM, not 12:15 PM.

The physician contended that the gravida suffered from chronic uteroplacental insufficiency throughout the pregnancy, which resulted in the infant’s neurological damage.

The case settled for $2.75 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Newyork County (Ny) Supreme Court</court>—A gravida at term presented to a hospital in labor at 5:30 AM. Variable decelerations were noted at 8:45, with late decelerations beginning at 9:30. The baby was delivered in acute distress via cesarean at 12:46 PM.

The infant suffered brain damage, resulting in cerebral palsy with normal intelligence. In suing, the mother claimed on behalf of her child that the cesarean should have been initiated at 11 AM, not 12:15 PM.

The physician contended that the gravida suffered from chronic uteroplacental insufficiency throughout the pregnancy, which resulted in the infant’s neurological damage.

The case settled for $2.75 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Newyork County (Ny) Supreme Court</court>—A gravida at term presented to a hospital in labor at 5:30 AM. Variable decelerations were noted at 8:45, with late decelerations beginning at 9:30. The baby was delivered in acute distress via cesarean at 12:46 PM.

The infant suffered brain damage, resulting in cerebral palsy with normal intelligence. In suing, the mother claimed on behalf of her child that the cesarean should have been initiated at 11 AM, not 12:15 PM.

The physician contended that the gravida suffered from chronic uteroplacental insufficiency throughout the pregnancy, which resulted in the infant’s neurological damage.

The case settled for $2.75 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Mchenry County (Ill) Circuit Court—On July 15, a gravida at 6 weeks’ gestation presented to her obstetrician with a complaint of light bleeding. The physician performed an ultrasound and a series of blood tests that revealed falling hCG levels, signifying a possible miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. The obstetrician then performed a dilatation and curettage (D&C) because he believed the patient had miscarried. During the procedure, he resected a small amount of tissue for pathology. On July 18, the pathologist reported a preliminary finding of no chorionic villi, suggesting an ectopic pregnancy. Two days later, the patient was rushed to the hospital with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy that required the removal of her right fallopian tube.

In suing, the woman claimed that the physician should have performed a laparoscopy at the time of the D&C. Further, she maintained that he should have suspected an ectopic pregnancy.

The physician argued that since the ultrasound showed no mass in the fallopian tube and the patient did not complain of pelvic pain, he believed that she had suffered a miscarriage and, therefore, the D&C was well within the standard of care.

The jury returned a verdict for the defense.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Mchenry County (Ill) Circuit Court—On July 15, a gravida at 6 weeks’ gestation presented to her obstetrician with a complaint of light bleeding. The physician performed an ultrasound and a series of blood tests that revealed falling hCG levels, signifying a possible miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. The obstetrician then performed a dilatation and curettage (D&C) because he believed the patient had miscarried. During the procedure, he resected a small amount of tissue for pathology. On July 18, the pathologist reported a preliminary finding of no chorionic villi, suggesting an ectopic pregnancy. Two days later, the patient was rushed to the hospital with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy that required the removal of her right fallopian tube.

In suing, the woman claimed that the physician should have performed a laparoscopy at the time of the D&C. Further, she maintained that he should have suspected an ectopic pregnancy.

The physician argued that since the ultrasound showed no mass in the fallopian tube and the patient did not complain of pelvic pain, he believed that she had suffered a miscarriage and, therefore, the D&C was well within the standard of care.

The jury returned a verdict for the defense.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Mchenry County (Ill) Circuit Court—On July 15, a gravida at 6 weeks’ gestation presented to her obstetrician with a complaint of light bleeding. The physician performed an ultrasound and a series of blood tests that revealed falling hCG levels, signifying a possible miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. The obstetrician then performed a dilatation and curettage (D&C) because he believed the patient had miscarried. During the procedure, he resected a small amount of tissue for pathology. On July 18, the pathologist reported a preliminary finding of no chorionic villi, suggesting an ectopic pregnancy. Two days later, the patient was rushed to the hospital with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy that required the removal of her right fallopian tube.

In suing, the woman claimed that the physician should have performed a laparoscopy at the time of the D&C. Further, she maintained that he should have suspected an ectopic pregnancy.

The physician argued that since the ultrasound showed no mass in the fallopian tube and the patient did not complain of pelvic pain, he believed that she had suffered a miscarriage and, therefore, the D&C was well within the standard of care.

