The plaintiff sued her gynecologist for medical malpractice after suffering a ureteric injury during a laparoscopic hysterectomy.
The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to detect the injury during surgery and in failing to consider the possibility of a ureteric injury and consult a urologist when the plaintiff presented with post-operative complications.
The court found no breach of the standard of care during the surgery, as the injury was likely a thermal ischemic injury that was not visually observable.
While the court found the defendant breached the standard of care by failing to consider a ureteric injury and consult a urologist post-operatively, the action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove causation.
The court concluded that earlier urological intervention would not have altered the plaintiff's medical outcome or prevented the need for subsequent repair surgery.
