Anonymous Husband and Wife v. an Unnamed Hospital and Numerous Health Care Providers and their Groups, Employers/Principals
(Failure to Timely Diagnose and Treat an Abdominal Perforation)

Case Facts: On August 17, 2006, our client went to an outpatient care facility complaining of abdominal pain and high fever. He was thereafter admitted to the Defendant Hospital. On admission, he was examined and found to have diffuse abdominal pain with symptoms of anorexia, nausea, and constipation. It was also noted that he had a distended and tender abdomen. A surgical consult was obtained. That surgeon, also a defendant in this case, made recommendations for various additional consults and tests, some of which were never obtained through the time of discharge on September 13, 2006. The following day, the primary attending physician, who is also a defendant together with other members of his group who attended our client, obtained a gastroenterology consult.

As the days and weeks progressed during this hospitalization, our client continued to suffer from a host of problems, not the least of which was significant abdominal pain. Numerous tests and studies were performed. We allege that not only were additional recommended but not performed tests necessary, but also that key information was provided by the tests that were performed, which should have led to timely corrective intervention.

Included among these tests were a series of CT scans of the abdomen. On numerous occasions, the radiology specialists interpreting these tests advised the treating physicians there was a bowel perforation as well as other troubling pathology. Despite numerous warning signs and obvious signs and symptoms of a surgical abdomen, we allege, surgery was never performed on our client. He continued to remain in the hospital exhibiting numerous signs of a deteriorating condition.

On September 7, 2006, a pelvic CT with contrast was performed. This test, according to the radiologist, advised the attending physicians, all of whom are defendants in this lawsuit, that despite draining catheters, there was a ‘deformity of loops of bowel and gas seen within a loop of intestine in the right lower quadrant suggesting necrosis/pneumatosis.” Gas within the wall of a bowel is an emergency surgical condition. We allege that even though open surgical inspection and correction was indicated well before September 7, 2006, this examination left little doubt of the need for immediate surgery. Surgery was never performed.

The Client remained in the Defendant Hospital for approximately another week without any meaningful intervention. The day after the pelvic CT scan, September 8, 2006, the Client and his wife requested transfer to a different hospital in the city. They were by this time totally disgusted and frustrated with the care (or lack thereof) that the Client had been given. Transfer occurred on September 13, 2006, but not before our client had become clinically unstable and developed respiratory distress secondary to pulmonary emboli going to his lungs. By this time, having been bed-ridden for weeks, he had also developed a significant decubitus ulcer on this back.

The Discovery: The following day, he was transferred to the institution of his choice. At the time of his initial work-up in the receiving hospital, he was determined to be in a life-threatening, medically unstable condition. After heroic efforts were taken to save his life and stabilize him, our Client was taken to surgery finally. On September 15, 2006, our Client underwent an exploratory laparotomy. During the procedure, a dense inflammatory process was discovered in the right abdomen involving the sigmoid colon and extending into the pelvis. Upon entering the abscess cavity, frank pus was discovered along with necrotic and “almost liquefied ileum.” The bowel was resected and an ileostomy was created, whereby the contents of Plaintiff’s bowel were excreted into a bag outside his body.

On September 18, 2006, Client developed a right pneumothorax requiring emergency placement of a chest tube.

The Result: Following his life-saving surgery, our Client was transferred to yet another hospital for care and treatment of his decubitus ulcer on his back. Thereafter he was transferred to a rehabilitation facility. While there, he experienced a significant hypotensive episode requiring him to be returned back to the hospital where the corrective surgery was performed. On November 22, 2006, he was transferred to yet another rehabilitation facility, from which he was eventually discharged on November 30, 2006. He has had four additional surgeries since that time.

We allege that as a result of the negligent care and treatment he received by all of the defendant health care providers, our Client has suffered severe, ongoing abdominal injury and disability, requires ongoing care, has incurred substantial past medical and related costs and damages and will incur future medical expenses. We will also be claiming on his behalf substantial lost wages, both past and future. Furthermore, he has suffered and will continue to suffer great and intolerable physical, mental and emotional pain and suffering as a result of Defendants’ negligence. We have also brought a substantial claim on behalf of this husband and wife for the injuries and damages caused by this negligence to their marriage (this is known as a claim for ‘loss of consortium’).

< Back To Previous Page

The above “Cases in Suit” represent a sampling of the types of cases being handled by the lawyers and professional staff of Nash & Associates. Each case varies not only in the facts but also in terms of the jurisdictions in which they are litigated as well as many other intangible factors. We will continue to give you further examples of our cases, which we hope may be of interest to you.