Podiatry Malpractice Blog : Podiatry Malpractice Lawyer & Attorney : Michael A. Quinn Law Firm : Surgery, Amputation, Podiatric Medicine : New Jersey

The plaintiff was a women in her late 30s who underwent surgery performed by the defendant to treat a bunion. The surgery involved cutting and moving the bone of the fifth metatarsal.  The plaintiff complained of continuing persistent foot pain.The plaintiff underwent additional surgery performed by another podiatrist.

She had alleged that the defendant podiatrist was negligent by failing to diagnose and treat a fifth metatarsal non union following the performance of bunion surgery.  Specifically that the defendant failed to timely diagnose and treat a non-union which, if timely diagnosed, would have permitted non-surgical treatment. he defendant argued that the plaintiff was still in the post operative recovery stage when she elected to seek treatment from another podiatrist.  The defendant contended that he had no opportunity to diagnose the plaintiff's non-union.

The defendant's expert  podiatrist Michael Downey, DPM had  testified that the plaintiff was still within the healing phase of her recovery when she chose to treat with another physician some six months after surgery. The non-union was diagnosed by the subsequent treating podiatrist and the defendant maintained that he had no opportunity to diagnose the condition.

Result: The jury found that the defendant was not negligent ($0).

Source: Jury Verdict Review Publications, Volume 16, Issue 10 (PM NEWS)
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A female plaintiff alleged that the podiatrist-defendant had deviated from the podiatric standard of care by performing a Hohmann osteotomy that involved cutting through the right great toe bone to treat the plaintiff's mild bunion. The plaintiff also contended that the defendant was negligent by advising the patient that she could partially bare weight on the foot  four days following the surgery.

The plaintiff maintained that based on pre-operative X-rays and findings, a Hohmann osteotomy was not indicated since the pre-operative intermetatarsal angle was nine degrees which was normal.  It was further contended that the technique used to fixate the bones was unstable resulting in a malunion and hallux elevatus (elevation) along with shortening of the toe and of the foot. The plaintiff maintained that, despite consulting with over ten different doctors and undergoing six surgical revisions in her continuing efforts to have her right foot deformity and some residual sequelae corrected, she will permanently suffer pain, disfigurement, and disability. The plaintiff incurred $ 120,000.00 in lost income and $ 55,913in medical expenses.

The defendant contended that plaintiff's intermetatarsal angle was abnormally large, that it warranted the Hohmann procedure and that the procedure was well-recognized and accepted. He further contended that if he had only shaved the bunion down that it was likely to return. He also contended that plaintiff contributed to her own injury by stepping onto a step ladder to paint and by dropping a hair dryer on her foot. The plaintiff would have responded that she only got up on the first step with her left foot, did not put any pressure on the right foot and that the hair dryer was a small, travel size dryer that she dropped onto the top of her foot, not onto any of her toes.

Result: The case settled, at mediation, shortly before trial, for $ 400,000.

Plaintiff's Expert: Harold Schoenhaus, DPM, Philadelphia, PA

Defendant's Expert: Louis A. Sorto, Jr., DPM, Chicago, IL

Source: National Jury Verdict Review & Analysis, Volume 23, Issue 2

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link