Cory and Pete obtained a $1.2 Million Dollar recovery from medical malpractice jury verdict in Prince William County in Manassas, Virginia. The client is a Loudoun County Sheriff’s Deputy who was injured in a car accident and suffered injuries to his right ankle. He was treated by Dr. Cyrus Press of Center for Advanced Orthopaedics in Woodbridge. Dr. Press sent the client for an MRI, which revealed a possible lateral talus fracture. The radiologist recommended a CT scan to confirm the fracture. Dr. Press did not inform the client about the possible fracture and did not recommend a CT scan. Instead, he simply monitored the client’s condition over a period of months, while encouraging him to go to physical therapy. During this time, the client’s pain worsened, and he was unable to bear weight on the injured ankle.
After several months of worsening pain, and specifically after Dr. Press’ comment to the client and his wife that the pain must be in the client’s head, the client sought a second opinion. The second opinion revealed the talus fracture which had been suggested on the original MRI. Surgery to repair it was performed almost immediately, but the fracture had been neglected for too long, preventing a successful union. Ultimately, the client required two more surgeries, one to fuse his ankle in order to mitigate the arthritic pain, and the other to lengthen his Achilles tendon which had contracted due to lack of use. The client was left with a fused ankle, arthritis, and a limited range of motion, making it difficult for him to perform the duties of his job, to play sports with his children, and to perform household maintenance such as climbing a ladder and mowing the lawn.
Cory and Pete called an expert, Dr. Francis McGuigan of the Foot and Ankle Center at Georgetown University Hospital, who testified that a CT scan is the gold standard for confirming the existence of a fracture, and that there was a short window of opportunity to repair a displaced lateral talus fracture to avoid severe problems in the future. He testified that it was more likely than not that surgery to repair the fracture within the window of opportunity would have prevented the need for the subsequent surgeries, as well as the arthritis and other limitations suffered by the client.