Effective July 1, 2023, Gerspach Sikoscow LLP joined Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP. Any inquiries may be sent to: Thomas J. Gerspach (tgerspach@kbrlaw.com); Alexander Sikoscow (asikoscow@kbrlaw.com); Kristen J. Halford (khalford@kbrlaw.com); or Ryan J. Gerspach (rgerspach@kbrlaw.com).
Gerspach Sikoscow Innovation. Expertise. Results
Home Attorneys Practice Areas Results Testimonials Blog Contact Us
Contact Us
40 Fulton Street, Suite 1402, New York, NY 10601

Staten Island jury returns unanimous verdict in favor of Obgyn in "clipped ureter" case.

In December 2006, the 50 year old plaintiff underwent a supra cervical, laparoscopic hysterectomy and mini laparotomy for an enlarged fibroid uterus. Plaintiff's expert witnesses in gynecology, urology and radiology testified that one of several hemo-clips used to control excessive bleeding during the procedure, was placed upon the right ureter, causing the right kidney to become non-functioning. The defendant was also criticized for failing to record in the operative report that the ureters were visualized during the procedure, and examined again prior to closure. However, the witness the jury found most compelling was defendant's expert in radiology, who testified that postoperative imaging studies revealed a clip immediately adjacent and anterior to the ureter, but not upon it. Defendant's expert radiologist testified that scar tissue had formed after the procedure, causing a complete obstruction of the ureter. Defendant conceded that clipping of the ureter and failing to recognize it prior to closure, would constitute a departure from accepted practice. The clear turning point in the case was defendant's expert's use of the PACS system to demonstrate the location of the hemoclip relative to the ureter.

Categories: Defense Verdict
Attorney Web Design The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.