|
|
|
| Disposition:
(Settlement/Arbitration/Trial) |
Arbitration |
Date: |
12/7/1995 |
Type of Case: |
Medical Malpractice |
Allegation(s): |
Removal of Healthy Kidney |
Result: |
$125,000 award |
Case Name: |
Garrett v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, et
al. |
Facts: |
On
April 21, 1993, 53-year-old claimant Barry
M. Garrett, a retired Air Force officer was
seen in the Kaiser Urgent Care Clinic
with a complaint of a single episode of painless
gross hematuria. He was referred to Kaiser
Urology, and on May 14, 1993, underwent cytology
and an intravenous pyelogram, which was interpreted
as showing "something" in his right kidney.
A CT scan was performed the following month,
which showed a low density mass, interpreted
by the radiologist as consistent with a fluid-filled
cyst. The urologist advised claimant's wife
that the mass was a solid tumor and indicated
a high probability of malignancy. He allegedly
advised against a needle biopsy or other diagnostic
studies and recommended removal of the kidney.
On July 15, 1993, claimant was admitted to
Kaiser for a nephrectomy
which was performed the same day. Claimant
lost 4-6 pints of blood during surgery. The
pathology report on the kidney revealed no
evidence of malignancy and found only a small,
benign, fluid-filled cyst. Claimant developed
complications following surgery and had a
prolonged recovery as a result of significant
blood loss.
|
| Injury/Injuries: |
Loss of a healthy right kidney; excessive blood loss causing extended recovery period; remaining kidney is healthy and providing normal kidney function.
No special damages were claimed.
|
| Contentions: |
Claimant contended that respondents violated the applicable standard of care by failing to perform additional diagnostic studies which would have ruled out a malignancy conclusively. Claimant contended further that a fine needle biopsy done before the nephrectomy would have drained the cyst, eliminating the mass and the need for surgery. Claimant also contended that respondents failed to obtain proper informed consent by not advising him of all available diagnostic procedures.
|
| Special Notes: |
The arbitration
lasted four days.
<
back to Medical Malpractice Case
Histories from The Law Offices
of Robert Vaage and www.vaagelaw.com |
|  |
|
|
|
