 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. Steinberg6/13/2002
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
. Defendant Steven Steinberg, M.D., performed gall bladder surgery on decedent John Taylor. Taylor suffered a common postoperative complication - a bile duct leak - that although suspected, went undiagnosed and led to his death. Taylor's estate brought this medical malpractice action against Steinberg, claiming his postoperative care of Taylor fell below accepted standards of care because he failed to discover and treat the duct leak. A jury returned a verdict and $1.24 million in damages to the estate. The court denied the estate's motion for prejudgment interest.
Steinberg appeals claiming that the court erred by denying his motions for directed verdicts. The estate cross-appeals, claiming the court erred by denying its motion for a prejudgment interest without first holding a hearing.
. Civ.R. 50(A)(4) permits the court to direct a verdict when the evidence, construed most strongly in favor of the non-moving party, leads reasonable minds to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the non-moving party. This standard is similar to that presented in a motion for summary judgment - the court must accordingly give the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that might be taken from the evidence. See Broz v. Winland (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 521, 526, 1994-Ohio-529. When there is sufficient credible evidence to permit reasonable minds to reach different conclusions on an essential issue, the trial court must submit that issue to the jury. O'Day v. Webb (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 215, paragraph four of the syllabus. We therefore consider the facts in a light most favorable to the estate.
. A physician diagnosed Taylor with gallstones and referred him to Steinberg for surgery to remove the gall bladder. The surgery went without complications and Taylor left the hospital the following day.
. Twenty-seven days later, Taylor was readmitted to the hospital with complaints of abdominal distress and jaundice. The admitting physician suspected "biliary sepsis" as a cause of Taylor's complaint. A common postoperative complication of gall bladder removal is a bile duct leak.
When bile leaks into the abdominal cavity, it irritates the soft tissue and can lead to infection - commonly known as sepsis. Although imminently treatable, this condition can be deadly if not treated. Like the admitting physician, Steinberg immediately suspected that Taylor had a duct leak.
. A doctor attending to Taylor's admission (Steinberg was away for the weekend) ordered a CT scan. A positive CT scan would show the presence of bile and confirm the existence of a duct leak. Taylor's CT scan did not reveal the presence of any fluid. Steinberg ordered a second CT scan six days after the first scan. This scan was likewise negative. The day after the second CT scan, Steinberg ordered an ERCP test. The ERCP test requires a doctor to insert a scope down the patient's throat to where the bile duct joins the intestine, squirt dye into the duct, and take an x-ray to find the source of the leak. Taylor expressed reservations about the procedure, and Steinberg conceded that the ERCP is "not the most pleasant test." The gastroenterologist who performed the test heavily sedated Taylor, but Taylor still did not tolerate the test very well. Only one decent x-ray was generated by the test, but Taylor's inability to tolerate the test meant that the gastroenterologist was unable to fill the bile duct with enough dye so that he could draw any conclusions about the problems with the duct. Steinberg found the test unhelpful.
. Steinberg then wanted Taylor to undergo a percutaneous trans-hepatic cholangiogram (PTH
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|