The jury returned a verdict for the defense.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Manchester County (Conn) Superior Court—A 32-year-old woman presented to a hospital for an exploratory laparotomy, during which an ovarian mass was discovered. To preserve the patient’s fertility, her Ob/Gyn opted to perform an ovarian cystectomy. During the procedure, the physician resected some tissue and sent it to pathology for a frozen section. Shortly after, the pathologist reported back that the mass was “unequivocally malignant.” As a result, the patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Postoperatively, the pathologist notified the physician of an error in the diagnosis; the woman did not, in fact, have cancer.

In suing, the patient claimed that the pathologist should have consulted with an oncologist or another pathologist to confirm the diagnosis. Further, she argued that he should have waited to diagnose permanent sections to verify malignancy, rather than rely on the frozen section only.

The case settled for $1 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Manchester County (Conn) Superior Court—A 32-year-old woman presented to a hospital for an exploratory laparotomy, during which an ovarian mass was discovered. To preserve the patient’s fertility, her Ob/Gyn opted to perform an ovarian cystectomy. During the procedure, the physician resected some tissue and sent it to pathology for a frozen section. Shortly after, the pathologist reported back that the mass was “unequivocally malignant.” As a result, the patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Postoperatively, the pathologist notified the physician of an error in the diagnosis; the woman did not, in fact, have cancer.

In suing, the patient claimed that the pathologist should have consulted with an oncologist or another pathologist to confirm the diagnosis. Further, she argued that he should have waited to diagnose permanent sections to verify malignancy, rather than rely on the frozen section only.

The case settled for $1 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Manchester County (Conn) Superior Court—A 32-year-old woman presented to a hospital for an exploratory laparotomy, during which an ovarian mass was discovered. To preserve the patient’s fertility, her Ob/Gyn opted to perform an ovarian cystectomy. During the procedure, the physician resected some tissue and sent it to pathology for a frozen section. Shortly after, the pathologist reported back that the mass was “unequivocally malignant.” As a result, the patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Postoperatively, the pathologist notified the physician of an error in the diagnosis; the woman did not, in fact, have cancer.

In suing, the patient claimed that the pathologist should have consulted with an oncologist or another pathologist to confirm the diagnosis. Further, she argued that he should have waited to diagnose permanent sections to verify malignancy, rather than rely on the frozen section only.

The case settled for $1 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Bronx County (NY) Supreme Court—A gravida was admitted to a hospital at 41 weeks’ gestation for delivery and was placed on an external fetal heart rate (FHR) monitor. The tracing revealed late decelerations with every contraction from 4:15 a.m. to 5:06 a.m.

When the obstetrician did an amniotomy at 5:10 a.m., meconium was found. A cesarean delivery was subsequently performed at 7:35 a.m.

The Ob/Gyn argued that the fetal monitor indicated that the bleeding occurred in utero.

At birth, the baby’s Apgar scores were normal. However, an MRI performed later that day revealed intracranial bleeding. The infant developed right-side hemiparesis of the lower extremity, requiring physical therapy and surgery for tendon release. He now walks with a limp.

In suing, the mother claimed that the FHR tracing clearly showed signs of fetal distress. She further maintained that the physician unnecessarily delayed delivery for more than 3 hours and that the infant’s bleeding occurred during labor.

The obstetrician argued that the fetal monitor, if at all nonreassuring, indicated that the bleeding occurred prior to labor and delivery.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.25 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Bronx County (NY) Supreme Court—A gravida was admitted to a hospital at 41 weeks’ gestation for delivery and was placed on an external fetal heart rate (FHR) monitor. The tracing revealed late decelerations with every contraction from 4:15 a.m. to 5:06 a.m.

When the obstetrician did an amniotomy at 5:10 a.m., meconium was found. A cesarean delivery was subsequently performed at 7:35 a.m.

The Ob/Gyn argued that the fetal monitor indicated that the bleeding occurred in utero.

At birth, the baby’s Apgar scores were normal. However, an MRI performed later that day revealed intracranial bleeding. The infant developed right-side hemiparesis of the lower extremity, requiring physical therapy and surgery for tendon release. He now walks with a limp.

In suing, the mother claimed that the FHR tracing clearly showed signs of fetal distress. She further maintained that the physician unnecessarily delayed delivery for more than 3 hours and that the infant’s bleeding occurred during labor.

