DEFENDANT'S VERDICT - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - SURGEON NEGLIGENCE - NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF WRIST SURGERY - PLAINTIFF ASSERTS DEFENDANT SURGEON MISPLACED SCREWS DURING REPAIR OF COLLES' FRACTURE OF LEFT WRIST - PLAINTIFF CONTENDS ADDITIONAL SURGERY NECESSARY TO CORRECT DEFENDANT'S ERROR - PERMANENT DAMAGE TO WRIST - DEFENDANT DENIES ANY BREACH AND ARGUES X-RAYS SHOW PROPER PLACEMENT OF SCREWS.

• Pages: 6-7

ics, corticosteroids and other medications. The

defendant contended that, when warranted, an

appropriate ENT referral was made.

The defendant’s internal medicine expert opined that a

CT-scan in the later part of 2018 showed that the fullness

in the plaintiff’s right neck had resolved following treat-

ment. This expert opined that the right neck fullness did

not represent the malignant mass that was ultimately

found in the hypopharynx. The defendant maintained

that, had a fine needle aspirate occurred of the right

neck fullness in the late summer of 2018, it would not

have documented the presence of malignancy.

The jury found that the defendant was negligent and

awarded the plaintiff $4,650,000 in damages. The

award included $250,000 in past and future medical

expenses and $4,400,000 in past and future pain and

suffering.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s family medicine expert: Gregg Davis, M.D.

from Princeton, IL.

Hines vs. Rosa, et al. Case no. 20-002906-CI; Judge

Thomas Ramsberger, 05-11-22.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Wesley T. Straw, Matthew D.

Emerson and Nicole Ziegler of Emerson Straw, PL in

Saint Petersburg, FL.

COMMENTARY

The result of this medical malpractice trial may have hinged on the

jury’s understanding regarding the nature of the unexplained neck

mass exhibited by the plaintiff. The defense proffered the argu-

ment that the malignancy, diagnosed in December 2018, was not

the same mass palpitated by the defendant PA 8 months earlier, in

April 2018. However, the plaintiff’s testified that he complained to

the defendant of an enlarged lymph node in his neck and worsen-

ing symptoms. Plaintiff’s counsel stressed that, despite the fact that

the plaintiff clearly exhibited red flags in the form of an unex-

plained neck mass for months, the defendant failed to order

complete diagnostic testing.

In addition, a major defense was negated as a result of the plain-

tiff’s cross-examination of the defendant’s internal medicine ex-

pert. The cross-examination showed that the area in the plaintiff’s

neck, which had allegedly resolved, was different than where the

neck mass at issue was determined to be. Thus, at the conclusion of

all evidence, it would appear that the Pinellas County jury hearing

the case was unwilling to accept the defense position that the ma-

lignancy ultimately found was unrelated to the neck mass

documented early in the plaintiff’s treatment.

The case, which resulted in a damage award of $4.65 million, was

resolved post-verdict.

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – SURGEON NEGLIGENCE –

NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF WRIST SURGERY – PLAINTIFF ASSERTS DEFENDANT

SURGEON MISPLACED SCREWS DURING REPAIR OF COLLES’ FRACTURE OF LEFT

WRIST – PLAINTIFF CONTENDS ADDITIONAL SURGERY NECESSARY TO CORRECT

DEFENDANT’S ERROR – PERMANENT DAMAGE TO WRIST – DEFENDANT DENIES ANY

BREACH AND ARGUES X-RAYS SHOW PROPER PLACEMENT OF SCREWS.

Miami-Dade County, FL

In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff

asserted that the defendant hand surgeon and his

practice breached the standard of care in

performance of left wrist surgery on the plaintiff

by mispositioning screws used for repair. The

plaintiff maintained that the negligence of the

defendants resulted in further damage to the

plaintiff’s wrist requiring corrective surgery and

leaving the plaintiff with permanent damage. The

defendant denied any breach of the standard of

care and argued that the plaintiff’s x-rays in fact

showed that the screws were properly placed in

front of the joint and not intruding into the joint.

On December 26, 2015, the plaintiff presented to the

emergency room after falling off a hover board. The

plaintiff was ultimately diagnosed with a closed Colles’

fracture of the left radius (highly comminuted fracture of

the distal radius). The plaintiff underwent reduction of the

fracture with post-reduction x-ray revealing adequate re-

position of the displaced radius. He was discharged and

referred to a specialist for follow-up. On December 28,

2015, the plaintiff presented to the defendants with in-

stability of the distal radius fracture. The defendants rec-

ommended open reduction/internal fixation with

brachioradialis tendon lengthening; first extensor com-

partment release and wrist arthrotomy. The plaintiff un-

derwent the recommended procedures, performed by

the defendant surgeon, on the following day.

The plaintiff contended that the defendants negligently

performed a surgical procedure to repair the fracture

and, as a result, the plaintiff suffered permanent and ir-

reversible damage to his left wrist and was required to

undergo subsequent corrective surgery in Brazil to re-

move and replace the surgical instrumentation initially

placed by the defendant surgeon. The plaintiff’s wife

also brought a claim for loss of consortium as a result of

her husband’s injuries.

The plaintiff argued that the screws negligently placed

by the defendants invaded the distal radius joint surface

and caused further damage to the wrist. The plaintiff

presented expert testimony that screw penetration into

the wrist joint was against best practices and breached

the standard of care. The defendants asserted that the

surgery was performed properly and was the appropri-

ate procedure for the type of injury suffered by the

plaintiff.

6 SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS

Volume 32, Issue 11, November 2022 Subscribe Now