Unless any surgeons want to chime in on something I'm not getting, seems like a pretty horrendous case to bring. Just about any medical student could tell you that this is *the* well-established complication of a thyroidectomy even done correctly. Absent a blithe disregard for the nerve (which doesn't sound supported by the documentation) this should be a very difficult case to win before any sane jury. I'm glad the hospital didn't cave to the settlement pressure and sent the law firm packing with a sock in their mouth.
The motion to prevent discussion of this being a known result of non-negligent thyroidectomy is pretty wild and imo gives away the game that this was an attempt to monetize a bad outcome.
This reminds me of your case where an oncologist literally cured someone's cancer but got sued over a temporary side effect of bleomycin (from which the patient recovered).
I totally agree. The whole premise that the hemostatic stitch must have injured the nerve because the surgeon didn’t document seeing the nerve before documenting taking that one stitch is such a far-fetched argument.
I often leave out some of the legal maneuvering because its so esoteric but the back and forth about the motion in limine was pretty interesting to me so I thought you guys might like it. Can't see how any sane legal system would bar that. That bleomycin case was pretty far fetched too!
The plaintiff expert's report seems self-contradictory. It points out that Dr. D describes or notes each recurrent laryngeal nerve, but then says Dr. D failed to identify the left recurrent. The plaintiff firm misjudged, and the plaintiffs themselves might have been ambivalent anyway having sued just the hospital and not the doctor.
I am curious why they only went after the hospital... maybe the hospital usually makes a calculated business decision and settles for at least a small amount and plaintiff was taken by surprise when they didn't? Impossible to say.
Do you have the transcript of the deposition of the plaintiff expert they are referencing (where the plaintiff expert acknowledges the injury can occur in the absence of negligence)? Would be interesting to see the line of questioning used to elicit that/was there any possible angle for the plaintiff's counsel to argue that's not what should be concluded?
Just added it! They only included the one page in the court records which wasn't particularly compelling, and I was running out of space in the email version so it didn't make the cut.
Why exactly did they decide to sue just the hospital, and not the surgeon? Was it because they were hoping that way they wouldn't be able to present the evidence that this specific risk was discussed prior to the procedure? Since the judge didn't rule on the motion, does that mean the defense was allowed to bring this up?
I'm not sure why they chose just the hospital. A guess would be that they think the hospital is more likely to make a business decision to settle for a small amount rather than a surgeon who feels personally offended and wants to take the case all the way to trial. But that's just a wild guess. From my understanding of law (admittedly not an expert), I think that the defense was allowed to bring it up at trial. With this type of motion I usually see the judge either grant the motion, deny it, or defer judgment until trial when it actually comes up. I'm a bit baffled why there wasn't record of one of those three options, but I think the lack of ruling basically implies that it can be brought up at trial and the plaintiff can object.
Hello: is there still a live Zoom type meeting every month? I have been attending the live event for years. I usually get emails reminding me of the upcoming live events. I am no longer getting these emails. I would appreciate a response. Thank you for your time.
I wish I knew what you were talking about David! I have never done a live Zoom meeting even a single time. It must be something totally different but if you can find it, let me know because I'd be curious to join a med mal Zoom discussion.
Unless any surgeons want to chime in on something I'm not getting, seems like a pretty horrendous case to bring. Just about any medical student could tell you that this is *the* well-established complication of a thyroidectomy even done correctly. Absent a blithe disregard for the nerve (which doesn't sound supported by the documentation) this should be a very difficult case to win before any sane jury. I'm glad the hospital didn't cave to the settlement pressure and sent the law firm packing with a sock in their mouth.
The motion to prevent discussion of this being a known result of non-negligent thyroidectomy is pretty wild and imo gives away the game that this was an attempt to monetize a bad outcome.
This reminds me of your case where an oncologist literally cured someone's cancer but got sued over a temporary side effect of bleomycin (from which the patient recovered).
Literally, my first thought after seeing the title was, "I should send this to my MS1 anatomy prof. He talked about this all the time!"
I totally agree. The whole premise that the hemostatic stitch must have injured the nerve because the surgeon didn’t document seeing the nerve before documenting taking that one stitch is such a far-fetched argument.
I often leave out some of the legal maneuvering because its so esoteric but the back and forth about the motion in limine was pretty interesting to me so I thought you guys might like it. Can't see how any sane legal system would bar that. That bleomycin case was pretty far fetched too!
The plaintiff expert's report seems self-contradictory. It points out that Dr. D describes or notes each recurrent laryngeal nerve, but then says Dr. D failed to identify the left recurrent. The plaintiff firm misjudged, and the plaintiffs themselves might have been ambivalent anyway having sued just the hospital and not the doctor.
I am curious why they only went after the hospital... maybe the hospital usually makes a calculated business decision and settles for at least a small amount and plaintiff was taken by surprise when they didn't? Impossible to say.
Do you have the transcript of the deposition of the plaintiff expert they are referencing (where the plaintiff expert acknowledges the injury can occur in the absence of negligence)? Would be interesting to see the line of questioning used to elicit that/was there any possible angle for the plaintiff's counsel to argue that's not what should be concluded?
Just added it! They only included the one page in the court records which wasn't particularly compelling, and I was running out of space in the email version so it didn't make the cut.
Why exactly did they decide to sue just the hospital, and not the surgeon? Was it because they were hoping that way they wouldn't be able to present the evidence that this specific risk was discussed prior to the procedure? Since the judge didn't rule on the motion, does that mean the defense was allowed to bring this up?
I'm not sure why they chose just the hospital. A guess would be that they think the hospital is more likely to make a business decision to settle for a small amount rather than a surgeon who feels personally offended and wants to take the case all the way to trial. But that's just a wild guess. From my understanding of law (admittedly not an expert), I think that the defense was allowed to bring it up at trial. With this type of motion I usually see the judge either grant the motion, deny it, or defer judgment until trial when it actually comes up. I'm a bit baffled why there wasn't record of one of those three options, but I think the lack of ruling basically implies that it can be brought up at trial and the plaintiff can object.
Hello: is there still a live Zoom type meeting every month? I have been attending the live event for years. I usually get emails reminding me of the upcoming live events. I am no longer getting these emails. I would appreciate a response. Thank you for your time.
David Pecora. 218-779-4405
I wish I knew what you were talking about David! I have never done a live Zoom meeting even a single time. It must be something totally different but if you can find it, let me know because I'd be curious to join a med mal Zoom discussion.