Case Description
On February 12, 2001, the Plaintiff's Decedent was admitted to the Defendant Hospital under the care of the Defendant. He was scheduled for surgery for a condition known as spondylolisthesis -- a condition which requires stabilization of the vertebral bodies so that no subluxation involving the spinal cord can occur. In essence, it is alleged that the surgery was designed to stabilize the integrity of the vertebral column so that no impingement on the spinal cord would result and to alleviate back pain from which the Plaintiff's Decedent suffered.

During the course of the surgery, it is alleged that these Defendants negligently lacerated the left iliac vein causing severe bleeding. They then compounded their negligence by failing to appropriately repair the vessel so that the bleeding was permitted to continue unabated. It is alleged that the standards of care required these Defendants to identify, isolate and protect the vital structures such as the iliac vein from damage during the course of such surgery, and further required these Defendants to properly recognize and repair and/or provide for an appropriate repair in the event that they had damaged the vessel.

It is asserted that these Defendants and each of them were required to make a prompt diagnosis of the damage they had inflicted and appropriately repair same or call for a stat (emergency) vascular surgical consultation so that a specialist in the field of repairing said vasculature would be in the operating room and complete the repair.

As a direct and proximate result of these Defendants' failure to appropriately repair and/or obtain the surgical consultation necessary, the Plaintiff's Decedent was permitted to continue to bleed on an ongoing basis.

As the result of the ongoing negligence of all of the Defendants involved, an otherwise healthy 47-year-old patient was permitted to bleed to the point that he was in extremis, and suffered cardiorespiratory arrest. Had these Defendants and each of them conformed with the applicable standards of care, the iliac vein would not have been damaged; or if damaged, it would have been properly repaired or appropriate vascular surgical consultation obtained; the "cell saver" device would have worked appropriately or been timely replaced; and the Plaintiff's Decedent would never have arrested on the operating table.

However, to further compound the negligence, when these Defendants attempted a resuscitation, they negligently left the iliac vein open, and thus permitted air to enter the vein finally killing the patient due to "an air embolus" which they injected. Again, had these Defendants acted in accordance with the standards of care, no air would ever have been permitted to enter the Decedent's vein, and he would not have died on the Defendant Hospital's operating table on February 12, 2001.

The Plaintiff's Decedent is survived by his wife and minor son.