Hardeep Shergill obtained a favorable summary judgment decision in a case involving a 55-year-old man who underwent back surgery prior to being treated for a spinal infection. After the surgery was completed, our client’s doctor still failed to properly treat the infection, which exacerbated our client’s condition and caused him to undergo an additional revision surgery.

Defendants alleged that there was sufficient proof to eliminate any question of fact and allow the Judge to rule in their favor without taking the case trial. However, after reviewing the expert opinions presented by both sides, the Judge ruled against the defendants and enabled the case to move forward.

If you or a loved one have suffered a permanent injury as a result of a surgical error, speak to a NYC Medical Malpractice Attorney today. At the Jacob Fuchsberg Law Firm, our Spinal Surgical Error Attorneys have experience successfully pursuing claims on behalf of wrongfully injured clients and will get you the results you deserve.

Our Client’s Story: Misdiagnosed Spinal Infection

Our client initially presented to the hospital with complaints of ongoing back pain, and both an MRI and X-ray revealed further irregularities. While reviewing the MRI, our client’s doctor noted that the results could be consistent with an infection, yet the doctor failed to conduct further testing to properly rule out the presence of an infection.

As a result of his untreated infection, our client’s symptoms continued to worsen. Thus, within the same month of our client’s initial presentation, he returned to the same hospital with worsening complaints of back pain. Our client was admitted to the hospital and scheduled for surgery to insert spinal hardware, and a biopsy of the affected area taken during the surgery unsurprisingly revealed that our client had a spinal infection.

Our client was informed that the infection could be treated through a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or oral antibiotics, but after experiencing discomfort with the catheter, he opted for oral antibiotics. However, the oral antibiotics did not properly resolve the infection, and our client continued to experience troublesome symptoms, including severe abdominal pain.

After experiencing little to no improvement in his condition, our client was informed that he would need a second surgery to remove the spinal hardware that was inserted just the month before because the hardware had loosened and/or was infected.

Due to his frustration with the care that he received, our client decided to seek a second opinion at a different hospital. As soon as he switched hospitals, his infection was properly treated, and he underwent spinal surgery to remove the infected hardware.

Spinal surgery is a very invasive procedure and requires significant aftercare to aid in recovery, and unfortunately, our client was caused to endure this surgery twice. Following the surgery, our client had to begin rehab treatment for five months and continues to experience difficulties today.

Fuchsberg Law Firm Defeats Motion for Summary Judgement

Defendants moved for summary judgment, alleging that our client refused to have a peripherally inserted catheter line and opted for oral antibiotics despite the fact that he was allegedly instructed otherwise. In addition, defendants claimed that the care and treatment that our client received at the second hospital was identical to what he received at the first hospital and that a second surgery is routine for this type of procedure. Submitting an expert affirmation in support of both assertions, Defendants alleged that there was sufficient proof to eliminate any material question of fact that needed to be resolved in trial.

In response to the motion for summary judgment, Hardeep Shergill alleged that our client’s spinal infection should have been diagnosed and treated before the spinal surgery was performed as that would have significantly reduced the risk that the hardware would become infected. Had our client’s infection been immediately diagnosed and treated, our client would not have had to undergo a second revision surgery.

Furthermore, Hardeep maintained that our client should have never been offered oral antibiotics in the first place as oral antibiotics could not have properly treated our client’s infection, thus this recommendation was against the standard of care. Moreover, our client was not properly informed of the risk of opting for oral antibiotics rather than catheter or IV treatment.

Ruling against the defendants, the Judge opined that summary judgment was not appropriate as both parties presented conflicting medical opinions which could only be resolved by a jury. This decision was pivotal for our client as it enabled the case to progress forward.

Infection Misdiagnosis Medical Malpractice Lawyer

Unfortunately, a mistreated infection can lead to a very serious outcome as was the case with our client. Furthermore, an infection can significantly worsen depending on the location. Therefore, an infection must be properly diagnosed and treated as soon as possible to prevent the infection from spreading.

If you or a loved one have suffered from a serious injury due to a misdiagnosed or mistreated infection, speak with a New York City Medical Malpractice Lawyer today to discuss your rights. We can help you file a lawsuit against the provider and recover damages for your injuries.

We can help when the unimaginable happens.