IV Case in Point
Illustrated Verdict shares case examples from our archives to show how a visual strategy can support the defense effort. We hope that it is of value in your practice as you develop your defense strategies on behalf of health care providers. Please feel free to forward it to colleagues or clients.

About Us
IV is a leading provider of demonstrative evidence for the defense of medical malpractice claims. Our team of medical illustrators consults with defense teams to educate the lay jury audience about the complexities of medical care. We do this by developing a visual strategy with expert witnesses including high-quality case-specific medical illustrations, x-ray enhancements, and multimedia presentations. IV receives judgment for the defense in over 94% of the cases we participate in, as compared to the national average of 73%. Additionally, insurers who supply us with their trial list enjoy a win rate of up to 97%.
To learn more, e-mail us or call 617-530-1001.
www.illustratedverdict.com

 

NEW ONLINE
ORDER FORMS!

Case Request
If you have an upcoming case please feel free to use our new easy online form to submit your case information:
Case Overview Form
Film Copying
Have film copy orders? Use our new reliable and easy online order form:
Film Copy Order Form

Case In Point Library
Click to view other editions:

Case In Point Library Page

Pregnancy and Delivery:
Fetal Assessment 2009v1
Shoulder Dystocia 2009v3
MVA Leads to Fetal Demise 2010v4
Fetal Descent Stalled 2010v5
Shoulder Dystocia / Erb's 2011v4
Fetal Tracings / Hypoxic Injury? 2013v1

Heart:
Coronary Artery Disease 2009v5
CAD / Recurrent MI 2010v1
Aortic Valve Replacement 2011v1

Lungs:
Stroke After Lung Surgery 2009v2
PE / Infection 2010v3
PE Following Roux En Y 2012v1
Intubation / Macklin Effect 2012v4
Lung Cancer vs. Infection 2015v3

Female Pelvis:
Hysterectomy / Fistula 2011v9
Hysterectomy / Ureter Injury 2010v2
Hysterectomy / Kinked Ureter 2010v8
Diag Lap / Bowel Injury 2012v3
Cervical Cancer 2013v3
Endometrial Cancer 2014v1

Male Pelvis:
Bladder Cancer 2013v2

Digestive System:
Gastric Bypass 2009v6
Recurrent Hiatal Hernia 2009v8
Right Colectomy / Leak 2010v7
Gastric Bypass / Volvulus 2011v2
Nissen Fundoplication 2011v3
Large Hiatal Hernia 2013v5
Necrotizing Enterocolitis 2013v7
Arrest during ERCP 2015v4
Diverticulitis Complications 2015v5

Abdomen:
Spleen Injury and Bleed 2009v4
Bleed Following Lithotripsy 2012v2
Lap Cholecystectomy 2012v5
Bowel Injury Lap Ovarian Cyst Removal 2013v6
LapChole - Hepatic Duct Injury2015v1

Orthopedic:
Partial Hip Replacement 2010v6

Vasculature:
tPA Infusion 2009v7
Vertebral A. Coil Embolization 2015v7

Head and Neck:
Bell's Palsy 2013v4
Tongue Cancer 2014v2
Chiari I - Vision Loss 2015v2

Judgment for the Defense
Left Ureter Kinked During Hysterectomy

http://www.illustratedverdict.com/projectreview/IV/IV_v2_2010web/2624m7changed_small.jpg

The plaintiff underwent a hysterectomy, followed by a Burch colposuspension (sutures placed under bladder for support to help control urinary incontinence).   The hysterectomy was performed by an OBGYN physician with a urologist present to assist with the Burch procedure.  Both procedures were completed without intraoperative complications, and the patient was moved to the recovery room.  Postoperatively,  a kink in the patient’s left ureter, caused by a suture placed during the hysterectomy procedure, was discovered.  As soon as this became apparent, the OBGYN physician and the defendant urologist returned the patient to the operating room, where they dissected out and reimplanted the remaining, undamaged ureter into the bladder, thus allowing the system to function normally.  The patient did not suffer any long-term complications.


PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM:

Originally both the OBGYN physician and the urologist were named in the case, but the OBGYN physician was later dismissed.  The plaintiff believed the urologist, as a physician who specializes in surgeries involving the urinary system, was primarily responsible for safeguarding the integrity of the ureters.  She argued that the urologist, while acting as  assistant to the OBGYN physician during the hysterectomy procedure, should have dissected out the ureters to make sure they were clearly visible and out of harm’s way, thus preventing the errant suture from kinking the ureter.



DEFENSE'S ARGUMENT:

During a hysterectomy procedure, a ureteral dissection is not routinely performed unless concern arises about a potential or actual injury to a ureter.  Dissection presents significant risk, since the ureters course under the peritoneum and through a highly vascularized region that can easily be injured, resulting in major bleeding.  The defendant assisted with the hysterectomy procedure by holding retractors to expose the surgical site while the OBGYN physician placed sutures to close the vaginal cuff and control nearby bleeding; it was these sutures that led to the ureteral injury. The defendant argued that only by placing the sutures himself could he have been aware of their depth, since this determination depends on the operating surgeon’s feel during the procedure. 


___________________________________________________________________

VISUAL STRATEGY:

Collaborating with the defendant and his attorney via web meetings, phone calls, and emails, IV created visual aids illustrating the surgical procedures and the defendant’s part in those procedures. 

We began with an illustration of the normal anatomy of the arteries and veins of the female reproductive system to show the ureters’ path under the peritoneum and their relationship to the many blood vessels nearby. 

The next diagram of a superior view of the female pelvis was used to orient the jury to the surgeon's view of this anatomy during the procedure. The ureters were printed separately on a clear overlay, emphasizing that their course below the peritoneum was not visible during the surgery.    

A view of the orientation of the surgical field and the surgical view of female pelvis were used to illustrate what was visible to the surgeons; the ureters were again printed separately on a clear overlay, indicating their invisibility during the course of the surgery.

The next two boards were key elements in the defense.  The first showed the surgeon’s view during the hysterectomy and, specifically, the suturing of the vaginal cuff.  The second illustrated the defendant’s view during the hysterectomy and suturing.  These boards reinforced the defendant’s argument that, as the surgical assistant, he did not have a direct view from his position on the left side of the patient of the OBGYN physician suturing the vaginal cuff.   This second board revealed quite strongly that the only person who could really know the depth of the sutures placed to control bleeding around the left side of the cuff was the surgeon who actually placed them.

Another board showed the suturing of the bleeders around the vaginal cuff.

The Burch colposuspension illustrated on another board allowed the jury to see the location of the defendant’s part of the operation, far from the site of the ureteral injury.

Two last boards illustrated the anatomy in a parasagittal view, both before and after the hysterectomy procedure.  These views helped the defendant’s attorney to reinforce the close proximity of the vasculature to the ureter and that the ureter was hidden and not plainly visible to the urologist.  

This series of illustrations helped the defense successfully convey the following key points to the jury:   

  • The hysterectomy was done correctly and followed the standard of care.
  • The defendant urologist was not directly involved in suturing the vaginal cuff during the hysterectomy procedure; he only served as an assistant while the OBGYN physician performed the procedure.
  • Dissection of the ureters can pose significant risks because of their close proximity to the vasculature, and it is thus not performed during a hysterectomy unless necessary.
  • Although its occurrence in this case was unfortunate, the kinked ureter was recognized and corrected promptly and appropriately.


RESULT:

The jury found in favor of the defense. 

"I wanted you to know your illustrations in this case were outstanding. The jury foreman said they were very helpful in understanding the issues."

—Attorney, Doug Durfee , Saurbier & Siegan, P.C., St. Clair Shores, MI