During the ensuing days in the hospital, the patient began suffering nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and abdominal distension for which a drain tube was inserted to drain the contents of his bowel. Once the drain tube was removed, the patient’s condition worsened within 12 hours…medicalmalpracticelawyers.com, $1M Virginia Medical Malpractice Settlement From Anesthesiologist For Avoidable Aspiration During Surgery, August 2024
CASE: The decision was made to return the patient to the operating room. As the second surgical procedure began and anesthesia was administered, the patient vomited and aspirated into his lungs. The patient was admitted to the ICU after surgery where he was diagnosed and treated for septic shock and ARDS. He was required to spend two months in the hospital followed by in-home care for an additional four months.
A Virginia medical malpractice lawsuit was filed against the anesthesiologist, alleging that the defendant’s treatment plan fell below the standard of care. In particular, the plaintiff’s expert opined that the defendant anesthesiologist failed to consider the plaintiff’s medical condition while in the hospital between the two surgical procedures that raised the risk of vomiting upon induction of anesthesia during the subsequent surgery. The expert further opined that the defendant anesthesiologist should have placed a drain tube to drain bowel contents before induction, which would have prevented the plaintiff from aspirating.
The plaintiff’s Virginia medical malpractice lawyer reported that the defendant anesthesiologist testified during her deposition that she had thoroughly reviewed the patient’s hospital chart before the second surgery. The plaintiff’s lawyer investigated the audit trail of the electronic health record that reportedly revealed that the defendant anesthesiologist spent only one minute on the date of the second surgery reviewing the plaintiff’s hospital chart. The audit trail reportedly also indicated that the defendant anesthesiologist had entered the electronic medical record and edited her pre-anesthesia note three times on the date of the second surgery, and that all three versions provided to the plaintiff’s lawyer and to the defendant’s lawyer about six weeks before the scheduled trial reportedly showed that the defendant added an explanation why a drain tube was not placed, and added and then deleted an entry into the record that she palpated the plaintiff’s abdomen and found it to be distended, in an apparent attempt to deflect blame away from her.
It was after the disclosure of the edited medical record that the first offer of settlement was made. The Virginia medical malpractice case was settled shortly before trial earlier this year.