|
|
|
| Disposition:
(Settlement/Arbitration/Trial) |
Settlement |
Date: |
4/2/2003 |
Type of Case: |
Product Liability |
Allegation(s): |
Injury to spinal dura during back surgery |
Result: |
$2,490,252 |
Case Name: |
John and Jane Doe v. Roe Hospital, Roe Corp, Roe Mfr and Roe Surgeon |
Facts: |
On 2/19/01, plaintiff John Doe, a 53-year-old president of a mutlinational hi-tech company, went to defendant Roe Hospital, where he underwent a bilateral hemilaminotomy and foraminotomy at the L3-L4 and L4-L5 levels. The surgery was performed by defendant Roe Surgeon, who was one of the founders of defendant Roe Corporation. During the course of the procedure, Roe Surgeon, used newly-invented neuromonitoring equipment that was manufactured by his company. This equipment was designed to tell the surgeon when his/her surgical instruments were getting dangerously close to a patient's nerves or spinal cord.
While using the nerve monitoring equipment, Roe Surgeon tore John Doe's dura (the covering of the spinal cord) with surgical instruments which were designed and manufactured by Roe Manufacturer. The dural tear, or tears, permanently injured the adjacent spinal nerves in John Doe's spinal cord and caused cerebrospinal fluid leakage.
|
| Injury/Injuries: |
Immediately after surgery, John Doe experienced a number of new deficits, including cauda equina syndrome, dorsiflexion weakness of the left foot, loss of feeling in portions of the left leg, weakened plantar flexion, loss of feeling at S1-S4 bilaterally, difficulty standing and walking, right knee pain and discomfort, periscrotal numbness, perirectal numbness, weak anal sphincter tone, loss of bowel and bladder function, flatulence, bowel and urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction.
Presently, he has trouble walking without the assistance of a cane, is in chronic pain, is required to use incontinence products under his clothing at all times, is unable to have sexual relations.
Future annual medical costs were conservatiely estimated at $45,200 ($1.1 million over his lifetime). At the time of the surgery, John Doe was earning approx. $200,000 annually, along with stock ownership and other perks common to the hi-tech industry.
|
| Contentions: |
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, plaintiff John Doe and his wife sued Roe Corp. alleging that Roe Corp. was liable for the acts of its employee and agent, Roe Surgeon, for negligence, battery and fraud. In addition, they premised their claim under a product liability theory as well as fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of implied warranty.
The plaintiffs alleged strict product liability as to Roe Manufacturer as well as negligence and breach of implied warranty.
Jane Doe sued for loss of consortium.
As to Roe Hospital, the plaintiffs contended that proper procedures had not been followed to allow Roe Corp's equipment to be in the operating room.
Defendants Roe Corp and Roe Mfr contended that 1) they were not negligent; 2) their products were not defective in design; and 3) there was no causal connection between their products and John Doe's injuries, i.e., the injuries were caused by the surgical negligence of Roe Surgeon. Roe Hopsital denied plaintiffs' allegations of negligence.
|
| Special Notes: |
In June 2002, plaintiffs settled their medical malpractice claim for Roe Surgeon's policy limits of $980,252. Prior to trial, they settled with Roe Mfr for $985,000; Roe Corp for $500,000; and Roe Hospital for $25,000.
|
|  |
|
|
|
