The defendant surgeon performed a left total hip arthroplasty upon the plaintiff. While performing the surgery, the defendant used an electrical surgical generator and electrocautery/bovie grounding pad, which commonly is used in such surgery.
Because of the electric current traveling from the device and into the patient’s body, if the device is not grounded properly, or if there is contact with another object at or near the operative table which could serve as another conduit for the transmission of the electrical current through the patient’s body, there is a risk of severe burning.
In this case, Defendant surgeon failed to follow good and accepted medical care in being mindful and aware of the placement of the plaintiff’s legs near exposed metal objects which could serve as an alternative grounding device other than the grounding pad. Indeed, during the surgery the plaintiff’s leg met the metal frame on the outer edges of the surgical table, or to with a poorly positioned mayo stand (the metal tables utilized for holding surgical instruments that are moved about during the case). In either event, his exposed leg contacted a metal object. Consequently, instead of the electrical current passing through the plaintiff’s body and safely exiting through and to a grounding pad which was placed on his abdomen, instead, the current went through his calf, resulting in a burn on Plaintiff’s left calf.
Post operatively, the plaintiff was discharged without any note of the burn.
The plaintiff first noticed the burn the next day, while changing the dressing of the wound, as the doctor had ordered. Thereafter, the Plaintiff went to the hospital, where the initial impression was that he sustained a severe, second-degree partial thickness injury to the skin of the posterolateral calf. Around a month later, Defendant surgeon admitted that the burn was caused by the electrosurgical generator.
The plaintiff’s treatment for this injury required multiple visits to the hospital for wound care, in addition to dressing and debridement until the wound healed. Even though the wound had healed, Plaintiff was left with a scar and permanent disfigurement. As a result of the medical malpractice, the plaintiff’s injuries included sensory abnormalities consisting of both hyperesthesia and hypoesthesia, an increased risk in developing skin cancer with the scar caused by the burn, and mental anguish. The matter settled for five figures. Because of a Confidentiality Agreement, we are not permitted to disclose the names of the parties nor the amount of the settlement.
