Medical Misdiagnosis Results in Leg Amputation

Tabitha C. was 45 years old and a very active and successful business woman. One day, she began to experience pain and stiffness in her right ankle. She saw her family practice physician, who did a thorough physical exam. He suspected that the circulation in Tabitha’s leg was compromised, and he sent her to the hospital for an outpatient test to confirm his suspicion.

Tabitha went for the test, called a “PVR” study. The results suggested a blockage in one of the arteries in her leg. The technician who performed the test sent her straight to the emergency department of the hospital for a more complete evaluation and for treatment.

At the hospital, Tabitha was evaluated by a resident in vascular surgery. The resident quickly determined that Tabitha had an arterial blockage and ordered treatment with a blood thinning medication. But before Tabitha could get the treatment, the resident’s boss — the attending vascular surgeon — arrived. He acted very full of himself and announced that in fact there was no vascular problem at all. Instead, he decided that Tabitha had a condition called reflex sympathetic dystrophy or “RSD” (RSD is now called Complex Regional Pain Syndrome or “CRPS”). Simply put, he concluded that Tabitha’s problem was a nerve problem rather than a circulation issue, even though the medical evidence did not support that conclusion. He was very proud of himself and made a point of showing off his diagnostic acumen to his resident.

Unfortunately, the vascular surgeon was wrong, and it was a diagnosis error. Tabitha had an arterial blockage, just as everyone else suspected. And, the blockage could have been corrected had treatment not been halted by the attending physician. By the time the correct diagnosis was made (or, really, made again), it was too late. Surgeons at a top-notch hospital tried to restore circulation in Tabitha’s leg but were unsuccessful, and Tabitha had to have the leg amputated below the knee.

The Eisen Law Firm filed suit. Defense attorneys could not contain the physician’s arrogance. He testified that the surgeons who tried to restore circulation in Tabitha’s leg were at fault, and that if he had been allowed to operate, he would have saved the leg. His arrogance, however, made it impossible for his defense team to claim that by the time Tabitha presented to her doctor with arterial insufficiency, it was already too late to fix the problem. This is a type of “proximate causation” defense often employed by doctors to avoid responsibility for their mistakes.

Ultimately, a settlement was reached that included both a lump sum payment to Tabitha and periodic payments for the rest of her life.