I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Dialysis Discussion => Dialysis: News Articles => Topic started by: ODAT on May 28, 2008, 05:51:45 AM
-
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008805280380
Strong Hospital is a local hospital here. This woman made everyone aware of her transplanted kidney and pancreas and requested a team to look out for her during her pregnancy.
The doctors cut the connection between her pancreas and bladder during the c-section causing pancreatic fluid and urine to leak into her abdominal cavity. In the days after the c-section, corrosive fluid burned her organs resulting in removal of her pancreas. It caused so much damage that she is no longer a candidate for future transplants. The doctor had never performed a c on a transplant patient and no transplant surgeons were at the surgery. A transplant doctor would have noticed the cut and been able to repair it immediately. The doctor should not have cut so close to the bladder.
I am speechless...but I will use Kitkatz's big stick :Kit n Stik;
Important to add that the baby is healthy!
-
May 28, 2008
Rochester's Strong Memorial Hospital loses $17.5M verdict over surgical error
Justina Wang
Staff writer
A state Supreme Court jury decided Tuesday that Strong Memorial Hospital should pay about $17.5 million to a Henrietta woman who claimed that a Caesarean delivery damaged her organs and caused the removal of her transplanted pancreas.
Brenda Schenk, 37, had a kidney and pancreas transplant in 1995 to treat Type 1 brittle diabetes and became pregnant in 2003 after her diabetes was under control.
The suit alleged that doctors failed to plan properly for her high-risk pregnancy and neglected to notice that they had cut the connection between her pancreas and bladder during a Caesarean delivery, causing pancreatic fluid and urine to leak into her abdominal cavity.
In the days after the Caesarean, corrosive fluid, which the body normally uses to digest food, burned Schenk's organs, ate through her abdominal wall and eventually required doctors to remove her pancreas. Her attorney said the cut and the leakage caused so much damage that Schenk is no longer a candidate for future transplants.
The jury awarded the money for Schenk's past and future injuries and other future damages.
In a written statement, Strong officials said they were disappointed in the verdict and planned to appeal: "We deeply regret the complications suffered by Mrs. Schenk, yet given what the medical team knew at the time of her delivery, we stand behind the decisions that were made."
Three doctors were named in the lawsuit, but the verdict was against only the hospital.
"This was her opportunity to fulfill her dream to be a mother," said Schenk's attorney, Steven Pegalis of Pegalis & Erickson of Long Island. "Instead of the birth of this child being the high point of her life, which it could have been and should have been, it turned out to be a nightmare."
In April 2003, Schenk began visiting obstetricians at Strong and met with doctors to discuss how to plan her pregnancy. The suit said that Schenk told doctors she wanted a team of physicians to treat her and work together to take care of problems that could arise from her transplants.
Because of complication risks with Schenk's pregnancy, doctors gave her drugs to induce labor on the morning of Oct. 13, 2003, and her obstetrician performed the Caesarean that night.
The suit said that the doctor had never performed a Caesarean on a patient who had undergone kidney and pancreas transplants and that no transplant surgeons participated in planning and performing the Caesarean.
Days after delivering a healthy baby girl, Schenk became extremely ill and doctors discovered an infection in her abdomen. A transplant surgeon first identified the cut made during the Caesarean as the source of her infection eight days after the delivery, when Schenk underwent surgery to remove dead tissue from her abdomen.
Pegalis said a doctor who specialized in transplant procedures should have been monitoring Schenk during the delivery, and surgeons should have operated farther away from her bladder, where there was less risk of damaging her transplants. A transplant doctor would have noticed and been able to repair the cut immediately, he said.
"They never documented a plan; they didn't implement a plan," Pegalis said. "A transplant surgeon could have and should have been present to guide them. ... Why operate in an area where you can cause harm?"
Schenk underwent seven more operations to remove dead tissue, drain pus and repair her abdomen. She was discharged in December 2003, after two months in the hospital.
Pegalis said that Schenk's diabetes has worsened and that because of the damaged abdominal wall, she cannot undergo another pancreas transplant or — if her kidney fails — another kidney transplant. She also uses several pain medications and has trouble moving, he said.
Her daughter, now 4, is healthy.
"Brenda adores her daughter, but her biggest hurt, worse than the pain, is that she's not there to be a functioning mother," Pegalis said.
JUWANG@DemocratandChronicle.com
-
:thx; okarol!
-
17m means nothing when they took her health- I'm sure they are glad for the judgement though
-
I think there should have also been judgment against the doctors since they didn't plan or document, not the hospital. On top of that, the hospital is going to appeal and probably keep those doctors there without some sort of stiff disciplinary action.