Plastic Surgeon Leaves Sponge in Patient after Eye Lift!

Potential Plaintiff vs. Potential Defendant Cosmetic Surgery Physician and his P.C. Subject to non-disclosure Regarding Settlement $45,000.00 Settled during Notice of Intent period, pre-suit Facts: This is a medical malpractice action against potential defendant cosmetic surgery physician and his professional corporation. Plaintiff presented to defendant with asymmetry of the position of her eyebrows and severe hooding of her upper eyelids. Defendant formed a diagnosis of bilateral brow ptosis with asymmetry and bilateral upper lid blepharochalasis. She underwent surgery to correct this abnormality. On the weekend after surgery, Plaintiff’s eye swelled and she experienced ongoing pain. She presented to defendant, who diagnosed a staph infection and prescribed a Z-pack. Throughout, Plaintiff continued on antibiotic therapy as prescribed and continued to experience the consequences of infection and the failure of the wound to heal. Plaintiff presented to an infectious disease specialist, who informed her that an MRI revealed an encapsulation around the fluid above the left eye and indicated a biopsy of the encapsulation would be scheduled. Throughout this period of time, Plaintiff had undergone six aspirations of fluid at defendant’s office and one aspiration with ultrasound at another facility. Consultation was then made with a plastic surgeon, who performed surgery. During the operation, the physician explored the left temporal area and removed a sponge/foreign body in the left temporal area through a scalp incision. Additionally, the physician performed debridement and excision of necrotic skin approximately 3 mm on either side of the incision on the left upper eyelid, along with debridement and irrigation. Following surgery, defendant did apologize for overlooking the sponge and took responsibility. As a residual of the surgery performed, Plaintiff has residual scar tissue and is unable to close her eyelid completely. Following the procedure, she underwent multiple infusions for ongoing infection. In addition to an inability to completely close her eyes, Plaintiff continued to experience dry eyes, requires constant re-wetting with solutions, has difficulty focusing when reading, experiences fatigue and strain in the eye, fogginess, vision affecting her ability to read. Despite the defendant’s admission of responsibility and apology, the defendant’s insurance company failed to negotiate resolution before the Notice of Intent was served. Proceedings were therefore instituted, substantial time was spent accumulating documentation & review, and ultimately a resolution was achieved. The case was resolved in the Notice of Intent stage. Submitted by: CHARFOOS & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. DAVID W. CHRISTENSEN P11863 MARY PAT ROSEN P34992 Attorneys for Plaintiff 26622 Woodward Avenue, Suite 100 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 399-0350 or (313) 875-8080 / Fax: (248) 399-0351 dwchristensen@c2law.com mprosen@c2law.com