Brett A. Panter, Senior and Founding Partner from the Law Firm of Panter, Panter, & Sampedro,P.A., was asked to represent Mr. T for negligent installation and a catastrophe that occurred during the attempted installation of what is known as a “Watchman” device. Mr. T. had a history of atrial fibrillation and on November of 2023 went to a local hospital for what is referred to as elective percutaneous left atrial appendage closure, commonly known as a Watchman procedure.
According to the operative report, the device was maneuvered to align it with what was referred to as the ostium of the left atrial appendage.
When this procedure goes correctly, the device is deployed and seals the left atrial appendage. This is often very helpful to prevent the patient from suffering from strokes in the future.
The doctors who are referred to as operators, control the device at all times and in this case they had difficulty crossing the atrial septum going to the left atrial appendage. The doctors/operators used what is referred to as a pigtail catheter to reengage the ostium of the left atrial appendage. The operator claimed he was challenged due to a thick posterior septum but was able to cross with maneuvering the sheath.
The defense and the doctors/operators’ claim was that somehow the device was deployed inadvertently as a result of a torque in the connections from the operator to the actual device.
The defense claimed that this torque was a known complication and the failure to control the Watchman device’s flex ball at the left atrial appendage was not negligent and was a known risk and was disclosed to the patient.
On behalf of Mr. T with the support of our experts, our claim was that the operator was solely in charge and totally responsible and negligently deployed the device. The device ended up, not at the left atrial appendage but on the mitral valve of the heart. As a result of the device ending up on the mitral valve, the patient was in serious risk of cardiac damage, and/or even death. The patient was moved from the Cath Lab to the operating room where a cardiothoracic surgeon new to the case had to perform open-heart surgery and removal of the intracardiac foreign body with cardiopulmonary bypass, complex mitral valve repair, extraction of the Watchman device from the mitral apparatus and also conducted a ligation of the left atrial appendage while doing the open-heart surgery.
The cardiothoracic surgeon found the device to be present under the anterior leaf of the valve and it was noted to be circulated into the cords putting the patient at great risk. The cardiothoracic surgeon who saved this patient had to cut metal attachments and gradually pried the device from the cords. The device was presented in pieces back to the operator of the Watchman procedure and it had to be reconstructed to show that all the pieces in the aggregate were the entire watchman device. That surgery ended late in the afternoon of the day of the original planned procedure of the Watchman device installation. The patient had to go to ICU and then significant rehabilitation and suffers continuous damages as a result of this failed procedure. This case was vigorously defended and all liability was denied. The defense raised their issues that this was a known complication and unfortunate, but not a result of negligence.
On behalf of Mr. T., plaintiff’s counsel hired two liability experts and damage experts to prove their case. This was an intensive and very significant case, and resulted in a settlement on behalf of the plaintiff of over One Million Dollars.
It is our hopes that the plaintiff will continue to recover and be able to live a long and reasonably healthy life. This case was litigated in two parts. Earlier we reported a settlement for the hospital only and now the case is fully concluded with the total settlement resulting in over One Million Dollars.
Mr. Panter would like to thank Barry Shevlin, his law school classmate for referring this matter to him, and providing his confidence in Mr. Panter, his law firm, and team.
