Case Results
Gordon & Silber Obtains Summary Judgment for Anesthesiologist Alleged to have Insufficiently Anesthetized Patient — March 2008.
Type of Case: Medical Malpractice- Failure to Properly Anesthetize Patient, Leading to Movement During Surgery and Detached Retina.
Venue: Supreme Court, New York County
Background Facts: Plaintiff claimed that our client, an anesthesiologist, failed to sufficiently anesthetize her during an operation for right eye cataract extraction with lens implant. Plaintiff alleged that the lack of anesthesia allegedly caused her pain and anxiety and intra-operative movement which resulted in difficulty inserting an intra-ocular lens, which caused a retinal detachment and near total loss of right visual acuity.
Special Problems: The operative report indicated that during the procedure, the patient appeared uncomfortable and was unable to keep her eyes still. As a result, topical anesthesia had to be given. Plaintiff's expert also pointed to an increased systolic blood pressure and pulse rate as evidence that plaintiff did not have sufficient anesthetic coverage. A note in the chart indicated that the patient felt she did not get enough anesthesia. Plaintiff alleges she was left with very little useful vision in her right eye.
Our Strategy: Upon moving for summary judgment, we emphasized to the court that our client was merely responsible for administering the medications Versad, Fentanyl and Propofol, that merely sedated the plaintiff in order for the surgeon, not our client, to administer a local anesthetic to the plaintiff's eye. It was the local anesthetic, not the sedation administered by our client, that numbed and immobilized the plaintiff's eye. Although the plaintiff's expert opined that the plaintiff's injuries could have been caused by the movement of plaintiff's body (as opposed to her eye) during the surgery, we argued that this was speculative and without foundation, and in any event, our client's medications were not intended to immobilize the plaintiff's body.
In addition, we argued there were no difficulties or complications encountered during our client's monitoring of the patient. Finally, we argued that plaintiff's expert ophthalmologist was not qualified to render an opinion with respect to the drugs that our client administered.
Result: The court granted summary judgment based on plaintiff's failure to establish a causal connection between the alleged malpractice and the treatment rendered by our client.
|