Monmouth County
The female plaintiff in her early 40's contended that the defendants circulating and scrub nurse negligently failed to property count the laparotomy pads after an abdominal hysterectomy was performed to treat endometreosis. The court granted a plaintiff's verdict on liability against the nurses at the close of evidence, holding that the unrebutted testimony reflected deviations. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant obstetrical surgeon negligently failed to read the post-op x-ray which he ordered and contended that had he done so, he clearly would have seen the radio-opaque pad. The radiologist, who was also named as a defendant, had issued a report in which he characterized the pad as a drain. The surgery did not entail the use of a drain.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant ob/gyn negligently failed to read this report and maintained that had he done so, he would have realized that the mistaken description of a drain referred to the pad. The radiologist argued that the plaintiff's expert general surgeon had indicated that he could not offer an opinion as to a radiological deviation and the radiologist's motion for dismissal was granted. The ob/gyn contended that the cause of the retained pad was the failure of the nurses to properly conduct the count. The plaintiff further established that a second, non-party radiologist had advised the ob/gyn that he detected the pad approximately two months after the surgery.
The plaintiff contended that the ob/gyn nonetheless failed to conduct surgery until the plaintiff was rushed to the hospital two months alter upon the onset of severe pain and signs of infection, including fever. The plaintiff contended that the further delay severely heightened the adhesions and resulting permanent injury. The defendant ob/gyn maintained that it was reasonable to assume that the plaintiff was asymptomatic from surgery. The plaintiff contended that she required surgery to remove 10 inches of the small bowel, the appendix and the omentum. The plaintiff contended that she will permanently suffer bowel urgency after eating. The plaintiff indicated that she generally eats a relatively large meal for dinner only and that after one accident during a neighborhood walk, she will generally stay home after eating. The plaintiff contended that she will be permanently suffer such urgency and that the loss of the omentum. will permanently subject her to further bowel adhesions.
The experts concurred that if the pad had been removed within a week, no adhesions would have formed and that she would not have required surgical intervention other than for the removal of the pad. The Court, which had directed a verdict on liability against the nurses, instructed the jury if they found the ob/gyn was also negligent, they should consider the two nurses one entity for the purpose of apportionment.
The jury assessed 65% negligence against the ob/gyn and 35% against the nurses. They then awarded $386,500.
REFERENCE
Plaintiff's expert general surgeon: David Befeler from Westfield. Defendant ob/gyn's expert ob/gyn Richard Berman from Livingston
Dowling vs. Riverview Hospital, etal. Docket no. L-3504-93; Judge Robert Feldman, 1-12-98.
Attorney for plaintiff DouglasD. Hanna; Attorney for defendant nurses: Mary Ann Nobile