 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Pillers v. Finley Hospital9/10/2003
Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment entered for defendants on her medical malpractice claim for burns to her thigh following knee surgery. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment entered for defendants on her medical malpractice claim for burns to her thigh following knee surgery. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
When viewed at the summary judgment stage in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the record contains substantial evidence of the following facts. Danette Pillers underwent surgery to repair an anterior cruciate ligament tear in her left knee. Staff employed by the Finley Hospital prepped Pillers' knee by scrubbing it from mid-thigh to mid-calf with a Betadine solution. Donald March, a certified registered nurse anesthetist, administered epidural anesthetic and monitored the tourniquet constricting blood flow to Pillers' lower extremity during the surgery. Dr. M.S. Reddy was assigned as the anesthesiologist for the procedure and was March's supervisor, although he was not present in the operating room. Dr. Field performed the surgery. While Pillers was under anesthesia, she experienced a chemical burn to the back of her thigh, an area not within the field of surgery. Some of the Betadine prep solution leaked under the tourniquet, and when the tourniquet was inflated the pressure of the tourniquet on the Betadine solution against Pillers' skin most likely caused the chemical burn.
When Pillers regained consciousness, she immediately called attention to a burning sensation on the back of her thigh. The burn was then noted by hospital staff and treated appropriately. Pillers claims the burn delayed her recovery from the knee surgery because it hindered her ability to participate in physical therapy. She also claims she suffered severe pain for months and still bears a disfiguring scar which cannot be corrected.
Pillers filed suit against Drs. Field and Reddy, Mr. March, and the Finley Hospital. The parties engaged in discovery. Pillers reached a settlement agreement with the Finley Hospital and subsequently dismissed her cause of action against the hospital with prejudice. Drs. Field and Reddy and Mr. March moved for summary judgment. The district court granted this motion, and Pillers appeals. She contends the district court erred in its determination that Pillers failed to generate a jury question as to whether defendants owed and breached a duty. She also claims the district court erred in its determination that Pillers may not rely upon the doctrine of res ispa loquitur.
II. Standard and Scope of Review
We will review a district court's grant of summary judgment for errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Red Giant Oil Co. v. Lawlor, 528 N.W.2d 524, 528 (Iowa 1995). Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue at to any material fact. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981; Kapadia v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 418 N.W.2d 848, 849 (Iowa 1998). We will review the record before the district court to decide whether any material fact is in dispute, and if not, whether the district court correctly applied the law. Shriver v. City of Okoboji, 567 N.W.2d 397, 400 (Iowa 1997). The facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.
III. Medical Negligence Claim
To establish a prima facie claim of medical negligence, Pillers must produce evidence of the applicable standard of care, a violation of the standard, and the causal relationship between the violation and the injury. Kennis v. Mercy Hosp. Med. Ctr., 491 N.W.2d 161, 165 (Iowa 1992). The district court deter
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|