VISCERAL OBJECT COMMONLY CALLED A “FISH” NEGLIGENTLY REMAINED IN PATIENT FOR ALMOST A YEAR
Ms. Blank came to Brett Panter, through Mohammad Siddiqui, a friend and referring lawyer, with an unusual case. Ms. Blank underwent abdominal surgery to take out part of her colon.
During that surgery, an anastomosis was done which is basically reconnecting one piece of colon to another piece of colon due to the surgery.
The anastomosis failed, as often does occur, and a week later, she required another surgery where unfortunately, she had to have what is referred to as an ileostomy. An ileostomy is a bag for bowel movements placed on the outside of a patient’s abdomen and can be permanent or temporary.
It was during this surgery when two surgeons who were attending to Ms. Blank along with an operating room circulating nurse and a tech, all failed to remember that a visceral object known as a “fish” was left inside Ms. Blank’s abdomen. The surgeons had closed her abdomen negligently leaving a large “fish” inside her. The “fish” measured approximately 12 inches x 5 inches. See picture of “fish” attached. This was extraordinary and the doctors had no explanation for it. The doctors and nurses admitted that it was a breach in the standard of care to have left the “fish” inside their patient. Everyone deposed agreed that this object a “fish” remaining inside Ms. Blank was a breach in the standard of care. Ms. Blank was a 60-year-old mother who was highly active, was involved in road motorbikes, cutting property trees, enjoying vacations with her family before this occurred.
Almost a year later another surgeon who was to perform a reversal of the ileostomy, found the retained device known as a “fish”. The surgeon called the previous surgeons and they had no explanation for this and the device was taken out. Mr. Brett Panter, along with Mohammad Siddiqui worked hard on this case to establish that this was more than a retained device case.
The defense early on offered $125,000 to try to settle this case and admitted that the device shouldn’t have been left in her. However, plaintiff, through her experts and other evidence, argued that the damages were greater than this. The plaintiff argued that the first surgery was done incorrectly, and the anastomosis reconnection of the colon was not done correctly and that led to a failure. Defense argued that these anastomoses fail in at least 13% or more cases, but the plaintiff argued that this failure was a result of the surgery that was not done correctly.
Brett Panter and Mohammad Siddiqui also argued that Ms. Blank suffered from adhesions which would be greater than the normal scope of adhesions from these types of invasive surgeries. They also argued that her lifestyle had changed significantly in that she was not able to do activities of daily living, to the same extent that she used to prior to this surgery where they left the “fish” inside of her for practically one year.
Defense argued that there were no medical bills after the “fish” was removed and no further medical care in an attempt to mitigate damages. After many depositions and a very, very contested long mediation, the case was settled for $650,000 and the defense continued to assert that there was no negligence aside from the foreign body left in this patient.
Brett Panter would like to thank Mohammad Siddiqui and Ms. Blank for allowing him with his team of experts and technicians to represent her.
This is one very typical case where the defense makes a very low offer and the Law Firm of Panter, Panter & Sampedro and Brett Panter their founding partner prove they are committed to always getting the full value for all cases and their clients.
