The plaintiff underwent a colonoscopy performed by the defendant gastroenterologist at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington. The plaintiff alleged that although the defendant’s procedure note characterized the colonoscopy as extremely difficult, he advanced to the cecum in five minutes, faster than he had done on the plaintiff for an uncomplicated colonoscopy performed five years earlier…medicalmalpracticelawyers, $1.5M Virginia Medical Malpractice Verdict For Negligently Performed Colonoscopy Requiring Splenectomy
The plaintiff’s evidence at trial indicated that the defendant gastroenterologist was unaware at the time of the March 2024 colonoscopy that the plaintiff had donated her left kidney to her husband one year earlier.
The plaintiff contended that the plaintiff’s age, gender, and her history of abdominal surgeries meant that she was at higher risk of suffering injury to her spleen, and that the defendant gastroenterologist failed to consider the risk factors for splenic injury when planning and performing the colonoscopy.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant gastroenterologist performed the colonoscopy with excessive speed, and once he encountered difficulty, he did not employ any techniques that would minimize the risk of splenic injury. On the contrary, the defendant gastroenterologist reportedly requested the application of abdominal pressure to the left upper quadrant by two staff members, including one who applied so much pressure that he believed the patient may have been hurt.
Despite the difficulties he encountered, the defendant gastroenterologist allegedly did not consider aborting the procedure and converting to a virtual colonoscopy. Nonetheless, the defendant gastroenterologist recommended that the plaintiff’s next colonoscopy be performed virtually due to the amount of looping he encountered.
On the same day the plaintiff was discharged from the hospital, she developed left shoulder pain and vomiting. She was returned to the hospital by ambulance, where she was diagnosed with acute blood loss related to a significantly lacerated spleen. The plaintiff required an emergency splenectomy after which she spent several days in the intensive care unit and was hospitalized for a total of nine days. Subsequently, she had to be hospitalized again because of her increased susceptibility to the specific infections that the lack of a spleen may cause.
After five days of trial, the Virginia medical malpractice jury deliberated for approximately three hours before awarding the plaintiff $1.5 million.