Williams v. Avart

Defense Verdict

Date of Verdict: March 12.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Montgomery No. 2016-13726.

Judge: Thomas P. Rogers.

Type of Action: Medical malpractice.

Injuries: Nerve injury.

Plaintiffs Counsel: R. Emmett Madden, ThePhillyLawyers, Philadelphia.

Plaintiffs Expert: Jeffrey K. Miller, hand surgery, Morristown, New Jersey.

Defense Counsel: Kevin H. Wright, Kevin H. Wright & Associates, Lansdale.

Defense Expert: Pedro K. Beredjiklian, orthopedic surgery, Philadelphia.

Comment:

On June 19, 2013, plaintiff Maylanna Williams, 35, an administrative assistant, underwent a carpal tunnel release procedure on her left hand, of her nondominant arm. The procedure was performed by an orthopedic surgeon, Mark Avart, in Wynnewood. Williams alleged that Avart was negligent in performing the surgery, resulting in damage to her median nerve.

Williams sued Avart. Williams alleged that Avart failed in his standard of care toward her and further alleged that his failure constituted medical malpractice. Williams' expert in hand surgery testified that Avart severed the common digital nerve intraoperatively, which was a deviation from the accepted standard of medical care. The expert further faulted Avart for failing to detect the severed nerve following the procedure.

The defense maintained that Avart provided proper and appropriate medical treatment to Williams, and that at all times he acted within the applicable standard of medical care.

The defense's expert in hand surgery testified that nerve injury following a carpal tunnel release procedure is not a deviation from the standard of care. According to the expert, it is well known and established in medical literature that a nerve injury is a known complication following any type of surgical intervention. Even with the best of care, and even with the best intentions, a nerve injury can and does occur with unfortunate frequency, the expert stated. Many patients that do have carpal tunnel release surgery do have postoperative paresthesia and numbness; therefore, failure to recognize the partial injury does not constitute a deviation of the standard of care, the expert concluded.

Through Oct. 15, 2013, almost four months after the surgery, Williams followed up with Avart; at the time of her last visit, Williams continued to complain of pain in her left hand and wrist. In January 2014, Williams presented to another orthopedic surgeon; she complained of constant numbness, tingling, and pain in the median nerve distribution of her left hand. It was determined that her median nerve had been lacerated, and that she required surgery.

On Aug. 4, 2014, Williams underwent a revision of her left hand, an excision of neuroma of the partial median nerve injury and a repair of the common digital nerve. Following the procedure, she treated with physical therapy and consulted the surgeon.

Williams testified that due to her injuries, she has never been able to type on a keyboard at the level of efficiency at which she previously performed, nor at the level that her job demands. Additionally, she has difficulty caring for her five children. Williams continues to suffer pain, numbness and tingling in her left hand. She sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.

The jury found that Avart was not negligent.

This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel. Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to calls for comment.

—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication