The podiatrist examined the patient following an emergency room referral. The podiatrist failed to diagnose an ankle fracture (broken ankle) despite the radiology report stating such was present. The podiatrist operated on the ankle 3 different times, each time failing to diagnose and repair the ankle fracture. This case was settled without filing a lawsuit due to the circumstances.

The podiatrist, while performing a bunionectomy surgery, fractured (broke) an adjacent bone. The podiatrist did not disclose this to the patient despite having x-rays which displayed the problem. Later medical records put the blame on the patient when the podiatrist said the patient fell and he then broke that bone. This was very transparent and self-serving and resulted in a Presuit settlement.

The podiatrist, after performing foot surgery, allowed her support staff to see the patient for post-operative office visits as well as her own examinations. The office personnel applied a much too constrictive post-operative bandage which compromised the circulation of the foot. Despite seeing the podiatrist several times thereafter, the circulation problem was never diagnosed until gangrene developed. The patient underwent further surgery by subsequent doctors including partial foot amputation.

The podiatrist of a 58 year old diabetic woman failed to properly diagnose and timely treat an infected foot ulcer, which resulted in the amputation of her big toe and metatarsal bone. It was also proven that the podiatrist had changed his records to hide the mistake.

The podiatrist performed heel spur surgery without attempting conservative care resulting in nerve damage. This case was settled without filing a lawsuit due to the circumstances.

The podiatrist failed to appropriately treat this young woman with a draining foot ulcer for 9 months. This resulted in a bone infection and the leg being amputated. This young victim, with 2 small children at home to care for, was blamed by the doctor for not obeying his orders but at the doctor’s deposition, he was shown to be completely uneducated as to the underlying Spina Bifida.

In this case, a diabetic woman was treated by a podiatrist for 9 consecutive months and never performed an x-ray, culture, or another diagnostic tests. An MRI and bone scan were both reported as consistent with osteomyelitis. The client required a partial amputation and the surgeon stated in his deposition that the bone was infected and needed to be amputated. The case was to be tried in February 2005 but at the last minute, a lost pathologist’s report was found which was reported as no osteomyelitis. The pathologist was asked about this and advised that no one told him to look for a bone infection. At that late date, and with the bone specimen discarded, the case had to be dismissed to protect the client from being sanctioned.

In this case, a podiatrist performed surgery upon the elderly client who had severe peripheral vascular disease. Gangrene developed within 7 days and the client’s leg was amputated. This podiatrist only maintained insurance coverage in the amount of $100,000.00, and this amount was tendered by the doctor’s insurer. Estimates for rebuilding the client’s home to be handicapped accessible were $50,000.00, and Medicare claimed a subrogation lien of approximately $30,000.00, leaving the client a victim twice over.

In this case, a young woman tore her Achilles tendon which the podiatrist allegedly repaired. When the tendon ruptured a second time, the patient was brought into the operating room at which time the hospital refused to allow the podiatrist to perform the surgery in that he did not have privileges to perform that surgery. Eventually an orthopedic surgeon repaired the tendon and the client is doing well.

In this case, an emergency room physician failed to diagnose necrotizing fasciitis of the client’s leg and discharged her with a “groin strain.” Several days later, she was in the hospital for the start of 60 days of near death treatment in intensive care, about 12 surgeries, hyperbaric oxygen, and physical therapy. She is now disabled and has lost partial vision in 1 eye due to the infection and coma. With only $1 million dollars of insurance coverage, the client decided not to gamble with a trial and take the settlement offer rather than attempt to seek an excess verdict which was likely.

The podiatrist of a 58 year old  woman with longstanding diabetes failed to properly diagnose and timely treat an infected foot ulcer, which resulted in the amputation of her big toe and metatarsal bone. It was also proven that the podiatrist had changed his records to hide the malpractice.

The podiatrist of a 54 year old women with brittle diabetes and extensive peripheral vascular disease failed to adequately address the blood flow through the leg before applying a restrictive cast.  It was demonstrated that the podiatrist failed to properly examine and obtain the vascular disease in the patients leg before the application of a cast that chocked off blood flow to the  foot leading to gangrene.  Despite heroic measures by her subsequent vascular surgeon and podiatrist, a below knee amputation was performed. The matter settled after a jury was selected and sworn in.

The podiatrists of a 43 year old female failed to appropriately perform and manage bunion surgery resulting in fusion of the first metatarsal-phalangeal joint.  She will ultimately require a salvage procedure to restore the joint to a functional level.  Additionally, plaintiff was prepared to prove that the informed consent forms for the procedure were forged. The suit was resolved the day of jury selection.

---

NORTH CAROLINA: Poor Surgical Result But No Causation

This potential client had an extremely poor surgical result following bunionectomy surgeries and was seen by several subsequent doctors. These doctors told him that her foot required total joint replacements due to complications from the initial surgery. When our retained experts reviewed the medical records and x-rays, it was obvious that the patient did have severe complications but none of the experts could tie in the complications suffered by the client to the surgeries performed by the initial doctor. Therefore causation, or the required need to associate the alleged negligence to the resulting damages could not be proven.

---

FLORIDA: "Sausage Toes" In And Of Itself Not Negligence

This potential client complained of weak toes and limited motion following hammertoe repair surgery. The subsequent treating doctors advised that the surgeries should never have been performed. When our retained experts reviewed the medical records and x-rays, the operative report displayed a medical basis for the surgeries and the x-rays revealed the procedures were properly performed. Swollen or sausage toes are an extremely common and known complication of hammertoe surgery and this was disclosed in the surgical consent form. Under these circumstances, the experts could not find liability as to the surgeon, that is, they could not conclude that there was a breach in the standard of care. Complications from surgery do not mean the doctor wass negligent under specific case related circumstances.

---

FLORIDA: Statute Of Limitations Prevents Case Filing

This potential client complained of several skin lesions to the podiatrist for many years. The doctor treated this as a fungal infection and as dry skin. On several occasions antibiotics were prescribed. The patient’s complaints would come and go over time so she stopped seeing this podiatrist. Approximately five years later, the patient was seen by a new podiatrist who examined a recurrent lesion (a highly disputed issue) and immediately biopsied the lesion with a finding of sarcoma. Despite this, and due to the allegations that the biopsied lesion was a different lesion than originally seen by the first podiatrist, the matter was time barred and no case was pursued.

---

OHIO: Could Not Conclude That The Surgery Caused The Complaints

This potential client complained of prolonged symptoms in her feet following bunion surgeries with a total joint implant. There was no doubt that the patient had post-operative complaints but the matter was whether those complaints were the result of physician negligence. Doctors seen following the surgeries “suggested” that the symptoms were caused by the implants themselves and not the surgeries performed. Despite the above, and the key to a successful litigation, is that we could not conclude that there was a negligent nexus between the client’s complaints and the care, treatment, and surgery rendered by the doctor. In other words, despite seeing the outcome, we could not legally and medically trace it back to his negligence.