Type of action:
Medical Malpractice
Injuries alleged:
Above-the-knee amputation following a total knee replacement.
Court:
Lancaster County Circuit Court
Tried before:
Jury
Date Resolved:
March 28, 2024
Verdict or Settlement:
Verdict
Attorneys for defendant:
Rodney S. Dillman, Esq. & Julie C. Mayer, Esq., Virginia Beach, VA
Description of Case:
This lawsuit was brought by the Plaintiff following a total knee replacement to address the severe osteoarthritis in his left knee. Plaintiff was 85-years-old at the time of treatment. Several months of conservative treatment, including steroid injections and physical therapy. The Plaintiff had a number of comorbidities, including diabetes, peripheral artery disease, renal disease, and a history of cardiac bypass. The defendant surgeon performed a total knee replacement (using a tourniquet). Approximately 11 days after the surgery, other providers noted difficulty obtaining pulses in the left foot. Approximately two weeks later, the Plaintiff’s middle toe became gangrenous. Subsequent vascular studies confirmed that there was no blood flow, and the limb was not salvageable. The Plaintiff underwent an above-the-knee amputation, and struggled with the rehabilitation due to his age and underlying health problems.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to appreciate the seriousness of his comorbidities and failed to adequately test his blood flow in the left leg prior to surgery. Had Defendant done so, Plaintiff’s experts alleged that vascular testing would have shown the severity of his vascular disease and that he was not a candidate for the elective knee replacement procedure. The Plaintiff also alleged that the use of a tourniquet was not appropriate given the Plaintiff’s vascular disease, and that the Defendant failed to communicate the risks of the surgery to the Plaintiff because the notes had different levels of risk and the Defendant never explained that amputation was a risk of the surgery.
The Defendants proved that the pre-surgical work up, the decision to operate and the surgical technique employed complied with the standard of care. Furthermore, the defense experts proved that even if a vascular surgery consult had been ordered, the Plaintiff had adequate blood flow to heal and did not require vascular intervention prior to surgery because there were palpable pulses. The mechanics of the surgery and tourniquet did not cause the Plaintiff’s critical limb ischemia.
After a four-day trial and deliberation by a jury for approximately 2 hours, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant surgeon and his practice.
