Plaintiff’s verdict in complicated gynecologic surgery case, Waterbury, Connecticut. On March 15, 2011, plaintiff presented to her gynecologist’s office for an annual exam with complaints of significant cyclic cramping and abnormal bleeding (light, brown spotting each month). An ultrasound demonstrated a hematometrea (pocket of retained old blood within the endometrial cavity). Thus, a dilation and curettage was scheduled at a local surgical center on March 25, 2011.
The physician had difficulty locating the endocervical canal due to scarring and initially a false passage was created. The dilator was eventually passed into the endometrial cavity. And the hematometrea was removed. Vital signs were completely normal during the procedure as well as in the recovery room following the procedure, and plaintiff was discharged that same day. A couple hours later plaintiff called her gynecologist regarding a complaint of pain and she was directed to the emergency room. An exploratory laparotomy was performed and upon entering the area, a large retroperitoneal hematoma, extending from the cul-de-sac to the level of the left kidney was noted. No obvious source of bleeding could be identified, but it did involve the left side of the uterus. A hysterectomy was performed to gain control. The left tube and ovary were also excised. Following the hysterectomy, the source of the bleeding still could not be visualized. Intra-operative vascular consultation was obtained, and the left uterine artery was ligated, which stopped the bleeding. The cervix and uterus were sent to pathology for examination, and the pathologist testified that there was no through and through perforation of the uterus or cervix. The only noted injury was that there was a small area of hemorrhage located within the wall of the uterus, 2.5 cm in maximum dimension. Plaintiff was discharged four days later. The central claim in this case was that after the false passage was created, the surgeon never got into the uterine cavity. The alleged deviation was not recognizing that he never got out of the false passage. There was no claim that the creation of the initial false passage itself was a deviation, as this was an accepted risk of the procedure. Two treating physicians as well as several experts testified in the case, as well as the parties. There were no pre-trial negotiations.
Defense Verdict in Lack of Informed Consent/Battery Case, Waterbury, Connecticut. Plaintiff sought typical damages, plus punitive damages for the alleged intentional tort. Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to properly obtain his consent for a procedure, and then in fact performed a different procedure from which he had consented to. The provider aggressively disputed the allegations, using expert and factual testimony. Defense verdict was obtained after less than 15 minutes of deliberations.
Arbitration Award in favor of physician/client in claim against Third Party Payor (TPP) regarding termination of provider status. Physician/client alleged that he was wrongfully terminated from the approved provider list. Substantial evidence was produced demonstrating that TPP improperly excluded physician/client, then asserted improper allegations and irrelevant evidence in an attempt to justify their decision. Arbitration award not only fully reinstated physician/client, but ordered TPP to pay costs of arbitration.
James Rosenblum represented a cardiologist in a case involving an unusual type of ventricular tachycardia, which was tried to a defense verdict, reversed on appeal, and then finally settled in 2016 during trial in New Haven, Ct. Details are confidential.