This article will discuss and identify one of the lawsuits that has been filed against St. Louis neurosurgery institute. On July 8, 2012, a neurosurgeon named Richard A. Bailey, was accused of malpractice after he reportedly failed to treat a woman for a tumor she had in her brain. The woman died shortly thereafter.
Laser Spine Institute Lawsuit
St. Louis neurosurgery institute claims to be the only medical care facility in the state that is specifically dedicated to providing for-profit healthcare services to individuals with neuromuscular and musculoskeletal conditions. However, the complaints filed against the institute say that they are no longer providing such services after a recent medical negligence case. According to the complaint, on several occasions, between 2005 and 2009, a number of patients who visited the St. Louis surgery center for various ailments were subjected to sub-par care by the staff. These included failing to administer adequate anesthesia or treatment, as well as allowing non-certified employees to work in the operating room. The complaints further claim that this negligence was responsible for the death of a woman who was under anesthesia at the time of the surgery.
The cause of death was originally ruled as a complication of a previously diagnosed brain tumor.
However, with the help of a team of medical experts, it has been determined that the woman in question actually died of a combination of complications arising from back pain and the post-surgical stress caused by the surgery. Although the number of deaths attributed to poor care has since been reduced, the number of people that die due to poor spinal surgeries is still very high. For this reason, it is important to address and ensure that the issue of spine surgeries is not allowed to fester and cause more damage than good.
This particular case is one of many in which the St. Louis institute has been found guilty of practicing negligence.
In fact, as many people that have lost loved ones to poor back surgery since the late 1980s, the lawsuits and the legal issues associated with them are becoming increasingly more common. This is especially true when you consider the number of people that are seeking compensation due to their inability to work and the financial strains that such a lifestyle places on families.
Now, the question that remains is whether or not the St. Louis institute of Plastic Surgery can be found at fault for the Alfred Bonati case?
The answer to this question should be obvious – if the hospital’s own records revealed that the center was aware of the numerous risks that were associated with the surgery, then it could certainly be argued that they did indeed know about the potential dangers of allowing Alfred to have surgery. After all, the surgeon who performed the procedure, Robert Kandel, had previously admitted that he had “known about the possible problems [for several years]” with regards to Alfred’s condition. It should also be noted that although Alfred’s parents had initially signed a consent form authorizing the procedure, it was not until two months after the surgery that they notified the institute of the potential harm that may have resulted from the surgery. It is also worth noting that in the months prior to the surgery, Alfred had also informed his parents that he planned to undergo an MRI at the St. Louis institute.
If there was any doubt left concerning the validity of the St. Louis medical malpractice verdict, it completely disappears when one considers the fact that the trial judge specifically allowed the jury to award Alfred a total amount of just over $1 million.
Given these circumstances, it is simply impossible for the defense to argue that the money was irrelevant or that the amount was irrelevant to whether or not Alfred suffered brain damage due to the St. Louis institute’s negligence. Given that the jury saw fit to award Alfred this huge sum of money, it is simply ludicrous to suggest that the medical malpractice verdict is somehow valid. The court of law found that there was actually substantial evidence that the defendants provided Alfred with sub-par care, which resulted in his suffering from brain damage as a result of their negligence.