Pearson v. Bridge

544 S.E.2d 617 (2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D examined Pearson (P), then a twenty-six-year-old, who had known problems with gallstones. D recommended to remove P's gallbladder. D recommended a laparoscopic surgery instead of an open procedure. D mistakenly cut the common bile duct instead of the cystic duct. D converted the surgery to an open procedure and attempted to repair the common bile duct by inserting a stent. After the surgery, a stricture formed. This required a second surgery to redo the repair and again stent the bile duct. P was referred to another doctor in 1993. P then had another surgery to replace the stent in her bile duct. The stent was replaced several times because of blockage. In April 1994, P appeared to be doing well, and the stent was removed. Another stricture developed, and Pearson underwent surgery to insert another stent. That stent was removed in November 1995. At the time of trial in 1997, P had not had any further strictures. During trial P's medical expert testified there were four scenarios whereby P could incur future medical expenses, (1) More strictures and complications. Cost: $9,473.78; (2) Another cholangioplasty would need to be performed. Cost: $20,107.56; (3) Surgery was required Cost: $38,683.62; (4) Liver transplant Cost: $237,128.39. D did not object to #1 but did to the remaining expert testimony. P's expert testified there was a twenty-five to thirty percent chance scenario number two would occur. The expert then testified scenario number three would occur only if the number two stent procedure failed. He further testified if number two and three occurred and failed, P might need a liver transplant. Ps other medical expert testified, 'to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, P will not need a liver transplant -- that is greater than 51 [percent].'The jury returned a verdict in favor of P for $755,000 in damages. D appealed over the admission of evidence of future medical damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed.