 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fusiler v. Rivet11/2/2000
estified that Mrs. Fusiler had very serious complaints following her first surgery. However, he relied on the history given by Mrs. Fusiler and had not reviewed any of the other medical records. He stated that Mrs. Fusiler told him that after her surgery she awoke with difficulty walking, clumsiness of the left arm and legs, and numbness below her neck. She also complained that when she bent her neck forward she would develop an electrical sensation that ran down the left side of her body into her leg.
We know from the above evidence that these complaints were not initially all present and developed over time, with the most significant complaints not present until early September. Both Drs. Martinez and Franklin had also been following Mrs. Fusiler's progress after her surgery and did not note any problems that would lead them to believe that additional testing was required until September 1991. By this time, Mrs. Fusiler would not return to see Dr. Rivet. He last saw her on August 19, and her complaints at that time were what the doctors testified were typical complaints following this type of surgery.
We find that summary judgment was appropriate in this case. There is no evidence that the surgery performed by Dr. Rivet deviated from an acceptable standard of care under similar circumstances. We also find that there was no evidence that his care of Mrs. Fusiler after the surgery was not within the acceptable standard of care.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Brenda and Earl Fusiler.
AFFIRMED.
|