Missouri Injury Law Blog

Know The Indications For Intraoperative Cholangiogram - From my point of view as a practicing St Louis injury attorney, a surgeon should always do one. I am not alone, several surgeons agree, one surgeon wrote:

Cholangiogram! Really no excuse not to do one. You'll feel better about the case if you make cholangiography a routine part of your technique [...] since I've been in practice I plan to do one on every LC. It doesn't add much time. It really doesn't. And the more you do, the faster it goes. Anymore, if I don't do a cholangiogram for some reason (dye leakage, patient body habitus, etc.) I feel like you would if you went to work one day and realized at noon that your zipper had been down all day. A nice cholangiogram just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

There is no reason for a surgeon to do an intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) to verify the exact anatomy of the biliary tree and the location of the common duct before clipping and cutting the cystic duct, thus preventing a common reason for St Louis medical malpractice from gallbladder removal. Many surgeons, particularly those practicing in a university setting, suggest that IOC be used in every lap choli case.

Most hospitals do not believe (at least they claim they do not) that a cholangiogram is required to meet the standard of care, they will require it after a surgeon commits gallbladder removal medical malpractice a few times, only then make it a condition of the surgeon's continued staff privileges.

A Cholangiogram is important in laparoscopic cholecystectomy because it clarifies the anatomy of the biliary tree. A Sun Tzu's Art of War states - Know the Terrain before going into battle i.e. know the anatomy before going into surgery, and a cholangiogram is a critical tool for knowing the anatomy. It provides the opportunity to see everything well before cutting anything while keeping dissection away from the area where almost all biliary anomalies would be encountered: the triangle of Calot.

Part I on of a series of 10 must knows from a St Louis personal injury lawyer to successfully pursue a Missouri medical malpractice case arising from a negligently performed gallbladder operation.

Top 10 things a doctor must know well when doing this surgery and the top 10 areas I focus on when pursuing a Missouri medical negligence lawsuit for my clients.

1.KNOW THE ANATOMY

A surgeon must circumstantially dissect the gallbladder, surrounding ducts, and vascular system. The anatomy must be fully identified before the surgeon decides to cut or clip anything. Aberrant anatomy is no excuse for cutting the wrong ducts or vessels as 20-30% of the population has aberrant anatomy.

Adequate dissection and identification of the triangle of calot is generally enough for the surgeon to be able to adequately visualize the anatomy. However, it is also wise for the surgeon to do an inter-operative cholangiogram. This procedure injects contrast through a catheter into the bile ducts to allow full visualization of the biliary duct anatomy prior to the surgeon clipping and cutting. See ERCP image in previous Missouri injury lawyer article about surgical clips left on common bile duct.

This is the #1 most important issue in most negligent gallbladder operation lawsuits. When done properly a gallbladder removal operation is a relatively easy and low risk procedure. Most cases arise from the surgeon cutting the wrong duct, cutting arteries, or clipping the wrong duct prior to cutting it. All cases of identification of the anatomy.

Few things I have seen often that a surgeon should never do intentionally in this procedure but occurs from negligent identification of the anatomy:

Cut the common bile duct;
Cut an artery;
Clip the common bile duct and leave clips on it, causing an occlusion;
Cut and injure the liver;

A few simple things that should never happen when the anatomy is properly identified. Simple mistakes that lead to wrongful death and serious personal injury with life altering problems.

Continue reading "MUST KNOWS to successfully pursue a Negligent Gallbladder Operation Lawsuit in Missouri: #1: KNOW THE ANATOMY " »

As a practicing St Louis personal injury attorney, with a good percentage of my practice devoted to Missouri medical malpractice cases, I have personally seen a rise is biliary injuries with introduction of less invasive laparoscopic cholecystectomy (aka - "Lap-choli" or gallbladder removal surgery). The move from and open procedure (being sliced open) to a laparoscopic procedure (entry through small incisions with a laparoscope) brought the great benefits of being less invasive, causing less pain and generally less recovery time. On the flip side, I believe there are more instances of doctor negligence related to the gallbladder removal. Why? It is more technically difficult to do the surgery guiding little arms rather than being hands on, yet some doctors without sufficient experience do these procedures.

The medical literature recognizes that the introduction of less invasive procedures has led to more instances of injuries: See: "Development Of Laparoscopic Single-Site Cholecystectomy Mandates Critical View Of Safety Dissection and Routine Intraoperative Cholangiography" - Journal of the American College of Surgeons - Volume 212, Issue 3 (March 2011) stating:

The uncontrolled introduction of laparoscopy was associated with a dramatic rise in the incidence of biliary injuries. This should not be repeated with the introduction of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). We should not forget principles of safety elaborated during decades of minimally invasive cholecystectomy. Although the benefits of LESS cholecystectomy will rely mainly on cosmesis, we cannot accept a rise in biliary lesion incidence and its related morbidity

The most common mistake I see as a St Louis negligent gallbladder removal lawyer , and that I believe the medical field sees with these cases, is negligent cutting of the wrong duct, at first is not recognized (or maybe covered up), and invariably leads to the patient being admitted to the ER within a few days with a distended abdomen with pain and an infectious process ongoing from the bile leaking into the peritoneum. The patient is usually then urgently sent to another hospital or health care provider specializing in biliary, hepatic, and liver surgery.

St Louis Medical Malpractice Lawyer Site: Where surgeons go wrong in lap-choli procedures

Continue reading "Instances of biliary injuries Rise with use of Lap-Choli Procedure" »

Under Missouri law, if you have auto liability coverage than you also have, at a minimum, $25,000 in Missouri Uninsured Motorist Coverage. An uninsured motorist is a driver with no insurance, but also an unidentified negligent driver is also considered an uninsured motorist. Examples are hit and run drivers or sometimes where a object hits your vehicle while on the highway. Such as a piece of equipment falling from a truck.

In Hale v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 927 S.W.2d 522 (Mo.App.1996), the Missouri driver was injured when a rock flew through his windshield and hit him in the head. The rock came from the other lane of traffic and apparently came at a low trajectory. The plaintiff brought a claim for Missouri UM benefits against his insurer under the Missouri personal injury res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

The injured driver was able to pursue the Missouri UM claim because his Missouri injury lawyers they were able to show sufficient evidence to support the inference that the rock had come from between the wheels of a dual-wheeled vehicle. That is a known danger of such vehicles, there was evidence presented that a careful and prudent driver would check his vehicle for lodged rocks before driving it and would avoid striking a rock of that size in the roadway.

Related Articles:

Venue for Missouri UM Claims

Missouri Supremer Court Rulings regarding Uninsured motorist Claims

Missouri uninsured motorist coverage issues

Illinois uninsured motorcycle accident claim

Continue reading "Missouri Uninsured Motorist Insurance Claim for Objects Coming from Unknown Vehicles. " »

Under Missouri personal injury laws, health care providers have special protections as any action for injury against them must be brought in compliance with the medical malpractice laws of Missouri. Namely, certificates of merit are required, damage caps apply, etc ...

So what exactly is a health care provider? Obviously, doctors, hospitals, nurses, radiologists, are all health care providers. Under Missouri Statute 538.205 - Tort Actions based on Improper Health Care it is explained as follows:

4) "Health care provider", any physician, hospital, health maintenance organization, ambulatory surgical center, long-term care facility including those licensed under chapter 198, dentist, registered or licensed practical nurse, optometrist, podiatrist, pharmacist, chiropractor, professional physical therapist, psychologist, physician-in- training, and any other person or entity that provides health care services under the authority of a license or certificate;

(5) "Health care services", any services that a health care provider renders to a patient in the ordinary course of the health care provider's profession or, if the health care provider is an institution, in the ordinary course of furthering the purposes for which the institution is organized. Professional services shall include, but are not limited to, transfer to a patient of goods or services incidental or pursuant to the practice of the health care provider's profession or in furtherance of the purposes for which an institutional health care provider is organized;

In addition to being a health care provider, the claim must arise out of negligent health care services performed in Missouri. An obvious example is if a doctor causes a car accident on their way home, clearly that claim is not confined to the rules and requirements of a medical malpractice claim.

For a case discussing the difference in different health care provider situations, see
Stalcup v. Orthotic & Prosthetic Lab, 989 S.W.2d 654 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999). Holding a prosthetic limb fitter does no qualify as a health care provider.

The fitting and manufacturing of orthotic and prosthetic devices is not a regulated profession in our state. Lab is not licensed by the state or federal governments while the "health care providers" enumerated in section 538.205(4) are professions regulated by our state. We find that under chapter 538, Lab is not a health care provider.

