Companies to defend claims of Ateries be clamped incorrectly a typical tactic of Virginia medical malpractice insurance or sewn or cut in surgery is to say, "the anatomy was good, abnormal" used, and that is why it is happening.

The Virgnia Supreme Court recently held that a trial court incorrectly was the dismissal in a case where it contradictory evidence, that there were abnormal anatomy.

Clifford Lewis Fanucci, SR., died after a hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for a cancer growth on his kidneys. Daniel mark Hoffman, MD clamped right renal artery instead of the left renal artery during surgery. When he discovered his error he unclamped the artery, but it tore his patients kill.

There was conflicting evidence at the trial about whether Fanucci of Anatomy was unusual. Doctors, who came to repair torn right renal artery, which they nothing abnormal found. The pathologist who did the autopsy said, that it unusual either on the position of the entire renal artery, found nothing.

The only doctors to testify were the defendant and his partner that there was nothing unusual about right renal artery!

The Supreme Court reversed the decision the trial court and ordered a new procedure.

Comment by Virginia medical malpractice lawyer Ben glass: the actions of the trial judge are frightening and show a jurisdiction is just how difficult Virginia for medical malpractice cases. As I read the opinion, there were terminals in the reason guess work of the defendant and his partner, the wrong artery how or why he made it. There was no real "evidence" on this issue. In fact, was the only real "evidence" from two independent doctors, the actually right renal artery saw that the anatomy was normal. This case is not even close to me and there is no way the judge the jury of the decision should have stopped.

This was Enourmously expensive for both parties. Even if the judge that the case from the jury should have decided that he they later decide it should have allowed felt. Then could he reversed, that the jury could at least but the Supreme Court the jury judgment have reinstated.

The judge was wrong... now the parties wait for at least another year, spend a further $$ 75,000 or so, to repeat the event.

View the original article here