Doctor sued; has to pay for child's upbringing

[SnoopyFan]

A similar thing happened here in WV in the 80s, only a lawyer ended up paying for the kid.

A couple had 3 kids, didn’t want any more/couldn’t afford any more, so mom went in for a tubal. Doctor Tubal ended up cutting one fallopian tube twice, and didn’t touch the second one. Kid #4 is born not long after. Clear cut malpractice case, right?

The only problem is she had a really crappy lawyer who let the statute of limitations run out. By the time she finds out that she can’t sue Doctor Tubal, the good doctor is dead and buried in Florida.

So she sued Bad Lawyer. First they had to try Doctor Tubal’s malpractice case in front of a real jury and determine how much a jury would have given her. Then they had a second trial proving Bad Lawyer’s incompetence.

So Bad Lawyer’s malpractice insurance got hit, and hard. $1100 a month till the kid turned 18 … and in the early 80s, that was a shitload of money. Plus I believe they got a nice lump sum, too. It wasn’t an exhorbitant amount but certainly enough to raise kid #4, who is probably in college by now.

[Mtgman]

I gotta say I was really confused after I read the description of the other tube. This part in particular bothered me.

After the delivery the uterus was moved outside the abdominal cavity. At first, all that could be seen were the adhesions of the bowel to the uterus. After dissection however, it became apparent that the right fallopian tube was present. It was convoluted and compressed, and turned almost 180 degrees back upon itself. It was attached by adhesions to its own supporting structures and to the uterus itself, and was displaced towards the uterus from its normal position.

This seems like an extraordinary situation and it made me doubt the finding of negligence. Due dilligence is not omniscience and one can exist without the other. As QtM, as our resident expert, has weighed in, I accept his opinion that this was not negligence on the part of the doctor. As I mentioned earlier, no negligence = courts did the wrong thing.

Enjoy,
Steven

[mhendo]

I know this thread has just about run out of steam, but i just had one more question for QtM.

The hysterosalpingogram, when finally performed, showed that the fallopian tube was in fact present. Should this procedure have been carried out before the ligation, as a precautionary measure? Or would that be considered excessive?

I assume that, in 99 cases out of 100, the doc would be able to see whether or not the tube was there by checking for it during the operation.

[Mtgman]

OTOH, taking QtM’s statement from earlier

Unless he had old medical records on the woman, specifically an operative report documenting the removal of the one tube, or hystio-salpingogram documenting the tube’s absence, the doc should NOT have failed to look for the other tube.

Now it looks like the doc DID look for the other tube, but couldn’t see it because of the funky condition/position it was in. The question now, to my mind, would be, did he know this bit

In 1967, when Mrs Melchior was aged 15, she underwent an appendectomy. The surgical notes indicated that, in the course of the operation, her right ovary was found to be filled with a blood clot and was removed; there was no abnormality in the left ovary or either fallopian tube and those organs were left intact.

Had he seen these surgical notes? These notes clearly indicated that the fallopian tube was not removed and if he couldn’t see it during the ligation he would have had a quandry to investigate. Either the notes were wrong and the tube HAD been removed, or something else had happened and he had missed seeing the tube during the process. Given the discrepancy between the documentary evidence indicating the tube SHOULD be there and his own experience at not being able to see it, is it reasonable for him to order a hysterosalpingogram to confirm his experience? Would it be malpractice if he didn’t?

Enjoy,
Steven

[artemis]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**OTOH, taking QtM’s statement from earlier Now it looks like the doc DID look for the other tube, but couldn’t see it because of the funky condition/position it was in. The question now, to my mind, would be, did he know this bitHad he seen these surgical notes? These notes clearly indicated that the fallopian tube was not removed and if he couldn’t see it during the ligation he would have had a quandry to investigate. Either the notes were wrong and the tube HAD been removed, or something else had happened and he had missed seeing the tube during the process. Given the discrepancy between the documentary evidence indicating the tube SHOULD be there and his own experience at not being able to see it, is it reasonable for him to order a hysterosalpingogram to confirm his experience? Would it be malpractice if he didn’t?

Enjoy,
Steven **

Given that the original surgery was performed in 1967 (and almost certainly in another hospital), it’s HIGHLY unlikely the physician performing the tubal ligation ever saw that old op note. It’s very time-consuming under the best of circumstances to track down 24 year old medical records; thus, examining such old records isn’t done routinely (and definitely not before performing what is usually a fairly minor surgical procedure).

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

I concur with artemis. I’m amazed those old records from 1967 were still available; I’m sure that if it had been in the US, they’d have been thrown out, or in storage some place. I rarely see records back further than the 1980’s, and then only on patients who have been in our system during that time. I would not expect the doc to hunt for those records.

No, I expect he looked, saw no ovary and no tube on the right side, which is what he was told to expect. I don’t think it’s reasonable to do more. I would not expect a hystero-salpingogram to be done prior to surgery. And you can’t prepare for every possible eventuality.

Bad Karma on someone’s part. Or perhaps good karma. Karma’s like that.