The obstetrician argued that the fetal monitor, if at all nonreassuring, indicated that the bleeding occurred prior to labor and delivery.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.25 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Bronx County (NY) Supreme Court—A gravida was admitted to a hospital at 41 weeks’ gestation for delivery and was placed on an external fetal heart rate (FHR) monitor. The tracing revealed late decelerations with every contraction from 4:15 a.m. to 5:06 a.m.

When the obstetrician did an amniotomy at 5:10 a.m., meconium was found. A cesarean delivery was subsequently performed at 7:35 a.m.

The Ob/Gyn argued that the fetal monitor indicated that the bleeding occurred in utero.

At birth, the baby’s Apgar scores were normal. However, an MRI performed later that day revealed intracranial bleeding. The infant developed right-side hemiparesis of the lower extremity, requiring physical therapy and surgery for tendon release. He now walks with a limp.

In suing, the mother claimed that the FHR tracing clearly showed signs of fetal distress. She further maintained that the physician unnecessarily delayed delivery for more than 3 hours and that the infant’s bleeding occurred during labor.

The obstetrician argued that the fetal monitor, if at all nonreassuring, indicated that the bleeding occurred prior to labor and delivery.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.25 million.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Maricopa County (Ariz) Superior Court</court>—A 35-year-old gravida in her sixth month of pregnancy noticed a pea-sized mass in her right axilla in March. By mid-April, the mass had grown to the size of a lemon.

The patient was referred to a general surgeon who performed a mammogram and a true-cut biopsy of the large mass. The initial pathology reading noted a malignant and anaplastic tumor. The local pathologist confirmed that the primary site of the mass was most likely the breast. However, metastasis from another site, other than the breast, could not be ruled out. The surgeon scheduled the patient for a modified radical mastectomy.

During the procedure, the surgeon excised a large tumor from the axillary tail of the breast, extending into the axilla and involving multiple lymph nodes. The entire tumor was not resected, as it was wrapped around some nerves.

The mastectomy specimen was then sent to a regional pathology center and a diagnosis of anaplastic large cell lymphoma was made by the consulting pathologist. The patient underwent 1 course of chemotherapy before her child was prematurely delivered via cesarean. Later, the woman underwent additional chemotherapy and 2 breast reconstruction surgeries.

In suing, the patient contended that had she been properly diagnosed with lymphoma, she would not have needed a mastectomy. The woman also maintained that the physician should have carefully reviewed the pathology report and that he should have known the mass was not resectable.

Further, she claimed that the pathologist should have asked for more tissue samples prior to the surgery so that a definitive diagnosis could be reached.

The surgeon and pathologist argued that the interpretation of the preoperative biopsy specimen was appropriate and within the standard of care. Further, regardless of the possible metastasis from another site, the surgeon was properly advised to proceed with the mastectomy.

The jury returned a verdict for the defense.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Maricopa County (Ariz) Superior Court</court>—A 35-year-old gravida in her sixth month of pregnancy noticed a pea-sized mass in her right axilla in March. By mid-April, the mass had grown to the size of a lemon.

The patient was referred to a general surgeon who performed a mammogram and a true-cut biopsy of the large mass. The initial pathology reading noted a malignant and anaplastic tumor. The local pathologist confirmed that the primary site of the mass was most likely the breast. However, metastasis from another site, other than the breast, could not be ruled out. The surgeon scheduled the patient for a modified radical mastectomy.

During the procedure, the surgeon excised a large tumor from the axillary tail of the breast, extending into the axilla and involving multiple lymph nodes. The entire tumor was not resected, as it was wrapped around some nerves.

The mastectomy specimen was then sent to a regional pathology center and a diagnosis of anaplastic large cell lymphoma was made by the consulting pathologist. The patient underwent 1 course of chemotherapy before her child was prematurely delivered via cesarean. Later, the woman underwent additional chemotherapy and 2 breast reconstruction surgeries.

In suing, the patient contended that had she been properly diagnosed with lymphoma, she would not have needed a mastectomy. The woman also maintained that the physician should have carefully reviewed the pathology report and that he should have known the mass was not resectable.

Further, she claimed that the pathologist should have asked for more tissue samples prior to the surgery so that a definitive diagnosis could be reached.

The surgeon and pathologist argued that the interpretation of the preoperative biopsy specimen was appropriate and within the standard of care. Further, regardless of the possible metastasis from another site, the surgeon was properly advised to proceed with the mastectomy.

