Rodriguez v. Surgical Assocs. P.C.

Decision Date05 January 2018
Docket NumberNo. S-16-698.,S-16-698.
Citation298 Neb. 573,905 N.W.2d 247
Parties Francisca RODRIGUEZ, an individual, appellant, v. SURGICAL ASSOCIATES P.C. and Greg Fitzke, M.D., an individual, appellees.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

Steven H. Howard, of Dowd, Howard & Corrigan, L.L.C., Omaha, for appellant.

James A. Snowden and Elizabeth Ryan Cano, of Wolfe, Snowden, Hurd, Luers & Ahl, L.L.P., Lincoln, for appellees.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Kelch, and Funke, JJ.

Funke, J.

This appeal arises from an order entered on a general jury verdict for Greg Fitzke, M.D., and Surgical Associates P.C. (collectively appellees) in a medical negligence claim. Francisca Rodriguez claimed that Fitzke was negligent in failing to timely diagnose and treat her, which resulted in her suffering additional injuries.

Rodriguez claims that the court committed reversible error in denying certain jury instructions and allowing witnesses to provide expert opinions that were not disclosed before trial. Because we do not find merit in Rodriguez' claims, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND
1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF RODRIGUEZ' HOSPITALIZATION AND TREATMENT

On April 16, 2012, Rodriguez was referred to a hospital in Lincoln, Nebraska, due to stomach pains, fever, and nausea.

Fitzke is a general surgeon and a partner in Surgical Associates who has surgical privileges at the hospital. Upon examining Rodriguez, Fitzke determined that she needed an immediate cholecystectomy

, a surgical procedure to remove her gallbladder. Rodriguez' gallbladder was gangrenous and had attached to other organs around it.

While her gallbladder was being removed, it ruptured and released stones and purulent material, or pus, into Rodriguez' abdominal cavity—an unavoidable risk of the surgery. Fitzke cleaned the abdomen and inserted a drain in Rodriguez' hepatic fossa to allow any accumulation of tissue fluids from the procedure to drain

out of the body and be monitored. During or as a result of the surgery, however, Rodriguez' intestine was also perforated, a fact not known by Fitzke at the time.

Later that evening, Rodriguez appeared to be recovering well with only minor pain from the surgery. On April 17, 2012, Rodriguez began experiencing significant pain and her status changed from outpatient to inpatient. Fitzke and Raymond Taddeucci, M.D., another partner with Surgical Associates, testified that her condition was consistent with the extent of her acute cholecystitis

and the known complications of the surgery.

Rodriguez' vital signs were relatively stable on April 17, 2012. But, around 11 p.m., Rodriguez' blood pressure became hypotensive, nearly to the point of being classified as shock, and her heart rate increased into tachycardia

. At both 3 and 4 a.m., on April 18, Rodriguez' vitals again exhibited significant hypotension, meeting the criteria for shock, and tachycardia. Additionally, she had an elevated respiratory rate, tachypnea; elevated white blood cell count; and decreased oxygen saturation level and urinary output. She was also reported to be confused.

The surgeon on call for Surgical Associates ordered Rodriguez transferred to the intensive care unit and engaged internal medicine services for further treatment and evaluation. She also received a broad-spectrum antibiotic, in addition to the antibiotic that she was given shortly after surgery; intravenous fluids; and oxygen.

A physician's assistant stated in a 4 a.m. progress note that Rodriguez had diffuse tenderness in her abdomen. He also stated the following as potential causes for many of Rodriguez' symptoms: dehydration, blood pressure medications, and early mild sepsis—potentially resulting from the gallbladder material that spilled into her abdomen during surgery or a developing pneumonia

. At about 7 a.m., an internal medicine doctor ordered a CT scan

with unspecified contrast of Rodriguez' abdomen because of her pain and hypotension. X rays performed that morning showed that there was free air in Rodriguez' abdomen, which was expected after the procedure, and new developing lobe infiltrates in the left lower lung, which suggested the development of pneumonia.

At about 8 a.m., Fitzke examined Rodriguez and reviewed her laboratory tests. He noted that her abdomen was soft, tender, and distended but that there were no signs of peritonitis

. He decided not to perform exploratory surgery, and he canceled the order for a CT scan. He testified that administering intravenous fluids or oral contrast for the CT scan would have been risky because of Rodriguez' decreasing kidney function and developing pneumonia and that the CT scan was unlikely to produce useful information, based on both his physical examination of her and the proximity to surgery. Instead, he decided to continue treating Rodriguez with additional intravenous fluids and antibiotics. He stated that he discussed canceling the CT scan with the internist on duty later that morning.

Throughout the day, test results indicated that Rodriguez' condition was declining into severe sepsis. She continued to experience hypotension, tachycardia

, confusion, both an elevated respiratory rate and white blood cell count, and both decreased oxygen saturation levels and urinary output. Rodriguez was also diagnosed with renal failure and exhibited results indicating that she might be suffering organ failure in her heart, brain, and liver.

Between 2 and 3 a.m., on April 19, 2012, the nurses called an internal medicine doctor because Rodriguez was in shock. The doctor placed a central venous catheter

into a large vein going down toward Rodriguez' heart. In addition, he gave Rodriguez two vasopressor drugs designed to elevate the blood pressure to a safe level.

