Kevin Tepas Secures Another Defense Verdict in Back-To-Back Trials

On the heels of a defense verdict in a failure to diagnose case tried in early February, Partner Kevin Tepas obtained a second defense verdict on March 2 on behalf of his client, a local plastic surgeon, in a medical malpractice action in Stamford Superior Court. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant physician was negligent in performing an abdominoplasty procedure with liposuction contemporaneously with a colon resection performed by a general surgeon. The plaintiff also claimed that the physician failed to obtain the plaintiff’s informed consent in relation to these procedures. The plaintiff alleged that because of this she suffered umbilical necrosis resulting in loss of her umbilicus and disfigurement.

The plaintiff claimed that given her risk factors for wound healing complications which included a large subcostal scar on her upper abdomen from a prior open gallbladder surgery as well as combining the plastic surgery procedures with colon resection, the defendant physician was negligent in considering the plaintiff to be a candidate for abdominoplasty with liposuction at the time of the colon resection. Plaintiff claimed that the physician was negligent in proceeding with the combined procedures, and that as a result of the procedures the plaintiff’s umbilicus became devascularized leading to umbilical necrosis and disfigurement of her abdomen.

At trial, the defendant’s plastic surgery expert testified that, although certain risks were increased by combining the surgeries, these risks were controllable and the physician acted appropriately and within the standard of care in proceeding with the combined procedures. The defendant’s expert testified that the defendant physician adequately considered the plaintiff’s risk factors and adequately advised the plaintiff regarding the risks, benefits and alternate options thereby properly obtaining her informed consent.

After relatively brief deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant physician. The jury specifically found that the physician had complied with the standard of care and was not negligent and that the defendant had obtained appropriate informed consent from the patient.