Chicago plaintiff Fahineh Jalalipour received a $1.27 million jury verdict in her Cook County surgical negligence lawsuit, Fahineh Jalalipour v. Farhad Saed, M.D., 07 L 14120. The medical negligence centered around a routine bladder surgery that the 50 year-old elected to undergo in an attempt to correct her urinary incontinence. However, as sometimes happens when medical malpractice is involved, the cure was worse than the original ailment – Ms. Jalalipour was left with painful urination and bleeding, which was only corrected after the plaintiff underwent additional surgeries.
The medical malpractice involved a routine bladder suspension surgery that was meant to correct Ms. Jalalipour’s urinary incontinence by adjusting the location of the bladder in her abdomen and relieving pressure from the pelvic floor. The surgical procedure was performed by Dr. Farhad Saed at Thorek Memorial Hospital, who reported no complications following the surgery. However, in the days following the surgery, Ms. Jalalipour immediately reported finding blood in her urine and experiencing severe pain.
While Dr. Saed dismissed Ms. Jalalipour’s problems as a simple infection, the pain and bleeding did not respond to antibiotics. Eventually, Ms. Jalalipour was forced to consult two additional urologists, both of whom investigated internal causes for her pain. Ms. Jalalipour underwent two different cystoscopies, a diagnostic procedure that investigates the insides of one’s lower urinary tract, which would include the bladder. On her second cystoscopy, which took place over a year after her routine bladder surgery was performed, the urologist discovered the presence of three sutures sewn inside of her bladder.
Soon after the sutures were discovered, Ms. Jalalipour underwent an additional surgery to have them removed. While her general abdominal pain was relieved, the plaintiff was left with permanent injuries as a result of the surgical error, including atypical incontinence with urine leakage, severe pain when urinating, and an inability to completely empty her bladder unless standing and bending. In addition, the plaintiff suffered from sexual dysfunction, including urine leakage and pain, which resulted in marital problems for the plaintiff and her now ex-husband.
The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Saed, in which she contended that she would not have had to experience any of the above problems if not for his surgical negligence. The plaintiff’s medical experts testified that there was no reasonable explanation for why those three sutures were in that area of the plaintiff’s bladder; the sutures should have all been placed in the bladder neck area. The only explanation that plaintiff’s experts offered was that Dr. Saed had mistakenly placed the sutures in the bladder.
While the plaintiff’s experts offered that Dr. Saed should have made use of an intraoperative cystoscopy to better identify the plaintiff’s anatomy, the defendant doctor testified that he met the standard of care regarding identifying the plaintiff’s organs prior to placing any sutures. However, the plaintiff’s medical experts were also critical of the procedure that Dr. Saed employed.
It was further alleged in the plaintiff’s lawsuit that the Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz (MMK) and Burch procedure performed by Dr. Saed, was outdated. Originally developed in the 1940s, the MMK/Burch procedure has been modified several times since and is by no means the cutting edge in bladder surgery procedures. Therefore, the plaintiff’s attorneys argued that a more recent procedures, such as a sling procedure, would have been a more appropriate option.
In addition to being critical of Dr. Saed’s negligent operative care, the plaintiff was also critical of his post-operative treatment. Among her allegations is that Dr. Saed should have referred her to an urologist in a more timely manner and not have assumed her pain and bleeding was caused by infection. Dr. Saed neglected to respond to these arguments, instead arguing that he had done everything according to an acceptable standard of medical care. Furthermore, the defense argued that the sutures ended up in the plaintiff’s bladder wall because they migrated there; the defendant doctor did not actually admit to placing the sutures in Ms. Jalalipour’s bladder.
Not surprisingly, the Cook County jury failed to buy into the defendant’s theory of liability, instead electing to believe that surgical sutures were found in the area where the surgeon placed them. In this Chicago medical malpractice lawsuit, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her a $1.27 million jury verdict: $700,000 for her pain and suffering, $500,000 for loss of a normal life, and $70,000 for medical expenses.
Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois surgical malpractice lawsuits for over 35 years for individuals and families in and around Chicago, Cook County, and surrounding areas, including Morton Grove, Orland Park, Bedford Park, Chicago’s Bronzeville neighborhood, and Brookfield.
Similar blog posts:
Cook County Spinal Surgery Results in Permanent Quadriplegia – $18.75 Million Settlement Reached in Contreras v. Thorek Memorial Hospital
Cook County Brain Injury Following Cardiac Arrest Leads to $5 Million Settlement – Estate of David v. Rush Northshore Hospital
Illinois Hospital Admits Liability for Post-Operative Patient Injury – Shiffman v. Northwest Community Hospital