His gastric bypass surgery had dire complications, and it goes to show that the gray areas of complicated cases lend themselves to questioning:
At the trial of Weis’s malpractice lawsuit yesterday, attorney Michael E. Mone asserted in his opening statement that two surgeons involved in the weight-reduction surgery disregarded warning signs that Weis was bleeding internally following the June 14, 2002, operation. Not until June 16, when a nurse suggested a test that reveals stomach leaks, did doctors Charles M. Ferguson and Richard A. Hodin realize that Weis was bleeding internally and spilling stomach contents into his abdomen, causing massive infection, Mone said . . .. . . But the surgeons’ lawyer, William J. Dailey Jr., said in his opening statement that Weis’s internal bleeding, while unfortunate, is not unusual for this type of surgery, in which 5 percent to 10 percent of patients have serious complications and 1 out of 100 dies. Ferguson had directly briefed Weis about the dangers, including internal bleeding, and Weis understood, the lawyer said.
Dailey said Ferguson, Hodin, and numerous other Mass. General doctors were aware that Weis was bleeding internally to some degree, but they believed that the bleeding would stop without surgery. He said they were worried that Weis might have developed a blood clot in his lung, called a pulmonary embolism, which would have made a second surgery extremely dangerous.
Related posts:
- The Weis trial continues
- Notre Dame coach Charlie Weis’ malpractice lawsuit
- Charlie Weis: Malpractice trial reactions
- A juror faints, the defendants rush to help: A mistrial in the Charlie Weis case
- Charlie Weis takes the stand
- Charlie Weis: Surgery against medical advice?
- The Charlie Weis malpractice trial
{ 19 comments }
What does Tom Brady’s testimony have to do with the surgery besides having the jury ogling and being swayed by a “star”?
This surgery is NOT low risk and should only be done on those who fail everything else. When a 0.5-1% mortality rate is quoted it is true not something to be ignored. One point is that I see that charlie has kept off the weight. I guess he won’t be thanking the surgeon’s for the “worst mistake” in his life that in reality probably prolonged his life by decades.
The biggest problem I have with this case is that the judge allowed a freakin nurse, with zero operating experience to offer her two cents on what “should have been done”
Of course the nurse, who has ZERO experience as a surgeon, gets up there and confidently says that the patient needed emergency surgery.
What a freaking joke. I thought the legal system required an “equivalent peer” i.e. a real surgeon, not some nurse wannabe, to testify about malpractice? This nurse’s testimony is absolutely irrelevant and should be stricken from the record.
It’s doubtful that the nurst was there to testify as to the actual standard of care.
Tom Brady’s testimony would go to the pain and suffering Weis experienced, his ability both before and afterward to do his job, etc.
I don’t know why you guys think reporting on trials is any more accurate or informative than reporting on medicine.
Did charlie keep the weight off yes or no ?
If I run over your foot, breaking it, leading to a year’s worth of rehab, constant pain for that year, etc., should you be compensated for your injuries even though you have now healed?
Yes or no?
If I electively stand in the middle of the road on a blind curve wearing dark clothes at night accepting known potential risks do I get to complain when you run over my foot?
Yes or No?
Weight reduction surgery has very real risks.
No one is denying there are risks. They’re saying that the fact that he bled internally for 30 hours after a gastric bypass operation and the resultant injuries he suffered were the result of negligence. There are risks in driving through an intersection. Doesn’t mean it’s not negligence on the part of another driver if he runs the light and hits you.
I’m not sure how you can disagree, or say he’s right for that matter, without reviewing the evidence.
“If I electively stand in the middle of the road on a blind curve wearing dark clothes at night accepting known potential risks do I get to complain when you run over my foot?”
Does the fact that the surgery was elective mean he’s not entitled to treatment at the standard of care?
CJD: How do you have any idea what the “standard of care” for this procedure is?
Fact: The mortality rate for this surgery is 0.5-1.0%.
Fact: Operating on the morbidly obese is a huge risk factor. I am not surprised conservative measures were used initially. You have no understanding of this procedure and post-op bleeding.
