Brooklyn, N.Y. — A Kings County Supreme Court Civil Term jury concluded a medical malpractice trial last week regarding plaintiff M. Rowland’s leg amputation, ultimately ruling in favor of the defendants including a noted orthopedic surgeon and New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital.
The case was presided over by Hon. Wavny Toussaint, with Robert Godosky representing the plaintiff and Scott Singer defending the orthopedic surgeon. Rounding out the courtroom were defendants’ law clerk Jeremy Moldovan and court reporter Laura Hutzel.
Rowland’s medical history included multiple procedures on her left hip, chronic infections, and persistent pain, which had led her to primarily use a wheelchair. She was referred to Dr. Tischler, a specialist in reconstructive orthopedics, for a revision of a prior hip implant in April 2015. However, the procedure was delayed to July after initial concerns about an infection seemed to improve, and despite no definitive evidence of an ongoing infection, the surgery moved forward.
Godosky argued that Dr. Tischler diverged from standard medical practices by not consulting an infectious disease specialist prior to the July surgery and questioned whether Rowland provided informed consent for the procedure. Godosky suggested this omission directly contributed to the necessity for Rowland’s leg amputation later on.
In defense, Singer contended his client had adequately informed Rowland, emphasizing her background as a retired reporter and her understanding of medical information. He further noted a letter from Rowland that expressed gratitude towards Dr. Tischler for accepting her as a patient and acknowledging her recovery progress. After receiving care locally due to her residence’s significant distance from the hospital, Rowland elected for amputation through a different doctor a year post-surgery.
The jury’s verdict acknowledged that Dr. Tischler possibly should have sought a consultation with an infectious disease expert before the July 2015 surgery. However, they concluded that this did not influence Rowland’s eventual decision for amputation nor did it constitute a lapse in the informed consent process.
No damages were awarded as the jury did not see a direct link between the procedural decisions and Rowland’s ultimate amputation, affirming that sufficient information had been provided to the plaintiff.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI. Details including names, events, or circumstances described may be fictional or inaccurally represented. For corrections, retraction, or removal requests, please contact contact@publiclawlibrary.org.