$6 million verdict; Surgical patient dies after post-op clot protection ends

Action: Verdict

Date: June 9, 2025

Date of incident: Sept. 28, 2018

Nature of claim: Medical malpractice

Injuries alleged: Wrongful death

Amount: $6 million

Name of case: Estate of Albert Jefferies v. Chi Hun Lim, M.D., Megan Nicholas, P.A., and Carolina Orthopaedic & Neurosurgical Associates

Case number: 2020-CP-40-2169

Court: Spartanburg County Common Pleas Court

Tried before: Jury

Name of judge: Grace G. Knie

Most helpful expert: Chris Erb, M.D., New Haven, Connecticut

Attorneys Gerald D. Jowers Jr., of Janet, Janet & Suggs, Columbia, and Luther J. Battiste III, of Johnson Toal & Battiste, Columbia (for the plaintiff); Ashby Davis and Ryan Ginty, of Davis & Snyder, Greenville (for the defendant)

Insurance carrier: MagMutual

The decedent, 72, underwent successful back surgery without complications. However, his post-operative recovery period carried an increased risk of blood clots in the form of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli. The surgery, the resulting immobility and any risk factors a patient had before surgery would increase this risk.

Decedent’s surgeon, one of the defendants, was responsible for DVT prophylaxis. Immediately after surgery, the decedent was started on mechanical clot protection in the form of sequential compression devices, a standard order for all patients following the procedure. However, the decedent did not regain his mobility within the expected time.

Because of the persistent immobility, the surgeon’s physician assistant, who also was a defendant, added heparin, an anti-coagulant, as additional clot protection.

Four days later, the decedent was discharged and transferred to a rehabilitation facility; he was still unable to walk.

Despite decedent’s lack of progress with physical therapy and his persistent immobility, the surgeon stopped all clot protection at discharge, a standard practice he and the physician assistant followed. However, the standard of care is that clot protection in a post-surgical patient must be continued until the risk is resolved. The surgeon and physician assistant also did not communicate any information to the rehab center about decedent’s risk of blood clots or the DVT prophylaxis regimen he had been on until his hospital discharge, and they made no recommendation for continued prophylaxis. Two days after admission to the rehab facility, the decedent died from a pulmonary embolism.

His adult daughters, one a registered nurse and the other a health care administrator, were plaintiffs in the case. They asserted that a doctor who knows that his patient needs to continue a medication at discharge has the responsibility to make sure that the next care team knows about it. The defendants could not provide a good explanation for stopping decedent’s clot protection, and instead of accepting responsibility for the communication failure with the rehab center, they blamed others for the action.