Botched diagnostic procedure leads to sepsis, patient’s death; $1 million settlement

Listen to this article

Action: Medical malpractice

Injuries alleged: Perforated uterus and colon leading to sepsis and death

Case name: Withheld

Court/case no.: Withheld

Demand: $1 million

Highest offer: $1 million

Amount: $1 million

Date: Jan. 22, 2024

Most helpful experts: William Cheadle, M.D., general surgeon; Arthur Boerner, M.D., gynecologist

Attorneys: Francis M. “Brink” Hinson IV and Carl D. Hiller of HHP Law Group, Columbia, and Robert Goings and Jessica Gooding of Goings Law Firm, Columbia (for the plaintiff)

In a routine October 2020 visit to her gynecologist, the defendant in the action, it was determined that the lining of decedent’s uterus had thickened and that she needed additional tests to rule out endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer. In November 2020, defendant performed a diagnostic hysteroscopy on decedent, which revealed an endometrial polyp that defendant tried to remove with forceps and a curette. Unknown to decedent, the defendant perforated the walls of the uterus and adjacent colon with the instruments. Decedent was discharged the same day.

The removed polyp was sent to the lab for testing after decedent’s discharge. The next day, records indicate that a pathologist told defendant that the biopsy contained tissue from the innermost lining of the colon, confirming the perforation. Defendant then called decedent, advised her that the biopsy contained “some fat,” asked her how she was feeling, and made an appointment for her to come in to see her the next morning.

Decedent awoke about 2 a.m., and her condition began to rapidly deteriorate. 911 was called, but before an ambulance could arrive, decedent died abed.

An autopsy revealed the uterine and colonic perforations and 300 milliliters of feculent fluid in the abdominopelvic cavity, which caused the septic peritonitis that resulted in decedent’s death.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to recognize the perforation during the procedure and failed to advise decedent the following day that she needed to immediately come to the hospital to be examined.

In her deposition, defendant was asked whether she altered any of the client’s records, including phone records, after learning of decedent’s death. Defendant denied doing so; however, plaintiff’s counsel subsequently discovered via the audit trail of the defendant’s medical records that she had altered the phone record after learning of the death.