Now I have little doubt the jury will award this man $$$, especially after a “star” New England quarterback does his “testifying”. Mr Weis has lost a large amount of weight (I have heard upwards of 100 lbs) and most likely can enjoy a longer life. But hey let’s sue the docs for known complications right? Even though in the long run they probably added years to decades onto his lifespan.
CJD is not interested in facts, just spin.
“Now I have little doubt the jury will award this man $$$, especially after a “star” New England quarterback does his “testifying”. “
Of course you do, because you have little understanding of what goes on in a trial.
As for spin v. facts, until someone here has seen the medical evidence, their take on the merits of the case is nothing but spin. Or do all you Anon’s go by the name Bill Frist?
CJD, As a physician that does ER trauma call working in a high risk practice setting I am in the courtroom about 10 times a year for civil and criminal cases. All begrudgingly because of subpeona by the DA or defending myself against frivolous cases. I know many lawyers, and I am in the courtroom more than most of them.
And yes the “spin” is just as important, or more important than the “facts”.
C’mon CJD you know the plaintiff attorney thinks it is very important plus that a handsome articulate 3 time superbowl winner will testify. If you can’t acknowledge that then you have lost the very last ounce of your dwindling credibility.
CJD:
If you really think Tom Brady testifying is about “facts” than you truly are intellectually bankrupt.
PS: Maybe tom can sign a few autographs after testifying, after all he probably is the most well known person in the Boston area…spin, spin, spin.
Seriously, are you guys this stupid? Brady spent more time with Weis than anyone but his wife prior to this surgery. He was with him every day.
Who better to testify as to the effect on his life? Every trial involving a physical injury has witnesses to this effect. No, not every witness is Tom Brady, but it’s not like it’s Weis’ fault that Brady is who he is. Is it great to have a witness like him – of course. But that’s simply the effect of working on famous people – there is a good chance their friends are famous too.
I know you all spend oodles of time reviewing trials, so you know this, but perhaps you needed a refresher.
“I know many lawyers, and I am in the courtroom more than most of them.”
Actually, doc, you’re not. Because as a witness you’re kicked out of the trial for most of it. Remember? And a criminal trial and a civil trial don’t have as much in common as you’d like to think.
If the surgery was otherwise successful, save for the bleeding that was obviously stopped — and the degree of discomfort and the length of time it was a factor were essentially the same; notwithstanding,the bleeding. And if his overall condition has obviously improved, then I don’t see any damage.
Oh CJD how can you be so stupid. If this was Tom Smith instead of Tom Brady he sure would not be tesitfying. Also your complete lack of knowledge as to the risks of gastric bypass is astounding.
“Actually, doc, you’re not.”
And you know this? Have you read the court transcripts? Actually, I go to court every day that I am on trial even though it costs a lot. Frivolous lawsuits are expensive to fight and the patients are losing while I am there. Remember the patient, right?
” If this was Tom Smith instead of Tom Brady he sure would not be tesitfying. Also your complete lack of knowledge as to the risks of gastric bypass is astounding.”
Actually, again, he would. There is always someone to testify as to the plaintiff’s condition both before and after. Think about it.
And I make no claims to know the risks of gastric bypass. Learn to read.
“Actually, I go to court every day that I am on trial even though it costs a lot.”
If you’re only a witness for the DA, you’re not in the courtroom. If it’s your own case, then yes, you’ll be there for the whole thing.
And now, they’ve declared a mistrial! Why? Because a juror had a medical emergency, and before the other jurors could be removed from the room, two of the defendents rushed to the aid of the juror. Some of the jurors witnessed the doctors attending to the victim. Weis’ attorney knew that the doctors would now appear to be compassionate, caring physicians instead of the BAD DOCTORS he to make them out to be. So he asks and is granted a mistrial.
The facts matter not in this and many medical malpractice cases. It often boils down to who puts on the better show. And if there is a bad outcome, then there must have been malpractice, right?
Laypeople should be removed from the equation, because they just cannot be expected to understand the complex nature of medicine. We need health courts made up of a mixture of physicians and lawyers, similar to tax courts. Look at the facts and remove the emotion, tears and absurdity of the SHOW.
Comments on this entry are closed.