Our client suffered severe, life-altering complications after a surgeon performed a novel, high-risk procedural technique that had not been approved by the hospital’s internal review board and was not the agreed-upon treatment plan. The core legal challenge was twofold: establishing that the deviation from the standard of care was not a mere error in judgment but a fundamental breach of protocol, and then directly linking this unauthorized action to the specific harm suffered.
The defense argued the technique was a justified intraoperative decision and that the complications were a known risk of the original, approved surgery, creating a complex battle over medical causation and institutional responsibility.
We overcame this by forensically reconstructing the chain of events through exhaustive discovery. We obtained and analyzed the hospital's own bylaws, the surgery department's protocols for experimental techniques, and the minutes from its ethics committee. This proved the procedure required specific, pre-operative review and written consent—neither of which were sought or obtained. We then paired this with powerful expert testimony from a leading specialist in the field, who clearly differentiated the risks of the approved surgery from the far greater dangers of the unapproved technique actually used.
By irrefutably demonstrating that the harm was a direct result of this regulatory and ethical breach, we compelled the hospital and surgeon's insurer to negotiate a substantial settlement that provided for our client's extensive future care and losses.
Result: Our client obtained a settlement ensuring access to long-term rehabilitative care and financial stability, while the case prompted a review of procedural oversight protocols at the institution.