News

Florie and Miller Obtain Defense Verdict for General Surgeon

Mike Florie and Joe Miller obtained a defense verdict in behalf of the defendant, general surgeon, in a case alleging negligent delay in operating on a patient with a perforated stomach, resulting in death. The case involved a 78 year-old patient, who was in a hospital awaiting heart bypass surgery when she arrested.  The Code Team resuscitated her, but she suffered a perforation in her stomach during the process.  A chest x-ray revealed free air under her diaphragm. The defendant, a general surgeon, was consulted and evaluated the patient.  He felt that she was too unstable for surgery, and also felt that the free air could have been the result of the resuscitation, without a hole in any internal organ.  He therefore decided to observe her overnight.  She deteriorated and the defendant took her to surgery the next morning, where he found the stomach perforation and repaired it.  The patient later died during the hospitalization.  The plaintiff's two expert witnesses testified that the defendant was below the standard of care in failing to operate immediately.  They also testified that his failure to do so resulted in the patient's death.  The defendant testified that he met the standard of care in electing to not operate emergently, as the patient's heart condition was very unstable and he was not convinced that she had a perforation that needed surgical repair.  The defense expert witness testified in full support of the defendant's treatment decisions.  The treating cardiologist testified that the patient died of her underlying heart condition, and not because of the defendant's treatment decisions.  The jury deliberated for a little over an hour before returning a defense verdict in favor of the general surgeon.



Return To News Archive

The recoveries, verdicts, favorable outcomes, and testimonials described on this site are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.