Home > News  > June, 2010

Court: Surgeon Is Not Liable for Unforeseeable Post-Op Complications

Patient sued oral surgeon over neck and face pain after tooth extraction.

Published:June 11, 2010

Categories:

If a patient suffers a little-known neurological syndrome after surgery that wasn't covered in the informed consent documents, is the surgeon liable for the injury? Not if the injury was unforeseeable, according to a recent Georgia appeals court ruling.

In a case in which a patient sued her oral surgeon over neck and face pain after having a wisdom tooth pulled, the Court of Appeals of Georgia last month cited the state's malpractice laws that say: "When the injuries could not reasonably have been foreseen as the natural, reasonable and probable result of the original negligent act, then there can be no recovery" by the plaintiff.

After oral surgery in 2001, Cynthia Thompson sued Jeffrey R. Princell, DMD, MD, of Marietta, Ga., because she claimed that Dr. Princell did not sufficiently disclose the risks of the surgery. During the 25-minute surgery, Dr. Princell damaged Ms. Thompson's inferior alveolar nerve, according to court documents.

At the end of the trial in state court, the jury sided with Dr. Princell. Ms. Thompson appealed the jury verdict, claiming that the court did not properly educate the jury on laws related to informed consent and the foreseeability of post-op complications.

Ms. Thompson claimed that she should have been warned about the risk of her face and neck pain, known as neuropathic pain syndrome. But physicians testified that neuropathic pain syndrome is not necessarily a foreseeable complication for tooth extraction. During the trial, 3 oral surgeons told the court that they knew little about the causes of the neuropathic pain syndrome and its association with extraction of wisdom teeth, according to court documents.

In the opinion, the appeals judges reiterated the 6 elements required for informed consent documents in Georgia. They are:

  • diagnosis of patient's condition;

  • nature and purpose of the surgery;

  • risks recognized and accepted by reasonably prudent physicians;

  • likelihood of success of the procedure;

  • practical alternatives to surgery; and

  • prognosis for the patient if the patient declines surgery.

    The Georgia appeals court ruling affirms that the trial court did not make any errors in educating the jury and that the jury's ruling in favor of the surgeon will stand.

    Kent Steinriede

    More breaking news


  • Also in the News...

    Does Your Insurer Have to Pay to Defend You?

    Stark Violations Might Cost Tuomey Healthcare System $357M

    Tech Walks Out on Surgical Case, Sues Hospital for Firing Him

    N.J. Considering Cosmetic Surgery Site Limits

    Colonoscopy Co-Pays are Covered, With a Catch

    How Are Compounder Recalls Affecting You?

    How Did a Routine Endoscopy Result in Brain Damage?


     
    Have an account? Please sign in:
    Email Address:
    Password:

    DID YOU SEE THIS?
    Education

    Shine Your Brightest at ORX 2013!

    /_media/adv/web/images/2013/20130301_BFW_AR-300x250.gif

    Other Articles That May Interest You

    Spine Surgeon Sues Spine Surgeon Who Inserted Experimental Artificial Disc in Him

    Judge rules principal investigator of a new spine device failed to follow his own recommendations.

    FDA Approves Surgical Adhesive for U.S. Study

    Absorbable product could sidestep complications, accelerate wound healing.

    Hospital Not Liable for Promoting Drug-Addicted Surgeon

    Patient loses legal battle against the facility she accused of protecting the troubled doc.