Gray v. Dr. C.

Listen to this article

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: ZERO DOLLARS

Case name: Gray v. Dr. C.

Case number: 06-CV-305

Court: Rock County Circuit Court

Judge: Daniel T. Dillon

Injuries alleged: Chronic and continuing groin pain as a result of negligently performed hernia repair surgery.

Plaintiff attorney: Marc McCrory, Carney, Davies & Thorpe, LLC

Defense attorney: Dr. C & Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin: Barrett J. Corneille/Carley Pelch-Kiesling, Corneille Law Group LLC

Plaintiff experts: Mark Marzolf, D.O.

Defense experts: David DeAngeles, M.D, Department of CardioVascular Surgery Dean/St. Marys Outpatient Center; Robert Baker, M.D., Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Hospitals

Defense counsel’s summary of facts: In this Rock County medical negligence case, the issues were whether the defendant surgeon violated the standard of care in performing a hernia repair surgery on the plaintiff, and whether any act or omission by the defendant surgeon was the cause of subsequent chronic groin pain alleged by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff contended that the defendant had improperly performed a hernia repair, and relied solely on testimony from a subsequent treater who performed a re-operation and claimed that it appeared the initial procedure was done improperly. The defense conceded that if the subsequent treaters description of what he found was accurate, then the defendant was negligent.

The defense responded with testimony from the defendant surgeon regarding his extensive experience with and performance of this type of surgery, and testimony from two expert witnesses (surgeons) who testified that it appeared the defendant surgeon had met the standard of care, and that it was unlikely that the plaintiff’s symptoms were caused by any act or omission on the part of the defendant physician. The defense also presented testimony from the surgical assistant who assisted with the plaintiff’s surgery by Dr. C., who testified regarding the surgeon’s experience with and performance of the surgery, as well as her own belief that the surgery had been properly performed.

The plaintiff’s credibility was also an issue at trial, with the defense presenting evidence of non-compliance with regard to medical appointments.

Plaintiff claimed ongoing and chronic groin pain as a result of the alleged negligence, and related past and future pain and suffering. Plaintiff’s wife had a claim for loss of society and companionship related to her husband’s chronic groin pain. Special damages submitted by plaintiffs prior to trial included past medical expenses of $7,612 and $1,750 in past wage loss.

The jury deliberated for 30 minutes and returned a verdict of no negligence against the defendant.