Bobbitt v. Chow1/30/2003
In this medical malpractice case, Plaintiff-Appellant Janet M. Bobbitt (Bobbitt) appeals from the November 28, 2001 Judgment entered by Judge Dan T. Kochi in favor of Defendants-Appellees Gregory H. Chow, M.D. (Dr. Chow), and Orthopedic Associates of Hawaii, Inc. (OAH), that resulted from the following order entered on November 6, 2001:
IT IS ORDERED . . . that Defendants Gregory Chow, M.D. and Orthopedic Associates of Hawaii, Inc.'s Motion In Limine To Exclude Opinions of Thomas Lubin, M.D. filed on October 8, 2001 be and hereby is granted.
Because Plaintiff can provide no expert testimony re standard of care and causation, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' oral motion to dismiss, with prejudice, is granted.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 1975, Bobbitt was the victim of a motorcycle accident which resulted in a severe injury to her left knee. In 1988, Bobbitt's "knee was replaced by a device referred to as a 'Howmedica PCA Primary Knee.'"
On September 9, 1995, while on an airplane, Bobbitt began to suffer swelling and severe pain originating at the left knee prosthesis. She consulted with a medical doctor who, on September 19, 1995, aspirated the area, had the aspirate cultured, and x-rayed the knee. The x-rays revealed a shattered prosthesis.
On September 21, 1995, Bobbitt consulted with Dr. Chow, an orthopedic surgeon employed by OAH. On December 5, 1995, Dr. Chow surgically removed the prosthesis and replaced it with another one.
In a memorandum filed on October 6, 1999, counsel for Bobbitt stated, in relevant part, as follows:
On December 18, 1995, [Bobbitt's] incision was described as well healed. On December 27, 1995, she appeared to have a wound infection which was cultured and treated aggressively. On December 28, 1995, surgical debridement was performed. Cultures were obtained. The cultures were negative.
(At this point, an infectious disease consult should have been ordered.)
On January 2, 1996, the wound appeared to be healing well; however, on January 5, 1996, [Bobbitt] had substantial effusion which was sent out for culture. On January 8, 1996, the culture results came back negative. On that date, it was also noted that [Bobbitt's] right knee was swollen considerably more and that she had significant pain and effusion.
On January 15, 1996, the wound appeared to be well healed and the antibiotics were discontinued, despite the fact that effusion was still noted. [Dr. Chow] stated that as long as the wound stayed sealed, he would follow over in another month. [Bobbitt] was to return right away if she had any wound problems.
On January 30, 1996, [Bobbitt] returned with a woven that looked slightly red and what intermittent effusions and some erythema.
On February 5, 1996, [Bobbitt] returned with her ankle and leg swollen and with significant effusion, with the area of this stitch abscess opened and with continued knee swelling. The plan was to follow-up as per the previous routine. This meant that [Bobbitt] was to return in one month unless she had any new wound problems.
On February 23, 1996, [Bobbitt] returned with her lay and ankle being swollen and painful and with an apparent infection in her prosthesis. A culture was ordered. OnFebruary 24, 1996, [Bobbitt] was admitted to the hospital for treatment of an infected left total the replacement. On February 28, 1996, [Bobbitt's] wound was irrigated and debrided.
On March 1, 1996, a consult with an infectious disease specialist was requested. At that time, the infectious disease specialist noted that there were prior
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|