Unnecessary Pennsylvania Surgery Could Have Been Prevented

Medical malpractice lawsuits can materialize in many ways. Damages may have been incurred due to an ill-advised prescription, a surgery that was incorrectly performed, or even when an object is accidently left within the body during a surgical procedure. Another way a medical malpractice case can originate is when a doctor recommends and performs a surgery that was not necessary in the first place. This was recently seen in Pennsylvania where a woman filed a medical malpractice lawsuit after undergoing a surgery to remove a non-existent mass.

The woman, Natisha Almeida, filed the lawsuit against Dr. Tuan A Le, Doylestown Women’s Health Center, Dr. Paul Jeffrey Adelizzi, and Dr. Mark Silidker.

At trial, Mrs. Almeida claimed that Dr. Le admitted post-surgery that the pelvic laparotomy he performed was done, “for nothing.” The surgery was originally intended to remove a mass that was discovered Dr. Adelizzi. Dr. Silidker also felt a mass existed after performing a CT scan. However, Dr. Le had very little evidence that a mass actually existed and certainly not enough to recommend surgery. In fact, Dr. Le found normal results after performing a pelvic and rectal exam on Mrs. Almeida.

Dr. Le ignored Dr. Adelizzi’s recommendation to order a CT scan with rectal contrast and instead ordered a CT scan with oral contrast. After reviewing those results, Dr. Le told the plaintiff that she had a tumor the size of a small potato that needed immediate removal. However, no mass was found during surgery.

As a result of the unnecessary surgery, the plaintiff suffered extreme damage. In addition to suffering from permanent scarring both inside and outside her body, the plaintiff suffered significant pelvic adhesive disease with occlusion of the left fallopian tube. The fallopian tube had to be removed as a direct result of Dr. Le’s surgery.

The jury awarded $625,000 while finding Dr. Le 100% responsible. The other defendants were found not guilty.

To avoid this type of situation, patients should always seek multiple medical opinions before deciding to go forward with a serious surgical procedure. During the trial it was discovered that various members of the medical community disagreed with the way the CT and MRI scans were read. Had other doctors been given the opportunity, it is possible that the plaintiff would not have had to go through such a taxing ordeal.

Medical malpractice can result in extreme damage and can often required ameloriative follow-up care that can last weeks, months, or even the rest of your life. The team at Gilman & Bedigian is dedicated to advocating for malpractice victims and will fight to get you the full compensation you deserve. Call 866-849-9899 today or contact them online for a free case evaluation. They handle cases in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.