The doctor also ordered a "HIDA" scan

, which tests whether the liver and biliary system are functioning normally, because biletinged fluids were beginning to exit from the drain in Rodriguez' hepatic fossa. The results of the HIDA scan

showed that fluid was passing from the liver to the intestine, ruling out cholangitis. However, it was otherwise equivocal regarding a leak from the biliary system, which would be treated by a non-surgical procedure, and an intestinal leak, which is a surgical emergency requiring intervention.

When Rodriguez was returned to the intensive care unit at about 12:20 p.m., she again went into shock. Rodriguez was placed on heavy sedation, to allow an endotracheal tube

to be inserted directly into the lungs, and placed on a ventilator to help oxygenate her tissues. She was administered 80 percent oxygen, which meant she was going rapidly into overt respiratory failure and clear septic shock. Beginning on the evening of April 18 and throughout April 19, 2012, the nurses also reported several times that Rodriguez' abdomen was distended.

Despite the deterioration in her condition, Rodriguez experienced slight improvement in some of her test results. Many of her issues from the previous day, however, persisted. At 12:20 p.m., Robin Allen, M.D., an internist, stated at the conclusion of her progress report: "? Need to go back to OR."

At about 1:15 p.m., Fitzke examined Rodriguez. He stated in his progress report that her abdomen was not rigid or distended. He also indicated that she might have delayed sepsis from the gross purulence released during her surgery but that there were no signs of ascending cholangitis

. Further, he wrote that a CT would still be "of low yield" for identifying a bile leak. He concluded that he would follow Rodriguez' progress and that the sepsis protocol should continue to be followed.

Fitzke testified that his primary consideration at that time was that Rodriguez had sepsis, resulting from the ruptured gallbladder

, and that his secondary concern was a bile duct leak. He did not consider an intestinal perforation to be existent because she was not exhibiting peritonitis or succus entericus in her drain; while Rodriguez was not necessarily getting better, factors indicated a positive response to therapy and a potential for improvement. He discussed the factors present with Allen, another treating physician, and believed that she agreed he did not need to return Rodriguez to the operating room.

At 5 p.m. on April 19, 2012, Fitzke transferred care of Rodriguez to Taddeucci, because Fitzke had to be out of town for a medical meeting the following day. Taddeucci testified that he and Fitzke discussed Rodriguez' condition; Fitzke was not sure what was causing Rodriguez' issues, but they discussed ascending cholangitis

, pneumonia, and a bile leak as potential causes.

That evening, John Duch, M.D., a nephrologist, noted that Rodriguez' abdomen was soft but distended with diminishing bowel sounds. He also wrote: "Septic shock

. She is on broad-spectrum antibiotics and empiric vasoactive medications, and surgery is following." Additionally, Rodriguez began presenting a fever for the first time since her operation, and her urine output decreased again.

By the morning of April 20, 2012, the other improvements from April 19 had also reversed. Taddeucci examined Rodriguez at about 12:30 p.m. and stated that she was now experiencing peritonitis

. Further, the pulmonologist and critical care doctor informed Taddeucci that they had done everything they could but that her condition was not improving. Taddeucci determined that a second surgery would be necessary to address her condition, which he performed at around 2:30 p.m.

The surgery started as an exploratory laparoscopic procedure

, intended to discover possible explanations for Rodriguez' decline. During this surgery, however, Taddeucci discovered the perforation in Rodriguez' small intestine. At that point, the nature of the surgery changed to an anastomosis procedure, which is an operation to remove a section of the intestine. Taddeucci also extracted about two quarts of bilious fluid, which had leaked from the intestine into Rodriguez' abdominal cavity. Rodriguez tolerated the procedure well, and there were no complications.

Ultimately,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Cruz v. Lopez
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • November 9, 2018
    ...(1992).7 Id.8 See Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 297 Neb. 1, 899 N.W.2d 227 (2017).9 See, Rodriguez v . Surgical Assocs., 298 Neb. 573, 905 N.W.2d 247 (2018) ; Gaytan v. Wal-Mart, supra note 4; Eastlick v. Lueder Constr. Co. , 274 Neb. 467, 741 N.W.2d 628 (2007).10 Rodriguez v. S......
  • De Vries v. L & L Custom Builders, Inc.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • December 17, 2021
    ..., 309 Neb. 950, 962 N.W.2d 909 (2021).42 Id.43 Wilkins v. Bergstrom, supra note 12. See Neb. Ct. R. § 6-802.44 Rodriguez v. Surgical Assocs. , 298 Neb. 573, 905 N.W.2d 247 (2018).45 Lahm v. Burlington Northern R. Co., supra note 4. See, also, First Nat. Bank North Platte v. Cardenas , 299 N......
  • Lindsay Int'l Sales & Serv., LLC v. Wegener
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • September 7, 2018
    ...an issue should be decided as a matter of law. Id. Whether a jury instruction is correct is a question of law. Rodriguez v. Surgical Assocs., 298 Neb. 573, 905 N.W.2d 247 (2018). When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of ......
  • Brisso v. Brisso
    • United States
    • Nebraska Court of Appeals
    • April 12, 2022
    ... ... supports his or her assigned errors. See Rodriguez v ... Surgical Assocs. , 298 Neb. 573, 905 N.W.2d 247 (2018) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT