Splenectomy

[SOMBRERO_SUE]

What is the name of your state? PA
I went in for laproscopic abdominal surgery on 11/5/07. In the process I was releaved of my spleen. The physician first kept saying it was "diseased" but when I pushed him he stated it was a matter of samantics and "diseased" was a general term. He again pushed for details. He finally gave me some info. and said when the gas is pumped into the belly for laproscopy surgery the liver etc should just "roll back" out of the way but my spleen did not. He stated it started to weep and then started to bleed and therefore had to be removed. He then read me the report from the computer and as he was reading it he said a medical term which I guess he thought I didn't know and would not question but he indicated in the report that he had cut the spleen, and that was why it began to bleed and had to be removed.
I took origionally as it was an accident and well you know accidents happen. but the more I talk to my medical friends I am hearing that he should be sued for this slip up. I know I can live without my spleen but now am more suseptible to pneumonia, and the flu. I am
45 yrs old and feel fine....NOW.....but everyone keeps pointing out that it is later as I et older that the complications could set in.
Now I am worried. Is this something I really should be concerned with? Is this the type of thing a patient realy does forgive adn forget or is it something in years to come I will be angry at myself for not doing anything? can anyone shed some light?
Thanks

 

[ecmst12]

You can not sue for an accident. You can only sue if there was negligence, meaning treatment below the standard of care. An accidental cut is a known risk of any surgery. It's likely that there was no negligence, so you would not have a case to sue. You can have your records reviewed by an expert for a more individual answer.

 

[lya]

The spleen is not supposed to be accidentallly lacerated and doing so is usually the result of the surgeon's failing to protect internal organs. Examples of non-negligent laceration: the internal organs are scarred, hardened, malpositioned, which result in laceration in spite of due care and caution to prevent laceration.

If the internal organs do not "roll back" as expected, I believe it is reasonable to expect a prudent surgeon to stop the scope procedure and change to an abdominal incision, which would yield a longer period of hospitalization and a longer period of recovery and a larger scar.

The loss of the spleen is really no big deal. Lots of people are living healthy, fully functional lives without having a spleen.

This may be one of the times when an act of negligence did result in damages that would not have otherwise occurred but the monetary value of an award would not equal the costs of a lawsuit. Compared to the post-surgical recovery time, scarring, and expense of the fulll incision abdominal surgery , which would the patient prefer? no spleen or the full abdominal surgery?

Now, if the surgeon had lacerated and damaged the liver, then, we'd be talking a valid claim with potential for a significant settlement.

My advice? Consult with a medmal attorney and be willing to accept a reasonable settlement from the surgeon and do not expect this to go to court if the surgeon (malpractice insurance) refuses to settle.

My gut feeling? The patient will probably receive a settlement of a few thousand dollars...maybe 2K or 3K plus attorney fees and expenses...after a period of 6 months to a year.

To All: Best wishes for a Happy 2008!

 

[SOMBRERO_SUE]

splenectomy

Thanks for the advice. I am not fond of people being sue crazy and I am going to acept this as a hazard of any surgery. I know he did not do it on purpose, he is a kind man and excellant surgeon. I guess I just needed to confirm what I believed and get those thoughts that others have put into my head out of there....
thanks for the advice
happy new Year