The North Carolina Court of Appeals has reversed a summary judgment favoring a medical doctor, deciding the patient/plaintiff did present enough information to indicate a question of material fact on the issue of whether her surgeon should have performed more testing prior to a second surgery to remove a cancerous mass in her arm.
Plaintiff alleged the doctor violated the accepted standard of medical care for his type of practice when he failed, following an initial, failed surgical procedure to conduct further testing to ascertain exactly what type of mass he was operating on. Plaintiff alleges that because it was a specific type of mass in which the complex system of roots spread out across nerves and an artery – and not a simple lipoma, as the doctor reportedly assumed – the second surgery was botched. She suffered nerve damage that affects her daily life, she said, and had to undergo yet another surgery to actually have the mass fully removed.
In Seraj v. Duberman, the appellate court ruled the trial court should not have granted summary judgment to the defendant doctor. Instead, there is sufficient evidence for the case to go to trial. Continue reading