|
|
|
|
| Disposition:
(Settlement/Arbitration/Trial) |
Settlement |
Date: |
5/2/2003 |
Type of Case: |
Product Liability |
Allegation(s): |
Product Defect and Medical Malpractice |
Result: |
$2,490,251.98 (see below) |
Case Name: |
Plfs Doe 1 and 2 v. Roe Hosp, Roe Corp, Roe Mfr, Roe Surgeon |
Facts: |
This action arose out of a February 19, 2001, bilateral hemilaminotomy and foraminotomy (back surgery) at the L3-4 and L4-5 levels performed on Plaintiff 1 by Defendant Surgeon, who was in fact one of the founders of Defendant Corporation. During the course of the procedure, Defendant Surgeon used newly invented neuromonitoring equipment manufactured by Defendant Corporation that was not part of the standard of care. This equipment was designed to tell the surgeon when the surgical instruments are getting dangerously close to a patient's nerves or spinal cord. While using the nerve monitoring equipment, Defendant Surgeon tore Plaintiff 1's dura (covering of the spinal cord) with surgical instruments designed and manufactured by Defendant Manufacturer. This tear or tears permanently injured the adjacent spinal nerves in Plaintiff 1's spinal cord and caused cerebrospinal fluid leakage.
|
| Injury/Injuries: |
Immediately after the surgery, Plaintiff 1 experienced a number of deficits that he had not had before the surgery. These deficits included: 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 and 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, he is in chronic pain, is required to use incontinence products under his clothing at all times, and is unable to have sexual relations.
Plaintiff 2 claimed loss of her husband's consortium.
|
| Contentions: |
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Corporation was liable for the acts of its employees and agents, including Defendant Surgeon, for negligence, battery and fraud. In addition, Plaintiffs brought the action against Defendant Corporation under a product liability theory as well as fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of implied warranty.
Plaintiffs also alleged strict product liability as to Defendant Manufacturer as well as product liability/negligence, and breach of implied warranty.
As to Defendant Hospital, Plaintiffs alleged that proper procedures had not been followed to allow Defendant Corporation's equipment to be in the operating room.
Defendants Corporation and Manufacturer alleged they were not negligent, that their products were not defective in design and there was no causal connection between their products and Plaintiff's injuries. They alleged the injuries were caused by the surgical negligence of Defendant Surgeon. They also alleged that Plaintiff 1 had lost his job for reasons unrelated to his health, that he was capable of finding similar employment, and there was no future income loss.
|
| Special Notes: |
Defendant Manufacturer offered $800,000 to settle. Plaintiffs submitted CCP §998 offers to compromise (settle) to that defendant in the total amount of $1,284 million.
Plaintiffs had previously settled the medical malpractice portion of their action against Defendant Surgeon in June 2002 for policy limits in the amount of $980,251.98.
Defendant Manufacturer settled the case eight days prior to trial for $985,000. Defendant Corporation settled for $500,000. Defendant Hospital settled for $25,000.
Click here for information on Child Injury Law.
|
|  |
|
|
|
