Gynecology

⇐ BACK TO SETTLEMENTS AND VERDICTS INDEX

CASE: Unconsented Endometrial Ablation

FACTS: The 41-year-old single plaintiff sought care from her gynecologist for inter-menstrual bleeding. An ultrasound and endometrial biopsy revealed likely polyps and fibroids, and a diagnostic hysteroscopy was ordered. Prior to the hysteroscopy, a surgery consult and pre-operative office visit took place. At both of those meetings the plaintiff clearly expressed her desire to retain her fertility and declined endometrial ablation (a procedure that destroys endometrial tissue and fertility). The consent form signed by the plaintiff reiterated that desire.

Despite decision to decline ablation, one was performed during hysteroscopy. That error was admitted to by the defendant and in the post-operative progress note it was recorded: “I informed her of the error that occurred and apologized for making the mistake. I explained to her that I recognize that a consent for this procedure had not been signed and the error occurring was my fault.”

DEFENSE: Damages were limited. Conception for a woman in her forties is unlikely.

INJURIES: Battery. Sterility. Lost opportunity for fertility treatments to increase the likelihood of child bearing. Emotional harm related to the “grieving process over her loss of fertility.”

SPECIAL DAMAGES: Counseling: $280.00; Anticipated Adoption: $33,793.00

SETTLEMENT: The parties agreed to settle for a confidential amount.

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Randolph J. Reis, Esquire (Reis Law, PLLC) and Kevin C. Devine, Esquire (Kevin Devine Law, PLLC)

NAMES/COUNTY: Anonymous v. Anonymous

CASE: Unnecessary Surgery

FACTS: The 43-year-old plaintiff sought treatment from the defendant for a largely asymptomatic vaginal bulge. The defendant examined the plaintiff, but failed to perform a rectal exam, despite the fact that the bulge was located on the distal posterior vaginal wall, immediately adjacent to the plaintiff’s rectum. The defendant diagnosed a vaginal inclusion cyst, which is a benign condition ordinarily requiring no treatment, and offered to excise the suspected cyst. The plaintiff was not advised of the risks and benefits of an excision, alternative treatment, or no treatment. During excision, the defendant cut into the rectum and created a 2 cm rectovaginal fistula. The pathology report following surgery revealed the absence of any cystic tissue.

DEFENSE: General denial of liability.

INJURIES: As a result of the misdiagnosis, the plaintiff underwent unnecessary surgery and a 2 cm rectovaginal fistula was created, which allowed the free flow of fecal matter into her vagina. The plaintiff underwent 6 additional surgeries, including an ileostomy, in order to repair the fistula.

SPECIAL DAMAGES: The plaintiff incurred medical bills totaling $171,086.36.

SETTLEMENT: The parties agreed to settle for a confidential amount.

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Randolph J. Reis, Esquire and Kimberly Kirkland, Esquire (Reis Law, PLLC) and Christopher J. Seufert, Esquire (Seufert, Davis & Hunt, PLLC)

NAMES/COUNTY: Anonymous v. Anonymous