Type of action:
Medical Malpractice
Injuries alleged:
Colon perforation during colonoscopy/polypectomy
Court:
Prince William County Circuit Court
Tried before:
Jury
Date Resolved:
January 28, 2025
Verdict or Settlement:
Verdict
Attorneys for defendant:
Michael E. Olszewski, Esq. & Brian Han, Esq.
Description of Case:
The plaintiff, a former Marine who now works as a civilian for the Marine Corps, filed a lawsuit in City of Fredericksburg Circuit Court, which was later transferred to Prince William County Circuit Court and was tried before a jury for five days in January 2025. He alleged the defendant gastroenterologist was negligent in the performance of a polypectomy during a screening colonoscopy on November 13, 2019, causing a colon perforation. He sought $5,000,000 in the lawsuit.
The plaintiff claimed the gastroenterologist breached the standard of care by removing a 5mm polyp with a “hot” snare rather than a “cold” snare. His sole standard of care expert witness, a Harvard gastroenterology professor, claimed that the use of electrocautery (i.e., “hot”) during the snare removal of a 5mm polyp was no longer permitted under the standard of care as the standard of care had recently changed in 2018-2019. This change arose due to multiple studies showing cold snares are just as effective as hot snaring, but safer as they avoid the risk of electrocautery-caused perforations, like the one plaintiff suffered.
The day after the coloscopy, the plaintiff presented to the hospital for a two-week admission. He underwent two abdominal surgeries, developed significant peritonitis, and a wound infection. He was left in colonic discontinuity for two months with ostomies until his colonic reversal surgery in January 2020. Then, plaintiff developed an incisional hernia and underwent surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital to repair that. That surgery led to a wound infection with significant seroma, which required more surgery. Due to his “hostile abdomen” caused by the multiple abdominal surgeries, he developed cholecystitis and needed his gallbladder removed which required an open cholecystectomy surgery rather than a less-invasive laparoscopic approach. In all, he incurred about $60,000 in lost wages and $228,781.14 in medical expenses.
The plaintiff and his family described the catastrophic impact these events had on his life. He testified that he suffered immense pain, frequent and uncontrollable bowel movements, a loss of consortium with his wife, and profound mental anguish, leaving him feeling like a “former shell” of himself. Before the perforation, he prided himself on his physical fitness as a retired Marine, maintaining an active lifestyle and working out almost daily. Now, he claimed he struggled with even basic tasks, such as carrying Christmas decorations up from the basement.
The defense presented one standard of care expert who explained the standard of care had not changed until after 2019, so using a hot snare in 2019 was reasonable.
After a five-day trial, the jury deliberated for just under two hours before returning a unanimous verdict in favor of the Defendant gastroenterologist and his employer.
