Orthopedic surgery expert witness advises on total hip replacement infections
An orthopedic surgery expert witness advises on a total hip replacement patient who suffered repeated infections and additional surgeries. The plaintiff was scheduled for a hip replacement. During the procedure, the surgeon removed an abscess. The doctor did not complete the implantation of the Biomet prosthesis. The plaintiff was then transferred to another facility, where the replacement was completed, despite the infection.
The plaintiff alleges the first doctor and surgical staff were negligent in removing the abscess and the second doctor and staff were negligent in performing the hip replacement. The plaintiff suffered multiple infections that necessitated the repeated removal and replacement of his hip prosthetic.
Question(s) For Expert Witness
1. What is the standard of care?
2. Was it breached?
3. What was the result?
Expert Witness Response
The standard of care for an elective surgery is that if anything compromises the integrity of the surgical site, the operation should be deferred. No surgery can be performed. The surgeon must wait until the area of compromise is completely healed with normal skin and subcutaneous structure.
The defendant doctor breached the standard of care by proceeding with the elective hip replacement surgery even though he was aware that a furuncle had compromised the integrity of the surgical site four days prior. These failings were substantial factors in causing or contributing to the plaintiff’s subsequent infections. The negligent care was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff to develop the infection in his right hip that required the removal and replacement of the hip prosthesis.
If the doctor had installed an antibiotic spacer and started infectious disease treatment and waited to ensure that the plaintiff did not have an infection, the long-term infection would have been avoided.
The expert is an orthopedic surgeon who performs and teaches total hip replacements.
About the author
Kristin Casler
Kristin Casler is a seasoned legal writer and journalist with an extensive background in litigation news coverage. For 17 years, she served as the editor for LexisNexis Mealey’s litigation news monitor, a role that positioned her at the forefront of reporting on pivotal legal developments. Her expertise includes covering cases related to the Supreme Court's expert admissibility ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., a critical area in both civil and criminal litigation concerning the challenges of 'junk science' testimony.
Kristin's work primarily involves reporting on a diverse range of legal subjects, with particular emphasis on cases in asbestos litigation, insurance, personal injury, antitrust, mortgage lending, and testimony issues in conviction cases. Her contributions as a journalist have been instrumental in providing in-depth, informed analysis on the evolving landscape of these complex legal areas. Her ability to dissect and communicate intricate legal proceedings and rulings makes her a valuable resource in the legal journalism field.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join our newsletter to stay up to date on legal news, insights and product updates from Expert Institute.
Sign up nowFind an expert witness near you
What State is your case in?
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join our newsletter to stay up to date on legal news, insights and product updates from Expert Institute.