11/12/2015    New York Reporter

Injections Didn't Rupture Patient's Tendon, Doctor Contended (NY)

Facts: On June 3, 2010, plaintiff Vanessa
Saunders, 55, a self-employed broker, was
examined by a podiatrist, Saunders was suffering
tendonitis of her left foot's posterior tibial
tendon. During the prior day, an orthopedist
administered an injection of steroid-based
medication that was intended to alleviate
Saunders' tendonitis. Defendant performed an
examination, and a cast was applied to Saunders'
left ankle.

During the ensuing 27 days, Defendant performed
two follow-up examinations of Saunders. During
the second examination, Defendant administered an
injection of a steroid-based medication:
dexamethasone phosphate.

On Nov. 3, 2010, Saunders returned to Defendant.
She reported that her left foot's pain persisted.
Defendant administered another injection of
dexamethasone phosphate.

Saunders claimed that her pain worsened. In
December 2010, a doctor determined that Saunders
was suffering a rupture of her left foot's
posterior tibial tendon. Saunders claimed that
the injury was a result of excessive
administration of steroid-based medication.
Saunders sued Defendant. Saunders alleged that
Defendant podiatrist and Defendant orthopedist
failed to properly treat her tendonitis, that the
doctors' failures constituted malpractice, that
Defendant did not obtain informed consent to the
injections that he administered, that Defendant
was vicariously liable for Defendant's actions,
and that orthopedic defendant was vicariously
liable for his actions.

Orthopedic defendant was dismissed via summary
judgment. The matter proceeded to a trial against
Defendant.

Saunders' counsel contended that Saunders' injury
was a result of Defendant having administered
excessive amounts of steroid-based medication.
Saunders claimed that Defendant administered five
injections of steroid-based medication, though
Defendant's records documented two.

Saunders' counsel argued that Defendant departed
from an accepted standard of medical care.
Saunders also claimed that Defendant had not
disclosed that steroid-based medication could
have damaged her left foot's posterior tibial
tendon. Thus, her counsel contended that
Defendant did not obtain informed consent to the
injections.

Defendant claimed that his treatment involved
administration of two injections, and he further
claimed that one was directed to Saunders' left
foot's sinus tarsi, which is a canal that is
located near the posterior tibial tendon. Defense
counsel contended that Defendant's records
indicated that two injections were administered
during a course of four examinations of Saunders.
Defendant's expert podiatrist opined that
Defendant administered an appropriate amount of
medication.

Defense counsel claimed that Defendant had
appropriately disclosed any risks that stemmed
from the injections that Saunders received.
Defense counsel also contended that a reasonable,
properly informed patient would have consented to
the injections.

Defense counsel further contended that
Defendant's treatment did not cause the rupture
of Saunders' left foot's posterior tibial tendon.
He presented defendant orthopedist who claimed
that he had previously determined that the tendon
was completely dysfunctional.

Injury Text: Saunders sustained a rupture of her
left foot's posterior tibial tendon. She
underwent surgical reconstruction that included
the application of grafts, but the procedure
failed. She also underwent physical therapy.

Saunders claimed that she suffers residual pain,
that she retains a limp, and that her residual
effects prevent her resumption of many of her
physical activities. She also claimed that she
previously enjoyed sailing, but that her residual
effects prevent her resumption of that activity
and other recreational activities. She claimed
that she may have to undergo fusion of her left
ankle.

Saunders sought recovery of $450,000 for past
pain and suffering, and she sought recovery of
unspecified damages for future pain and
suffering. Her husband, Timothy Bartz, sought
recovery of damages for loss of consortium.

Jury Poll

6-0 (Defendant did not obtain informed consent to
the injections that he administered); 5-1 (a
reasonable, properly informed patient would have
consented to the injections that Defendant
administered; Defendant did not depart from an
accepted standard of medical care)
Result: $0

Plaintiff Experts Jack B. Gorman, DPM, :
Warminster, PA, Chaiyaporn Kulsakdinun, MD

Defendant Expert: Ralph Napoli, DPM, Elmwood
Park, NJ

Source: New York Reporter

There are no more messages in this thread.