 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hackman v. Christiana Care Health Services11/15/2004
l because no medical expert, including Novin, was prepared to testify that it would be a breach of the standard of care for a surgeon to nick or bruise the duodenum during a complicated surgery such as this one. Thus, without evidence that Schickler actually punctured the bowel, there was nothing to support a finding of negligence.
Novin and Schickler basically agreed on what happened during the aneurysm surgery and on the conclusion that the perforation occurred several days later. Novin also opined unequivocally that Schickler did not breach the applicable standard of care during the course of the surgery:
Q: And here's a sentence in the report which says, "in his opinion," meaning yours, "a breach in the standard of care occurred with an instrumentation perforation injury to the duodenum."
Am I correct that you do not agree with that statement?
A: I modified it, that the procedure of dissecting the duodenum off the aorta and the aorta off the duodenum using clamps, scissors, fingers, knives, retractors, resulted in damage to the fourth portion of the duodenum that caused the perforation that was manifest 24 to 48 or even 72 hours after the operative procedure was completed.
Q: You do not believe that there was an instrumentation perforation during the surgery, correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Other than failing to, in your opinion, communicate to Dr. Fellows the length and difficulty of this aneurysm repair, do you have any other opinions that Dr. Schickler breached the standard of care in the treatment he rendered to Mr. Hackman?
A: No.
Schickler's testimony provided no evidence to the contrary. After the November 30th surgery, during which he and Zern discovered the hole in Hackman's duodenum, Schickler thought about how the perforation occurred. He told the Hackman family and, later, the attorneys, the same thing:
Q: And I would expect the next natural question [from the family] would be; how did that happen? Do you remember any discussion about that?
A: I stated to the family that this may very well have been following the manipulation of the duodenum.
Q: ...I asked you when you saw the perforation with Dr. Zern, this would have been on November 30, did you make a judgment at that time about what had caused it? Could you tell us what your answer was?
A: My concern was that it was possibly related to the mobilization of the duodenum to get to his aorta.
Later in his testimony, Schickler agreed that, if he had punctured the duodenum, and he failed to notice that it was leaking for three to four hours, that he would have breached the standard of care. But he did not believe that he punctured the duodenum, and he explained why:
Q: Did you make a hole in the duodenum?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: How do you know?
A: Because the duodenum is sitting right there....At the end of the procedure you close that big aneurysm sack over the graft, you then close the retro peritoneal because you want to keep your aneurysm repair separate from the intestines. That process, the duodenum is sitting right there in middle of your operative field. The hole, if it were to be made, would have been made early in the operation. This would have been leaking for at least three, four, five hours before we closed.
Q: Describe for the jury, if you could, we heard leakage and fluid; what would the leakage look like?
A: We would expect it to be greenish color because it is right after the bile duct enters the duodenum.
Q: Would that be noticeable and how would
Page 1 2 3 4 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|