Medical Malpractice — Litigating the Surgical Error Case

The other day I wrote of Notre Dame football coach Charlie Weis suing his doctors based on a failure to recognize life-threatening complications after his gastric bypass surgery. This resulted in Weis bleeding internally for more than a day and ultimately incurred permanent nerve damage to his legs.

The story highlights a sharp issue in surgical error cases: Simply causing an injury during surgery is one thing, but the failure to recognize that injury is something else entirely. The latter is more likely to be provable malpractice than the former.

Those who litigate these cases know the drill well: The potential client calls regarding a bad surgical result. Simply having a bad outcome, though, is not malpractice. If the problem was seen at the time and the surgeon rendered treatment for it, the case may well be rejected by experienced malpractice attorneys so long as the injured body part was in the surgical field.

There are two reasons for the likely rejection of a case regarding a surgical error: First, if for example a surgeon nicks an adjacent organ, close to where s/he is operating, it is the type of surgical risk about which jurors are very forgiving, even if it shouldn’t have happened. But because it is also a risk, it is therefore incumbent on the surgeon to check to make sure such injury did not occur. The failure to recognize that the injury took place is often, therefore, the actionable malpractice.

Other FAQs on New York medical malpractice from this site:

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Medical Malpractice – 175 surgical mistakes in 30 months
  2. Charlie Weis Loses Medical Malpractice Case
  3. No, your medical malpractice case will NOT settle fast
  4. Medical Malpractice – Vetting The Case
  5. Medical Malpractice Case Dismissal For Lack of Expert

Tags:

February 19, 2007 · No Comments ·

No Responses Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.