Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Patients place immense trust in their surgeons to perform operations safely and to promptly identify complications when they arise. When this trust is breached, the resulting harm can be catastrophic. A recent decision from a New York court demonstrates that where qualified medical experts disagree over whether a surgeon’s actions met accepted medical standards, such disputes are properly left to a jury. If you or a loved one has suffered harm after surgery, it is essential to consult with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to understand your rights.
Facts and Procedural Background
It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic sigmoidectomy, a surgery to remove part of the colon, at a New York City hospital operated by the defendant public health corporation. Allegedly, prior testing had revealed a likely malignant mass obstructing the plaintiff’s sigmoid colon, prompting the surgical procedure. The surgery, performed by a staff surgeon, included a loop ileostomy to divert bowel contents through an abdominal port. During the operation, the surgeon discovered an “incomplete donut,” meaning that the circular tissue ring from the surgical stapler did not form a complete circle, potentially indicating a defect at the connection site between the two bowel ends.
Allegedly, the surgeon performed an air leak test to ensure that the surgical connection between bowel segments was intact, and when no leak was detected, the procedure was completed. Postoperatively, the plaintiff experienced hypotension and cardiac complications and was soon diagnosed with septic shock. A second surgery performed two days later revealed a partially necrotic and leaking anastomosis, which was resected and revised. The plaintiff remained intubated for an extended period, developed encephalopathy, and was ultimately discharged to a rehabilitation facility months later.
The plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against the defendant, alleging that the hospital’s physicians departed from accepted medical practice by failing to repair the incomplete donut during the initial surgery and by failing to timely diagnose and treat the postoperative anastomotic leak. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that its physicians acted appropriately throughout the plaintiff’s care.
Evidence Sufficient to Defeat Summary Judgment Motions in Medical Malpractice Cases
In support of its motion, the defendant submitted the affirmation of a board-certified general surgeon who opined that the surgical team fully complied with the standard of care. The expert explained that upon discovering the incomplete donut, the surgeon properly performed an underwater air leak test, which showed no leakage, confirming the anastomosis was intact at the time of surgery. The expert further opined that an incomplete donut does not automatically require revision and that postoperative complications were likely caused by the plaintiff’s preexisting cardiac dysfunction and the necessary use of vasopressors, which reduced blood flow to the bowel. According to the defense, the anastomotic leak was a known risk of colon surgery rather than the result of negligence.
In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a board-certified general surgeon who offered sharply contrasting opinions. The plaintiff’s expert opined that the incomplete donut was a clear sign of a mechanically flawed anastomosis that should have been revised during surgery. The expert stated that relying solely on an air leak test was insufficient because such tests can yield false negatives when the stapled bowel is temporarily compressed. The plaintiff’s expert also asserted that a flexible sigmoidoscopy should have been performed to visualize the staple line and confirm that the bowel connection was secure.
With respect to postoperative care, the plaintiff’s expert opined that the defendant’s staff failed to recognize early signs of sepsis and neglected to order a timely CT scan or surgical intervention, delaying necessary treatment for more than a day. The expert further opined that early diagnosis and reoperation could have prevented the plaintiff’s severe sepsis, multiorgan failure, and prolonged hospitalization.
The court noted that to obtain summary judgment, a defendant must show either that there was no departure from accepted practice or that any such departure did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries. Once a defendant meets that burden, the plaintiff must produce expert evidence raising a triable issue of fact. Because the parties submitted detailed, conflicting expert opinions regarding both the surgical and postoperative care, the court found that material questions of fact existed.
The court observed that when medical experts disagree about whether a physician deviated from the standard of care or whether such deviation caused a patient’s injuries, credibility determinations must be made by a jury. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment on the malpractice claim. The plaintiff’s informed consent claim, however, was dismissed as unopposed. The case was scheduled for a settlement conference.
Confer with an Experienced Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you have been injured due to surgical negligence or delayed diagnosis of postoperative complications, the experienced Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can help. We represent patients throughout Rochester, Syracuse, and across New York State in medical malpractice and surgical injury cases. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.
