Permanently Damaged Kidney

[Berick]

In California. My wife had been dealing with an UTI for seven years. We continually emailed her doctor and urologist with concerns that there might be an underlying condition, but they kept brushing off our concerns and just repeatedly prescribed antibiotics. Finally, she was assigned to a different urologist who referred her for an ultra-sound that showed a stone the size of her fist in one of her kidneys. Invasive surgery was required to break that up. We asked her surgeon if her kidney was permanently damaged, and he described the lower portion of her kidney as "mush." About a week after the procedure, she was rushed to the ER with an incredibly high fever and bleeding. She had to stay in the hospital 8 days before they finally killed the infection and stopped the bleeding. We filed a grievance and finally received a boiler-plate response of, sorry for your trouble, thanks for your membership! It makes me angry that our concerns were ignored then as they are now. Should we consider any legal action?

 

[Zigner]

What US state?
Did you have a question for us?

 

[Berick]

What US state?
Did you have a question for us?

Sorry. Post was updated.

 

[quincy]

In California. My wife had been dealing with an UTI for seven years. We continually emailed her doctor and urologist with concerns that there might be an underlying condition, but they kept brushing off our concerns and just repeatedly prescribed antibiotics. Finally, she was assigned to a different urologist who referred her for an ultra-sound that showed a stone the size of her fist in one of her kidneys. Invasive surgery was required to break that up. We asked her surgeon if her kidney was permanently damaged, and he described the lower portion of her kidney as "mush." About a week after the procedure, she was rushed to the ER with an incredibly high fever and bleeding. She had to stay in the hospital 8 days before they finally killed the infection and stopped the bleeding. We filed a grievance and finally received a boiler-plate response of, sorry for your trouble, thanks for your membership! It makes me angry that our concerns were ignored then as they are now. Should we consider any legal action?

You say your wife had been experiencing problems for 7 years. Why didn’t she seek out help/an examination from another doctor earlier?

How long ago was the kidney stone finally discovered and how long ago was the surgery?

 

[Zigner]

In California. My wife had been dealing with an UTI for seven years. We continually emailed her doctor and urologist with concerns that there might be an underlying condition, but they kept brushing off our concerns and just repeatedly prescribed antibiotics. Finally, she was assigned to a different urologist who referred her for an ultra-sound that showed a stone the size of her fist in one of her kidneys. Invasive surgery was required to break that up. We asked her surgeon if her kidney was permanently damaged, and he described the lower portion of her kidney as "mush." About a week after the procedure, she was rushed to the ER with an incredibly high fever and bleeding. She had to stay in the hospital 8 days before they finally killed the infection and stopped the bleeding. We filed a grievance and finally received a boiler-plate response of, sorry for your trouble, thanks for your membership! It makes me angry that our concerns were ignored then as they are now. Should we consider any legal action?

Did your wife present any symptoms beyond the UTI? A kidney stone as you describe would generally cause excruciating pain. I know this pain, and my stones, while large, were nowhere near as large as you describe your wife experiencing.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Should we consider any legal action?

It may be worthwhile to meet with a medical malpractice lawyer about it. A number of med-mal give free initial consultations so you and your would only lose a bit of your time. But be aware that medical malpractice cases are typically long battles with a lot of fees that have to be paid along the way. The lawyer might pay a lot of those fees but if the lawyer does, the lawyer will want a larger contingent fee and will want a case that has the potential for a good size award to compensate the lawyer for the time and costs put into the case. These cases often are stressful for the client, so she'll need to be prepared for that if there is a case worth pursuing. Just from what you've said here there is no way to know just how good a case she may have or how much she might reasonably expect to win in a lawsuit. A lot more info is needed for that, and you don't want to put those kinds of details on a public internent board. That's where the lawyer comes in. If you want to explore the possibility of suing the GP or urologist you need to act ASAP as there is a limited time period in which to get the compliant filed with the court to start the case. Miss that deadline and she gets nothing even if she had the greatest case in the world.

 

[quincy]

After a couple years of UTIs she asked if she could at least have a phone appointment with her urologist who just advised her get another urinalysis and call the advise nurse if she had any questions. After that came back positive, she just prescribed another round of antibiotics and told here there was no underlying condition to be concerned about. She asked her GP if he could refer her to another urologist who instead referred her to an OBGYN who prescribed a topical cream. It was yet another several years before her GP finally referred her to another urologist, who immediately ordered an ultrasound. She liked and trusted her GP, and despite her concerns, continued to trust his medical opinion.

The ultrasound was done the middle of last year and her surgery and subsequent hospitsal stay was in Jan or this year.

I recommend that your wife set up appointments with two or more medical malpractice lawyers. Initial consultations should be free.

She should take with her to these appointments copies of her medical records, from when she first reported problems to her doctor up to her recovery in the hospital after her surgery.

The attorneys should be able to tell her whether she has a good legal action to pursue. I think she might.

The statute of limitations (the time within which a malpractice suit must be filed) can be up to 3 years but as short as 1 year.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Did your wife present any symptoms beyond the UTI? A kidney stone as you describe would generally cause excruciating pain. I know this pain, and my stones, while large, were nowhere near as large as you describe your wife experiencing.

