Jury Sides with Robert G. Smith Jr.'s Client on Case Related to 2cm Tear in Patient's Bladder
On August 23, 2012, a Harris County, Texas jury took only one and a half hours to return a defense verdict in favor of IADC member Robert Smith and Michael Blaise's physician client, an obstetrician. Plaintiff patient was a 28-year old mother who had a C-section performed by defendant. Plantiff had a history of two previous C-sections. Plaintiff was discharged on the third day after surgery, but returned to defendant four days later complaining of abdominal pain and swelling. Defendant suspected a bladder leak and got plaintiff admitted to a hospital. Defendant physician consulted a urologist who diagnosed a bladder leak and repaired same. Defendant assisted in the repair surgery. The urologist also called in a surgeon to wash out the patient's peritoneal cavity. Plaintiff's incisions were left open at discharge, to reduce the risk of infection.
Plaintiff's expert contended that defendant should have more carefully evaluated the bladder before closing the patient, given the adhesions and scar tissue encountered due to the previous surgeries in the area. He testified that defendant should have performed a bladder integrity test due to the adhesions and scar tissue encountered during the surgery.
Defendant and her expert explained that unless there was some reason to suspect that the bladder had been injured, it is not standard to perform bladder integrity testing. They also took the position that the injury was likely a subclinical type injury wherein the bladder did not leak prior to initial discharge from the hospital, but weakened over the days after plaintiff went home, and that is why there were no symptoms before post-operative day six. Therefore, a bladder integrity test would not likely have shown anything.
Interestingly, plaintiff had subsequent upper abdominal complaints and was diagnosed with colon cancer about ten months later. She underwent an abdominal surgery to remove the cancerous lesion. This event was not related to the issues in the suit, although it was discussed during trial with regard to plaintiff's alleged damages.
Back to news