On the Cutting Edge of Surgical Negligence: Will LESS be More?
Male surgeon tying mask at operating room

On the Cutting Edge of Surgical Negligence: Will LESS be More?

Traditional surgery involves the exposure of abdominal and pelvic organs through a single large incision. This approach, known as open laparotomy, affords a wide-open view of abdominal contents. Open laparotomy is still performed in certain situations and was the only surgical approach available until the first minimally invasive gallbladder surgery (laparoscopic cholecystectomy) was performed in 1985. (more…)

Continue Reading

Exhumation Autopsy: Strategic and Practical Perspectives

Few forensic endeavors raise more questions and intrigue than exhumation autopsy. In nearly all societies and throughout the millennia, the grave is sacrosanct. Protected by both cultural norms and statute, it is exceedingly rare to disturb a final resting place. In some situations, however, local authorities will grant permission to perform exhumation when there is a compelling forensic reason. Such reasons may exist within civil litigation when an autopsy was not performed, or when allegations arise that an autopsy was performed improperly. (more…)

Continue Reading

Building a Case Timeline: The First Step in Analyzing Time-Sensitive Cases

Timing is everything, and a detailed timeline is the first step in analyzing any time-sensitive medical negligence case. Time-sensitive cases are those that allege harm due to delayed diagnosis or treatment of an urgent disease or process. Classic examples include acute myocardial infarction (heart attack), testicular torsion, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, and thrombolytic (TPA) administration in stroke. Entities like these are exquisitely time-dependent, and they require a comprehensive timeline to compile and analyze the course of events. (more…)

Continue Reading

Differing Versions of the Same Encounter: The Medical Expert’s Dilemma

Imagine that you’ve secured a top-tier medical expert for a “solid” case, the medical records are in the expert’s hands, and now it is only a matter of affirming your theory so that the case can advance. And then, disaster strikes: The expert calls with an opinion that is 180-degrees off-target and entirely counter to your claim. When analyzing what went wrong, the answer may be as simple as regrouping to allow the expert to consider differing versions of the same medical encounter. (more…)

Continue Reading