States v Lourdes Hospital

Procedure
a. Who are the parties? Plaintiff: Kathleen States. Defendant: Lourdes Hospital and Kenneth
Mints (anesthesiologist)
b. Who brought the action: Kathleen States
c. In what case did the court originate: New York trial court 297.
d. Who won at the trial court level: States. (plaintiff)
e. Lourdes hospital appealed at the trial court level, followed by an additional appeal by
States after the decision was made at the appellate court, the case was then taken to the
supreme court.

Facts
a. Relevant facts as cited by the court:
Plaintiff Kathleen States underwent surgery for removal of an ovarian cyst.
She believed that during the operation the anesthesiologist negligently hyperabducted her
right arm beyond a 90-degree angle for an extended period of time
causing right thoracic outlet syndrome and reflex sympathetic dystrophy.
She sued the hospital.
At the close of discovery, Defendant Hospital moved for summary judgment on the
ground that there was no direct evidence that the plaintiffs arm was hyperabducted
during surgery.
Conceding the absence of direct evidence of negligence, Plaintiff opposed the motion,
submitting expert medical opinion that her injuries would not have occurred in the
absence of negligence.
Plaintiff claimed this testimony could be used by a jury in support of a res ipsa loquitur
theory.
The trial court denied defendants motion for summary judgment and permitted plaintiff
to rely on the expert medical opinion for a res ipsa theory.
A divided appellate division reversed, but the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court
Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion:
a. What was the reasoning for the abduction of the patients arm?
b. Is abduction of the arm done in other similar surgical procedures?
Issues

a. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court? The issue being
litigated is whether or not the patients arm was hyperabducted during a procedure
causing her to suffer from thoracic outlet syndrome. Another issue is there is no direct
evident of this negligent act only testimony from expert witness that if this had not
occurred then there would be no sustain injury.( Res ipsa loquitur)
b. Do you agree with the way court has framed those issues? Yes I agree with the framing
of the issues.
Holding
a. What is the courts precise decision: The defendant was found not guilty at the supreme
court level.
b. What is the rationale for this decision: There was no direct evidence of negligence, only
expert testimony.
c. Yes I agree because the patient could have had a pre-existing injury that she withheld and
brought out after the fact in order to obtain a lawsuit.
Implications
a. What does the case mean for healthcare today? Although this case was not won, there is
still the allowance for expert testimony within the court system so doctors are still held
liable if there is wrong doing in the operating room, and the patients sustains injury.
b. What were its implications when the decision was announced? There was no direct
implication following this case. Other than expert testimony is allowed to be used within
certain levels of trial.
c. Healthcare administrators can deal with these implications by making sure that each
surgery is done correctly and with as little error as possible in order to ensure there
facility or surgeons do not have to go to court.
d. If the case was decided differently there might be more people claiming pre-existing
injuries as implications from the surgery that had undergone when in reality they had
already sustained those injuries prior to the surgical procedure.