Law Offices
James P. Koch
* Medical Malpractice: Abdominal hysterectomy complications
* Hospital Negligence: Tracheostomy patient asphyxiates and dies
* Hospital Negligence: Patient with spinal cord condition injured in fall
* Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff's verdict for delayed treatment of bowel obstruction
* Medical Malpractice: Failure to diagnose surgical wound infection following spine surgery
* Long Term Disability Insurance: Federal judge chastises UnumProvident Corporation for terminating long term disability benefits of woman with end stage congestive heart failure
* Health Insurance: Federal judge orders reinstatement of health insurance benefits for woman undergoing treatment for chronic schizophrenia
* * * * * * * * * *
Abdominal hysterectomy complications
The plaintiff, a 40 year old Harford County woman, developed life threatening septic shock less than 24 hours after undergoing a routine, elective abdominal hysterectomy. In order to determine the cause of this rapidly progressive infection, her surgeon had to perform exploratory abdominal surgery. During this subsequent procedure, the surgeon lacerated the patient's bladder.
The basis of the malpractice claim was the defendant gynecologist's failure to adhere to well established clinical practice guidelines which required him to administer prophylactic antibiotics prior to the abdominal hysterectomy. If the patient had received prophylactic antibiotics, she most likely would not have developed sepsis and other serious complications, which included a disfiguring abdominal scar, vesico-vaginal fistula, persistent urinary tract infections, pelvic adhesions, and post-traumatic stress disorder. This case was settled for a confidential six figure amount shortly prior to the commencement of trial in Baltimore County.
Tracheostomy patient asphyxiates and dies
The decedent, a 68 year old Baltimore woman with a complicated medical history, was hospitalized with breathing difficulties secondary to a constricted airway. In order to open her airway, she received a tracheostomy. The medical condition which had caused the constricted airway, a blood infection, was successfully treated during the hospitalization. However, on the day before her scheduled discharge, decedent asphyxiated when a mucous plug obstructed her tracheostomy tube. The asphyxiation led to respiratory arrest, severe hypoxic brain damage, and ultimately death.
The basis of this lawsuit was the nurses' failure to adequately monitor the patient's respiratory condition. This patient required constant monitoring because she had, during the 24 hours prior to the respiratory arrest, experienced several episodes of respiratory distress caused by a plugged tracheostomy tube. The nursing staff therefore knew or should have known that the patient's respiratory condition put her at high risk for airway obstruction and respiratory arrest. This case was settled in pre-trial mediation for a confidential six figure amount.
Patient with spinal cord condition injured in fall
The plaintiff was hospitalized for treatment of dysphagia, an inability to swallow. This condition developed as a complication of surgery to decompress the plaintiff's cervical spinal cord. Plaintiff was at risk for falling because he had a spastic, unsteady gait related to his neurological condition; and because he had been prescribed multiple medications, including intravenous narcotics, sedatives, and analgesics. In addition, although this underweight and malnourished plaintiff was unable to swallow, hospital staff neglected to provide an alternative form of nutrition. On his sixth hospital day without nutrition, plaintiff fell while getting out of bed unassisted to go to the bathroom. As a result, he developed central cord syndrome, a severe spinal cord injury which caused permanent upper extremity weakness and loss of coordination.
The basis of the malpractice claim was the failure of the hospital's nursing staff to implement fall prevention protocols and procedures in accordance with established hospital policy.
In a related case, suit was brought against the neurosurgeon who had performed the surgery to decompress plaintiff's spinal cord. This suit alleged that the defendant negligently failed to completely decompress the spinal cord. Consequently, plaintiff was at risk for serious spinal cord injury from a minor trauma, such as a fall.
This case settled for a six figure amount during trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
Plaintiff's verdict for delayed treatment of bowel obstruction
A Baltimore City jury awarded a 65 year old woman $2 million because her surgeon, after diagnosing a bowel obstruction, delayed urgently needed surgery for three days. As a result, the woman developed severe sepsis, which led to multiple complications, including adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Although plaintiff survived, she continues to suffer from sensory and motor neuropathies caused by prolonged confinement in the hospital's intensive care unit and dependence on a mechanical ventilator. If the surgeon had performed emergency surgery within hours after diagnosing the obstruction, as required by the standard of care, plaintiff would not have developed these life threatening complications and permanent injuries.
Failure to diagnose surgical wound infection following spine surgery
Plaintiff, a 42 year old woman with "failed back syndrome", had undergone multiple lumbar spine surgeries to treat her chronic back pain. Shortly after the last of these surgeries, she developed a deep surgical wound infection. Initially, the defendant orthopedic surgeon treated the infection with oral antibiotics. However, the standard of care required him to open, explore, and debride the wound site, and to commence intravenous antibiotics, if the infection failed to resolve after 10 days of oral antibiotics. In this case, despite the presence of clear signs and symptoms of persistent infection, defendant continued to treat the infection with oral antibiotics for nearly six months. As a result, plaintiff developed chronic vertebral osteomyelitis, an incurable bone infection in the spine. This condition substantially worsened plaintiff's pain syndrome, and has impaired her ability to walk. This case settled for a high six figure amount on the fourth day of a jury trial before the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
Watson v. UnumProvident Corporation
In this case, a federal district court judge ruled that the UnumProvident Corp., the country's largest provider of long term disability insurance, acted in an "unprincipled, if not fraudulent" manner when it terminated a Baltimore woman's long term disability benefits. The court ordered the insurer to reinstate plaintiff's benefits immediately, retroactive to the date of termination.
Plaintiff was a 56-year old woman with end stage congestive heart failure. Her treating cardiologist had repeatedly certified that she was totally disabled, even that she was at risk of sudden death on the job if she attempted to work. Prior to terminating her benefits, the insurer asked the cardiologist to send all of plaintiff's medical records for review. After legal proceedings had commenced, we discovered that her cardiologist had mistakenly sent the insurer the records of another patient. When deciding to terminate plaintiff's disability benefits, the insurer apparently failed to notice that plaintiff's file contained the wrong patient's medical records.
The court published its decision in this case, Valerie Watson v. UnumProvident Corp., 185 F. Supp.2d 579 (D. Md. 2002).
The family of a woman diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia filed this lawsuit after the defendant group health plan terminated the woman's inpatient hospital and medical benefits. Defendant asserted that the woman was only receiving "custodial care" at the hospital because her condition was unlikely to improve. "Custodial care" was not covered under Defendant's health plan. On behalf of the patient, we argued that her psychiatric treatment was not custodial, because she needed a trained psychiatrist to supervise and monitor her medication regime. Furthermore, the interruption of her inpatient treatment was likely to cause her mental condition to deteriorate. Ruling in plaintiff's favor, the court ordered the health plan to reinstate the patient's health care benefits for the inpatient treatment of chronic schizophrenia.
The court published its decision in this case, Robert Adelson et al v. GTE Corporation, 790 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Md. 1992)