Continue reading "What Constitutes a "Healthcare Provider" Under Missouri Law for Personal Injury Claims?" »

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." - - The 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

As opinionated by this author in a recent article about the Starbucks Tip Jar Lawsuit, (See Missouri Wrongful Death Lawsuit from Claimed Negligent Security) Our system is already set up to to weed out bad lawsuits. If the law does not support he claim the Judge will dismiss the case on legal grounds, called a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. If it can squeak by that and the facts are so bad to make the case "frivolous" than a jury will find in favor of the defense and rule against the party the filed the case. "Tort reform" wants to bypass the above process and deny justice for all victims based on the frivolous claims of the very, very, few.

I came across an excellent blog recently that focuses on the 7th Amendment, and as a St Louis personal injury attorney I find the articles on this blog very interesting. See 7th Amendment Advocate. This blog is an excellent source for showing the FACTS debunking the tort crisis myth put out by insurance companies.

One example of the personal injury lawsuits myth:

1. Myth: We Need Federal Tort Reform Because Our Court System Is Overburdened With Tort Claims Against Businesses

Fact: Tort cases are a very small percentage of the civil docket. According to the National Law Journal, tort filings declined by 25 percent between 1999 and 2008, filings over contracts rose by 63 percent. According to a 2008 analysis by the National Center for State Courts, tort cases represent only 4.4 percent of the civil caseload.

Continue reading "Attacks on the Fundamental Right to a Trial by Jury Disguised by Rhetoric Attacking Trial Lawyers and Plaintiffs" »

As any injury lawyer knows, and most non lawyers know, healthcare providers have been pushing for years in all 50 states, and even pushes on the Federal level, to cap damage awards in medical malpractice cases. Sadly, they have been successful in many states, most notably for my clients, Missouri.

Doctors and hospitals claim they are unfairly targeted as the personal injuries resulting from medical negligence were not intentional and they did the best they could, so they should get special treatment. Well, as often the case is with paeople who criticize trial lawyers, once they become the victim because of someone's carelessness they realize trial lawyers are the only advocates for the future victims of personal injury and that they now see that damage caps are ridiculous. Example, the Doctor in this article that is against medical malpractice lawsuit caps, because she knows what it is like to be the victim.

Had the Ellensons not won a malpractice award well above the proposed $250,000 she would have had to quit her job to stay home with her son every day.

I ask Ellenson if she could have raised her son in a comfortable world on $250,000. "Absolutely no way," she says. "I continue to believe, as a practicing physician, that the way to curtail medical costs is not by further victimizing victims of malpractice, but to put in place mechanisms and systems in hospitals and doctors' offices to minimize risk to patients."

The 7th Amendment of the US Constitution, guarantees a fundamental right to a trial by jury. This included the jury to decide the facts of the case, which include damages to the victim. Damage caps take away the power form the judiciary and the juries. See Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses based on Missouri Medical malpractice Caps

A few years back I took a St Louis bike accident claim through a jury trial in St Louis County. The case arose from a "right hook" by the driver of the car. See facts of the St Louis bike accident here.

The jury returned a verdict after a few hours of deliberation and found the driver 100% at fault, however, the jury awarded less than the total medical bills submitted, even more baffling was that the medical bills submitted were undisputed. Any skilled St Louis injury trial lawyer would immediately object that the bike injury verdict is inconsistent. How can you find the driver 100% at fault and yet award less then the undisputed damages?

In Douglass v. Safire, 712 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. banc 1986), which involved a Missouri motorcycle collision and injury, the Missouri Supreme Court explicitly held that an inconsistent verdict must be brought to the attention of the trial court before the jury is discharged or the claim of inconsistency is waived. Id. at 374.

We now hold that a claim that a verdict is inconsistent to the point of being self-destructive must be presented to the trial court before the jury is discharged. Otherwise the claim of inconsistency will be held to have been waived. The reason is that, if the point is raised as soon as the verdict is returned, any error is capable of correction by ordering the jury to return for further deliberation. Our holding is in accord with the usual rule that the trial court must be given the opportunity to correct error while correction is still possible.