The jury returned a verdict for the defense.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

<court>Maricopa County (Ariz) Superior Court</court>—A 35-year-old gravida in her sixth month of pregnancy noticed a pea-sized mass in her right axilla in March. By mid-April, the mass had grown to the size of a lemon.

The patient was referred to a general surgeon who performed a mammogram and a true-cut biopsy of the large mass. The initial pathology reading noted a malignant and anaplastic tumor. The local pathologist confirmed that the primary site of the mass was most likely the breast. However, metastasis from another site, other than the breast, could not be ruled out. The surgeon scheduled the patient for a modified radical mastectomy.

During the procedure, the surgeon excised a large tumor from the axillary tail of the breast, extending into the axilla and involving multiple lymph nodes. The entire tumor was not resected, as it was wrapped around some nerves.

The mastectomy specimen was then sent to a regional pathology center and a diagnosis of anaplastic large cell lymphoma was made by the consulting pathologist. The patient underwent 1 course of chemotherapy before her child was prematurely delivered via cesarean. Later, the woman underwent additional chemotherapy and 2 breast reconstruction surgeries.

In suing, the patient contended that had she been properly diagnosed with lymphoma, she would not have needed a mastectomy. The woman also maintained that the physician should have carefully reviewed the pathology report and that he should have known the mass was not resectable.

Further, she claimed that the pathologist should have asked for more tissue samples prior to the surgery so that a definitive diagnosis could be reached.

The surgeon and pathologist argued that the interpretation of the preoperative biopsy specimen was appropriate and within the standard of care. Further, regardless of the possible metastasis from another site, the surgeon was properly advised to proceed with the mastectomy.

The jury returned a verdict for the defense.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Delaware County (Pa) Court of Common Pleas—During a workup for infertility, a physician discovered that his patient had a tubal obstruction and performed an exploratory laparoscopy. During the procedure, the woman suffered internal bleeding from a lacerated left iliac vein. A vascular surgeon then performed an emergency laparotomy to repair the vein and achieve hemostasis.

In suing, the woman claimed that during the laparoscopy, the physician inserted the trocar at an improper angle, resulting in the laceration of her left iliac vein. Although the injury was repaired, the patient maintained that it caused vascular congestion, which compressed her back nerves, making it difficult for her to sit for long periods of time without experiencing pain. She also allegedly suffers from urinary incontinence and, as a result, has been unable to work.

The physician argued that the patient had chronic back pain prior to the laparoscopy and that the procedure and injury caused no further damage.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million and also awarded her husband $100,000 for pain and suffering.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Delaware County (Pa) Court of Common Pleas—During a workup for infertility, a physician discovered that his patient had a tubal obstruction and performed an exploratory laparoscopy. During the procedure, the woman suffered internal bleeding from a lacerated left iliac vein. A vascular surgeon then performed an emergency laparotomy to repair the vein and achieve hemostasis.

In suing, the woman claimed that during the laparoscopy, the physician inserted the trocar at an improper angle, resulting in the laceration of her left iliac vein. Although the injury was repaired, the patient maintained that it caused vascular congestion, which compressed her back nerves, making it difficult for her to sit for long periods of time without experiencing pain. She also allegedly suffers from urinary incontinence and, as a result, has been unable to work.

The physician argued that the patient had chronic back pain prior to the laparoscopy and that the procedure and injury caused no further damage.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million and also awarded her husband $100,000 for pain and suffering.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.

Delaware County (Pa) Court of Common Pleas—During a workup for infertility, a physician discovered that his patient had a tubal obstruction and performed an exploratory laparoscopy. During the procedure, the woman suffered internal bleeding from a lacerated left iliac vein. A vascular surgeon then performed an emergency laparotomy to repair the vein and achieve hemostasis.

In suing, the woman claimed that during the laparoscopy, the physician inserted the trocar at an improper angle, resulting in the laceration of her left iliac vein. Although the injury was repaired, the patient maintained that it caused vascular congestion, which compressed her back nerves, making it difficult for her to sit for long periods of time without experiencing pain. She also allegedly suffers from urinary incontinence and, as a result, has been unable to work.

The physician argued that the patient had chronic back pain prior to the laparoscopy and that the procedure and injury caused no further damage.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million and also awarded her husband $100,000 for pain and suffering.

The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts. While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.