I too have had kidney stone issues in the past and I know full well just how painful they are. For a condition that is generally not life threatening and often resolves on its own when the stone passes, the severe pain one can get can be worse than the pain caused by much more serious problems. However, that pain comes when the stone leaves the kidney and enters that very narrow urinary tract. I had stones at one point that had sat in the kidney for years and gave me no problems whatsoever. But when those stones finally got kicked out of my kidney, I really knew about it. All this to say that a stone still in the kidney won't necessarily give that intense pain as a warning that there are stones building up.

 

[quincy]

I too have had kidney stone issues in the past and I know full well just how painful they are. For a condition that is generally not life threatening and often resolves on its own when the stone passes, the severe pain one can get can be worse than the pain caused by much more serious problems. However, that pain comes when the stone leaves the kidney and enters that very narrow urinary tract. I had stones at one point that had sat in the kidney for years and gave me no problems whatsoever. But when those stones finally got kicked out of my kidney, I really knew about it. All this to say that a stone still in the kidney won't necessarily give that intense pain as a warning that there are stones building up.

Because Berick’s wife was reporting the same problem for 7 years, I question why her doctor did not order a more thorough examination and a wider range of tests earlier.

My wife has opined in the past that women’s health complaints are often not taken as seriously as men’s health complaints. I think that is true.

 

[Zigner]

I too have had kidney stone issues in the past and I know full well just how painful they are. For a condition that is generally not life threatening and often resolves on its own when the stone passes, the severe pain one can get can be worse than the pain caused by much more serious problems. However, that pain comes when the stone leaves the kidney and enters that very narrow urinary tract. I had stones at one point that had sat in the kidney for years and gave me no problems whatsoever. But when those stones finally got kicked out of my kidney, I really knew about it. All this to say that a stone still in the kidney won't necessarily give that intense pain as a warning that there are stones building up.

Fair enough. My last bout had the stones blocking the urinary tract...
But a stone the size of a human fist...I can't imagine it would not present any pain. Of course, it's possible, maybe even likely, that Berick gave us a summary and just didn't mention this.

 

[quincy]

Kidney stones can present differently in women, with UTIs and pelvic pain. After 7 years of complaints, it would seem to me that a doctor should have ordered a CT scan (or ultrasound) for Berick’s wife.

 

[commentator]

Did your wife present any symptoms beyond the UTI? A kidney stone as you describe would generally cause excruciating pain. I know this pain, and my stones, while large, were nowhere near as large as you describe your wife experiencing.
[/ QUOTE]

Actually, there can be a really big kidney stone in the kidney, and you never know it unless it decides to move. I had an MRI during cancer treatment totally unrelated to my kidneys, and the radiologist commented, "You have one hell of a big old kidney stone, if this one ever tries to pass, you'll know it!" I had absolutely no problems in that area for about the next seven years. Then one weekend, I had a very rough-water boating experience, got pretty jarred up.

The next day, I begun trying to pass this fist sized kidney stone, and it was unbelievably painful. I had to have lithotripsy to be break it up and they removed it piecemeal. They actually used similar verbage to describe how much it had damaged my kidney. (mush) But a few years later, I was good as new. Apparently the damage may heal.

I have had UTI's frequently at various times in my life, and I live in the 'kidney stone belt" southeastern USA. But I had never thought of having any kind of scan, just drank lots of cranberry juice and thought of them as a common irritation. A friend of mine who had frequent urinary tract infections did have an MRI and discovered that one of her kidneys was not functioning at all, had to have it removed.

But I do not see that it would be a malpractice issue for the doctors not to insist on an MRI for frequent UTI's. You can certainly run it by a med mal attorney. It is tough to get other doctors to get involved, give their opinions about the doctor performance you experienced. But you should ask and see. Hope your wife recovers fully.

 

[quincy]

commentator, I think that your friend who was experiencing frequent UTIs and had an MRI is how complaints, like the ones Berik’s wife expressed to her doctor, should be treated, especially after no improvement after 7 years of prescribed antibiotics (although I also understand that a UTI is often not a one-and-done and that kidney stones are generally a wait-and-see).

I agree that there might not be a malpractice case worth pursuing and the wife’s treatment could fall within a reasonable standard of care, but I still believe it is worthwhile to speak with a malpractice attorney. Time to file is short so it can be better to check this out now rather than mulling it over too long.

 

[stealth2]

My wife has opined in the past that women’s health complaints are often not taken as seriously as men’s health complaints. I think that is true.

It is, IMO. And... we are often blamed for whatever the ailment might be.

 

[quincy]

It is, IMO. And... we are often blamed for whatever the ailment might be.

What is remarkable is that, even in 2024, women are still underrepresented in clinical trials for medicines that address health issues that largely affect women.

Here is a link to a fairly recent story on women’s health published by the Association of American Medical Colleges that includes a timeline, showing that it was not until 1993 that Congress passed a law requiring that women be included in NIH clinical trials.

https://www.aamc.org/news/why-we-know-so-little-about-women-s-health#:~:text=1993: The U.S. Congress passes,in NIH-sponsored clinical trials.