Being a St Louis area personal injury attorney that has also gone through phases of being an avid cyclist, I have witnessed first hand the hostility towards cyclists on the roads as well as the dislike for cyclists by juries. After the bike accident trial above was over I questioned a few of the jurors and they said the reason they gave less than the undisputed damages was that they felt the cyclist should not have been on the road during that time of day (dawn) or that somehow it was her fault just because she was on the road as a cyclist; remember the jury did find the truck driver 100% at fault. So drivers' general dislike of cyclists did come through in this verdict, a fact a bicycle accident lawyer must be keenly aware of.

The bike accident verdict above was appealed on that ground as well as others, and the case settled during the appeal process.

Continue reading "Making the Proper Objections if a Jury Returns an Inconsistent Verdict - Example from a St Louis Bike Accident Case " »

Recently I came across an article about a St Louis Missouri wrongful death lawsuit arising from an incident where a Starbucks customer chased a tip jar thief out of the store and ended up being killed after suffering a head injury when the thief attempted to flee in his car. See Starbucks Tip Jar Lawsuit

I read the comments below the article and was a little disturbed by the comments. As a preface, I know nothing about this lawsuit other then the above article and I am not familiar with the lawyer who filed it. It disturbs me how fast people comment and claim frivolous lawsuits and the need for tort reform because their common sense dictates this is a ridiculous case. I have personally handled negligent security cases, in fact one I am handling resulted in a brutal rape of a tenant at an apartment building. See St Louis negligent security claim after sexual assault. In that case the apartment complex knew their security doors were faulty and in disrepair, and because of the faulty security doors and hollow core inner doors, a rapist was able to practically walk right into a young woman's apartment and brutally rape her. This occurred in a high crime area where the owners were aware of the multiple assaults over the past years, yet allowed the disrepair.

The injury attorney that filed this St Louis death case has a tough battle, and I predict that the trial Judge will dismiss the case, I believe the facts of this case, at least as I understand them, are too flimsy, Starbucks did not take on a duty to provide that extent of security and I believe the trial Judge will find no duty existed thus no breach of a duty and therefore no negligence.

So tort reformers relax, we have Judges and we have laws, just because a lawsuit is filed does not mean everyone is going to get sued for everything. The main political party behind tort reform also preaches about getting back to the fundamental roots of the constitution, well what about the 7th amendment? Right to a Trial by jury? The people behind "Tort Reform" want to take that away.

The jury system is "tort reform", juries (you and me) will be the deciders on the case, assuming it is not thrown out by the judge prior to getting there. Missouri Personal injury lawyers front massive costs and get no up front fees, if they file a "frivolous" case they will likely eventually lose and be out lots of money, do this a few times and the lawyer is out of business.

So, rather than scream tort reform and frivolous lawsuit, let the system work, if it is such a legally merit-less case the Judge will throw it out on legal grounds, if not, and it is such a factually merit-less claim the jury will rule for Starbucks.

Lastly, to the people that think the above case will lead to little old ladies getting sued for allowing their purses to get stolen, relax, it is legally impossible as an individual does not have the legal duty to provide security from criminal acts of a 3rd party.

Sansone / Lauber receives numerous requests to represent patients injured as a result of a failed gallbladder surgery in St Louis and throughout Missouri. As stated in a prior blog, we have recently been retained to represent a woman who has ongoing medical maladies as the result of negligence in her gallbladder removal surgery. Specifically, the wrong ducts were cut, the surgical clips were placed improperly, and surgical clips were left in her body on the wrong ducts creating a bile blockage.

Gallbladder removal surgery, or "lap-choli" is a fairly common procedure and as such, most times not taken as seriously by some medical providers as maybe it should be. Therefore, it is also fairly common to see Missouri and Illinois medical negligence and/or medical malpractice lawsuits associated with it. As an experienced medical malpractice and St Louis wrongful death lawyer, I have seen very avoidable mistakes that occur in a lap-choli procedure lead to death several months later.

The first steps in determining if their was negligence is to review the medical records, particularly, the surgeon's operative report, which is probably the most important document to get asap if you suspect medical malpractice. It is always wise for the patient or the family to immediately request the available records, I have seen these records get changed later on - that is where the term "doctoring the records" comes from!. See 2nd half of this article - Medical Record Alteration in Wrongful Death Lawsuit.

