The Incident
Our client was admitted to Overlake Medical Center for a laparoscopic nephroureterectomy—a surgery to remove a cancerous left kidney and its ureter. He had placed his trust in his physician and the hospital staff to perform this procedure safely. However, during the operation, a catastrophic error occurred.
While attempting to dissect the left ureter, the surgeon became disoriented by the anatomy. As the surgeon later admitted in his own progress notes, “unbeknownst to me… I crossed the midline & isolated the contralateral right ureter”,. Consequently, the surgeon surgically clipped and divided the right ureter—the tube connected to our client’s remaining, healthy kidney—instead of the intended left ureter.
The Aftermath
The error was not discovered until the following day when our client had no urine output and a CT scan revealed a surgical clip on the wrong ureter,. This misidentification created a life-threatening condition for our client. As a result of the negligence, our client was forced to undergo the painful implantation of a nephrostomy tube to drain his kidney and required subsequent reconstructive surgery, including an ileal ureter procedure,.
The Legal Battle
We filed a lawsuit against the surgeon, his practice, and Overlake Medical Center, alleging both direct and vicarious liability. The defense aggressively attempted to dismiss the case early. Less than four months after the complaint was filed, and before we had the opportunity to depose the defendants or disclose expert witnesses, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment,.
Overlake Medical Center argued they held no liability because the surgeon was an independent contractor rather than an employee. They further argued that the case should be dismissed immediately because we had not yet produced expert testimony, despite the discovery deadline being months away.
We fought back against these premature attempts to dismiss the case. We filed a motion to continue the summary judgment proceedings, arguing that the defendants were effectively trying to accelerate the case schedule and deny our clients their right to full discovery and access to the courts. We successfully argued that we were entitled to depose the doctor and hospital representatives to establish the facts regarding the hospital’s policies and the surgeon’s relationship with the facility before the court ruled on the merits. The court granted our motion, forcing the defendants to face a full investigation into their negligence.
The Result
By aggressively litigating the procedural attempts to block our case and exposing the clear evidence of negligence contained in the medical records, we secured a large confidential settlement for our clients (husband and wife). This result provided them with compensation for the significant pain, suffering, and medical complications caused by this preventable surgical error.