PLEASE NOTE = THAT CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH = CASE

PLEASE=20 NOTE THAT CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH = CASE. THE=20 RESULTS OF ONE CASE DO NOT GUARANTEE = THAT A=20 CERTAIN RESULT WILL BE ACHIEVED IN FUTURE CASES. IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE = LAWYERS=20 OF WILLIAMSON & LAVECCHIA, L.C. TO REVIEW YOUR LEGAL MATTER, PLEASE CONTACT = US. 3D"Lawyers

From = the=20 October 28,=20 2002=20 Virginia = Lawyers Weekly.=20 [Page 15]

Medical=20 Malpractice

Dilated=20 Esophagus =97 Difficulty Swallowing

Type of=20 Action =97 Medical malpractice

Type of=20 Injuries =97 Inability to eat without a feeding tube, = reconstructive surgery=20 and multiple hospitalizations

Name of=20 Case =97 Seymour v. = Rodriguez=20

Court =97=20 Petersburg = Circuit Court=20

Special=20 Damages =97 $159,777.28

Awarded=20 / Settled =97 Awarded

Amount=20 =97 $1.25 million plus prejudgment interest from May 7, = 1999=20

Plaintiff's=20 Attorneys =97 Carolyn C.=20 Lavecchia and Joshua D.=20 Silverman, [Williamson & = Lavecchia,=20 L.C.] Richmond=20

Highest=20 Offer =97 $0

Other=20 Useful Information =97 The plaintiff, 72, presented to the = defendant with=20 difficulty swallowing and shortness of breath. Diagnostic tests = showed=20 that she had a motility disorder of her esophagus and a hiatal hernia requiring surgical repair.=20

On=20 May 7, = 1999, the = defendant=20 performed surgery to reduce the hernia. He also performed a Nissen fundoplication, where=20 a portion of her stomach was wrapped completely around her = esophagus to=20 prevent reflux esophagitis. The Nissen fundoplication was=20 contraindicated due to the plaintiff's motility disorder and due = to the=20 absence of objective evidence that she ever suffered from reflux.=20

Over=20 the next few months, the plaintiff's swallowing problems worsened = because=20 the fundoplication was too tight for = someone=20 afflicted with a motility disorder. In September 1999, the = defendant=20 advised the plaintiff that she had a recurrence of her hiatal hernia and that he would have to = operate again.=20

During=20 the surgery, the defendant found that the plaintiff did not have a = recurrent hiatal hernia, but she did = have a=20 dilated esophagus. The plaintiff's experts testified that the = standard of=20 care required undoing the Nissen fundoplication. Instead, the defendant did = nothing to=20 improve the plaintiff's condition. Immediately after the surgery, = he=20 advised the plaintiff's family that he had repaired the = non-existent=20 recurrent hiatal hernia and that she = would be=20 fine.

The=20 plaintiff's swallowing problems worsened rapidly to the point that = she=20 needed a feeding tube to eat. When her daughters questioned the = defendant=20 about her condition, he told them there was nothing wrong with her = and=20 that she needed to see a psychiatrist.

Over=20 the next 7-8 months, the plaintiff was hospitalized on several = occasions=20 for multiple problems with her feeding tube. She required surgery = to=20 remove about one-half of her esophagus and to reconstruct her = esophagus=20 with part of her stomach. She is now able to eat, but only in = small=20 quantities. She continues to have difficulty keeping food down at = times.=20

The=20 plaintiff's medical bills total $159,777.28. The jury deliberated = for=20 about two hours before returning a verdict of $1.25 million plus=20 prejudgment interest from May 7, = 1999.=20

The=20 defendant has indicated that he will file post-trial motions to = reduce the=20 verdict on the grounds that the verdict is excessive and that it = exceeds=20 the medical malpractice cap. It is anticipated that the defendant = will=20 argue that the cap is $1 million because the initial acts of = negligence=20 occurred before Aug. = 1,=20 1999, when = the cap=20 was raised to $1.5 million. However, the most egregious acts of = negligence=20 occurred in the second surgery in September 1999, and the = plaintiff's most=20 significant damages occurred after the September 1999 surgery. = Both=20 parties believe the amount of the cap is an issue of first = impression=20 because the alleged acts of malpractice occurred as the cap was = raised.=20 This issue is likely to present itself again as the cap is raised = annually=20 until 2008.

For=20 more information about the attorneys who represented the = plaintiff, please=20 visit our website or click here to contact us.=20