It is also necessary to review the materials provided to the patient/client, the conversation that they had with the surgeon prior to the surgery, what the patient understood to be the outcome of the surgery, and what risks were laid out to them and why. The most common risk is what we saw with this most recent case: severe damage to the common bile duct and just a lack of attention to care and detail. Blood clots, internal bleeding, injury to neighboring organs, trocar-induced bowel damage, infections from leaking bile, and death are other risks associated with this procedure.

Continue reading "First steps to investigating a negligent gallbaldder removal claim" »

Since the statutory changes in 2005 requiring most Missouri personal injury actions to be brought in the county where the initial injury or negligent act occurred, there has been some confusion regarding how to apply this to a Missouri uninsured motorist car accident claim, often referred to as a "UM" Claim.

An uninsured motorist claim under Missouri law arises when someone is injured by a negligent driver who does not have any insurance. Most people have some form of Uninsured motorist coverage under their auto policies, therefore,the claim is not against the other driver but an action in contract against your insurance company to recover your damages sustained as the result of an uninsured driver.

Therefore, since it is a claim in contract and not Missouri tort, venue is not controlled by the tort venue statutes and case law, but by the contract statutes and case law.

On such case, State ex rel. Auto Owners Insurance Company, Relator vs. The Honorable Edith L. Messina and The Honorable Kevin M.J. Crane, Respondents, recently clarified this issue. In this case the trial Judge transferred the case from Jackson County Missouri to Boone County Missouri despite the insurance company defendant having multiple offices in Jackson County.

Supreme Court Justice Michael Wolff ruled that it was error for the trial Judge to transfer the case from Jackson County Missouri because the insurance company had multiple offices for doing business in that county and therefore venue was appropriate there.

Section 351.375.2 does provide, in relevant part, that "[t]he location or residence of any corporation shall be deemed for all purposes to be in the county where its registered office is maintained." But section 351.690(3) provides that "[n]o provisions of this chapter, other than [certain exceptions not relevant in this case], shall be applicable to insurance companies ...." This Court, therefore, has held that "the provision fixing a corporation's residence at its registered office does not apply to insurance corporations." Gray, 979 S.W.2d at 192.

Where no tort is alleged, an insurance corporation may be sued in any county where it has an agent or office for the transaction of its usual and customary business. Gray, 979 S.W.2d at 192.

Missouri Supreme Court hands down ruling regarding uninsured motorist claims

St Louis uninsured motorist lawyer discusses which policy applies after car accident

Continue reading "Proper Venue for Missouri Uninsured Motorist ("UM") Claims " »

A few years ago we posted a Missouri wrongful death article about a teenage girl that was needlessly killed as a result of a reckless driver that ran off the road in Jefferson County Missouri. See Jefferson County Wrongful Death Car Accident

The St Louis law firm of Sansone / Lauber represents the family of the victim, and Jefferson county personal injury lawyer, Ben Sansone, has recently filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the at fault driver, Dustin Ray, under Missouri's wrongful death statute naming the minor son and the mother of the victim as Plaintiffs. Missouri Wrongful death Statute about Parties that Can Sue - 537.080

Dustin Ray recently plead guilty to manslaughter charges brought against him as a result of his reckless conduct. Jefferson County Man Pleas Guilty to Manslaughter after Car Crash Resulting in Missouri Wrongful Death of Teenage Girl

The Jefferson county car accident that caused the death of the victim occurred in 2008, however, the wrongful death car collision civil action was not filed in Jefferson County until recently as we decided to wait until the driver plead guilty to the criminal charges. (Jefferson County Wrongful Death Auto Accident Lawsuit) We wanted to avoid the situation where a pending wrongful death lawsuit may have hardened the defendant's negotiating position on the criminal case and potentially forced him to trial on the manslaughter charges, where he could have gotten lucky and been acquitted. The burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than a civil case, and it only takes one reluctant juror.

By waiting and not pressuring the defendant he has now plead guilty to the charge of manslaughter and cannot deny legal liability in the civil trial, as he as already admitted fault by pleading guilty. See Missouri injury lawyer article about Plea of Guilty and Admissibility into Evidence to Prove Fault.

