Daniel L. Grill (Harrisburg) recently obtained a defense verdict on behalf of his client. The case was tried the week of August 7, 2006 before The Honorable Richard K. Renn and a jury of twelve in York, York County, Pennsylvania.

TT&H represented a York area orthopedic surgeon who was consulted during a hospitalization following a surgery at another facility.

Plaintiff suffered with severe spinal stenosis and had been using a walker for three years. She underwent a lumbar surgery on December 3, 1999. She was discharged home twelve days later and did not mention at the time of discharge that she was feeling short of breath. Her family doctor visited her at her home later that day and felt there was a potential complication and had her admitted and diagnosed with a bilateral pulmonary emboli.

Our client was consulted on December 19, 1999. A CT scan showed a loose screw perhaps but nothing else notable. Our client's consultation note indicated he evaluated her for increasing back and leg pain with inactivity and that he was investigating the possibility of hematoma formation following surgery. He recommended a course of steroid medications and a physical therapy consult for the 20th to see if they could get her ambulatory.

He saw her again on December 20 and wrote orders to keep a light clean dressing on the back wound. The Plaintiff complained of some numbness in the left leg and our client wanted continuation of the steroids and wanted her to go back to her surgeon the next week.

On the 21st, notes indicated burning pain in the left leg without relief by Vicodin and pins and needles in the left leg and foot. Our client's note indicated he spoke with the operating surgeon due to her symptoms, ordered an MRI and also noted an elevated white blood count. The family practice attendings had decided to have the Plaintiff transferred back to the operating hospital. The MRI stated that the thecal sac appeared to be compressed by the edematous changes from the decompression and there may have been a component of postoperative hematoma at the L4 and L5 levels.

The Plaintiff allegedly suffered from central equina syndrome including urinary bladder dysfunction requiring self-catheterization daily, and bowel dysfunction requiring manual disimpaction of stool.

The claims again our client focused on the alleged failure recognize cauda equina syndrome, failure to diagnose the hematoma at the operation site and failure to either operate emergently himself or refer Plaintiff for emergency surgical care for drainage of the claimed hematoma.