|
Return to
Tozerlaw.com
Return to
Tozer Reports Index
A VERDICT
THAT’S HARD TO SWALLOW
KAMBAT,
et al. v. ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL et al.
Newspapers
and the media tend to report sensational "so-called" outrageous civil
court jury verdicts (for example, the McDonald's
Coffee Burn Case). This article
demonstrates that juries can (and frequently do) go to the
opposite extreme though such cases rarely cause a media frenzy if they
are reported at all.
FACTS
In August of 1986, a
woman had a hysterectomy performed at a hospital.
During the hysterectomy, the physician
utilized a number of 18” x 18” laparotomy pads
inside the woman’s abdominal
cavity. These pads
absorb fluids during
the surgery.
A number of months after
the surgery, the woman became ill. An x-ray of her abdomen was taken. The x-rays revealed the
presence of a foreign
object.
Therefore, on December
5, surgeons performed exploratory surgery.
Opening the abdominal cavity, the surgeons
discovered an 18” x 18”
laparotomy pad – just like the one used during surgery. The pad was found entwined
with grossly
infected tissues in her abdomen, partially inside a hole that had been
eaten
into her bowel. There
was a dispute
whether the pad was fully or partly inside her bowel.
This finding was so unanticipated that a
photographer was called to document it. The woman’s condition
continued to
deteriorate, and on December 29, 1986 she died from
infection-related
illnesses.
The woman’s husband
and
children filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the doctor and the
hospital.
Obviously, the doctor
failed to remove the pad during the hysterectomy surgery, right? Well, that what the
Plaintiff argued at
trial. There was no
other reasonable explanation. The pad was unique. You see, these pads were
used only at
hospitals during surgeries.
The defense argued, (and
I am not joking), that the patient must have swallowed this 18” x 18” pad! Somehow she got a hold of
one and swallowed
it. Readers, look
closely at the size of
the pad!
VERDICT
Guess how many millions
of dollars were awarded to the family of this woman? Answer:
Zero!
Not one, but two juries
(the appellate
court overturned
the first trial) believed the defendants’ theory that the
woman must have
swallowed the pad!
DISCUSSION
The media rarely
reports defense verdicts in civil
cases. Rather, they
tend to focus on
giant money verdicts in favor the plaintiff. My hope is that
this article will help you realize that:
(1) The media rarely presents the
civil
justice system in a neutral, balanced manner; and (2) That
juries frequently award nothing to seriously injured victims.
If
you're interested in reading more about the evidence presented in the
above case, click
here.
Disclaimer
Copyright Notice
TOZER REPORTS
Tozer Reports is a practical periodical news
report.
To receive or no longer receive free
periodic Tozer
Reports by email,
please briefly reply
and advise me.
|
Return to
Tozer Reports Index
Return to
Tozerlaw.com
|