Continue reading "Defendant Admits Guilt for Wrongful Death of Jefferson County Girl as a Result of his Reckless Driving " »

From time to time, during a car accident injury trial in Missouri, the lawyer for one side or the other tries to use rules from the Missouri driving manual we all had to read prior to taking our Missouri state driving test. Is this manual Missouri traffic law? Depends on what side of the issue you are on. Mostly the use of the manual by the injured party or the defendant lies within the discretion of the trial judge; what reason are they trying to use it, is it relevant, has the legal foundation been established, does it conflict with statutory law, etc...

On such case was the Missouri auto accident lawsuit of Thompson v. Marler, 286 S.W.3d 261 (MO SD Court App. 2009)

Defendant elicited evidence on cross-examination from plaintiff's witness [....] that a driver's manual provided that the center turn lane was not to be used "when entering the roadway from a side street."

On appeal the case was upheld for reasons not directly related to the above evidence, however, the concurring Judge also wrote in detail about the inconsistency between the manual and Missouri law and that the manual "recommended" a course of action and yet that was used at the trial level to try and prove comparative against the auto accident victim.

[...]witness's cross-examination when he acknowledged that the Missouri Department of Revenue's Driver's Guide[1] (the "driver's guide") "recommends" that the center lane not be used for this second purpose for which the lane was designed. No authority has been cited to support the Driver's Guide recommendation to "not use this lane when entering the roadway from a side street" as a rule of law. In fact, section 300.215--a portion of the Model Traffic Ordinance[2]--would suggest the contrary.

As a St Louis personal injury lawyer having taken several Missouri auto accident cases to trial, I believe the driver's manual should never had been used in the above manner in the first place. If the manual conflicts with Missouri statutory law then it is a distraction to mislead the jury with no probative value.

Currently our St Louis medical malpractice law firm, Sansone / Lauber, is handling multiple Missouri negligent gallbladder removal cases involving laparoscopic procedures known as a "lap-choli". The common theme in these cases is the negligent surgeon's failure to adequately dissect and identify the anatomy of the gallbladder, and the adjacent bile ducts and vascular system before proceeding to clip, cut, and remove.

Recently we were contacted by young Missouri woman who has spent the last several months in the hospital because the negligent lap choli surgeon left surgical clips on her common bile duct creating an "occlusion" or in lay terms, a blockage. See clips left on common bile duct in radiology image to the right. Prior to removing a gallbladder the surgeon must identify and dissect the anatomy in order to confirm the cystic duct, clip and cut it, not the common bile duct.

See Missouri Negligent Gallbladder Removal Surgery Article for Details of Surgery

As always, the negligent Missouri surgeon's operative report was flawless and according to him the original procedure went perfectly, he identified the anatomy properly, did full circumferential dissection of the gallbladder and ducts, separated the cystic artery from the cystic duct, applied two clips to the cystic duct, cut between them, and then removed the gallbladder.

However the post op evidence tells a very different story. The patient suffered symptoms of severe abdominal pain and subsequent testing showed that the surgeon left surgical clips on the common bile duct. See the ERCP test results below from 1 week post lap choli:

Continue reading "Surgical Clips Left on Common Bile Duct by Missouri Surgeon after Gallbladder Removal, Caused Duct Occlusion and Severe Complications for Patient" »

Laparoscopic gallbladder removal or "lap-choli" is the current standard of care for the removal of a gallbladder. Until about 10-15 years ago the accepted method was an open procedure which was more invasive as it required a larger wound and longer recovery. The introduction of the laparoscopic procedure is not without its problems, it requires certain degree of skill and learning and some surgeons simply do not have the proper pedigree to perform these procedures multiple times without eventually running into problems they cannot handle.

Recently, my law firm, Sansone / Lauber, filed a St Louis county lap-choli medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit

About 6 months ago I discussed this St Louis wrongful death case and the specifics of gallbladder procedures and some of the reasons for bad outcomes.

In the St Louis wrongful death case recently filed by my Missouri injury law firm, the primary reason for the horrific outcome and death of my client's father was the simple fact that the negligent surgeon failed to completely and circumferentially dissect the gallbladder and the relevant arteries and bile ducts, confidentially identify them ,and then... and only then... cut what the surgeon thought to be the cystic duct, but was actually the common bile duct and the right hepatic artery, which lead to the death of my client's father. Simply from the failure to take his time and properly identify the anatomy.

Continue reading "Surgeon Negligent During Lap-Choli Procedure leading to St Louis County Wrongful Death Lawsuit" »