- The Firm
- Attorney Profiles
- Practice Areas
- Medical Malpractice
- Personal Injury
P.O. BOX 447
CONCORD, NH 03301
Plaintiff's Attorney: Kenneth C. Brown, Esq. and Jared R. Green, Esq.
Case Title: Anonymous v. Anonymous
County: Anonymous Date of Injury: July 4, 2004
Liability Facts: This is a medical malpractice claim arising from the defendants’ deviation from the standard of care and failure in the performance thereof, both during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy and throughout plaintiff’s admission to the hospital. The plaintiff was admitted to the hospital on July 4, 2004 with a three-day history of intermittent epigastric pressure and pain. Multiple gallstones were demonstrated via ultrasound and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed the following day. The procedure was noted to be “very challenging” necessitating the placement of a drain in the right gutter. Numerous surgeons from the defendant surgical practice attended the plaintiff during this admission. The plaintiff was discharged on July 13, 2004.
The plaintiff was readmitted four days later with weakness, dizziness, abdominal pain, and nausea with a white blood cell count of 19,000, BUN 99 and ceratin of 3.4. She was followed by the defendants during this admission. Large amounts of bile drainage continued with studies suggesting that there was a complete occlusion of the common bile duct.
The plaintiff’s care was then transferred to another facility. On July 24, 2004 with a subsequent finding of an occlusion to the common right hepatic artery and extrahepatic bile duct injuries, the plaintiff underwent an exploratory laparotomy hepaticojejunostomy and three biliary septoplasties. It was found at that time that the defendant surgeon who was performed the laparoscopic cholecystectomy on July 5 had cut the bile duct in two locations and also lacerated the right hepatic artery.
Plaintiff: Sex: F Age at time of injury: 52
Occupation: Special education teacher
Plaintiff's Theory of Liability: The original surgery was performed negligently. The surgeon should have converted to an open procedure. The defendants failed to recognize and respond to the signs and symptoms of post-procedure complications, failed to timely identify the bile duct and hepatic injuries and otherwise failed to exercise reasonable care, properly assess, monitor, evaluate, manage, and medically follow the plaintiff.
Defendant's Theory of Defense: The surgical errors were a recognized risk of the procedure of which the patient was informed and written consent was given. The post-operative care was appropriate.
Injuries: (Diagnosis/Prognosis/Permanency): As a result of the negligence of the defendants, the plaintiff required intricate repair surgery, incurred nearly two hundred thousand dollars in medical bills and remains at risk for complications that could require a liver transplant.
VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: Settled after suit but before trial for a confidential amount.
Kenneth C. Brown, Esquire
Jared R. Green, Esq.
ABRAMSON, BROWN & DUGAN
1819 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03104
Counsel for the Plaintiffs