As Published In
Case: Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx v. Michael Xxxxx
Michael Xxxxx, M.D., P.C., Keith Xxxxx, Lenox Hospital Radiology & Medical Imaging Associates, PC, & Lenox Hill Hospital, No. XXXXX/01
Venue: Kings County Supreme Court
Judge: Marsha L. Steinhardt
Defendant Attorney: Joseph R. Cammarosano, Kopff, Nardelli & Dopf L.L.P., New York, NY (Lenox Hill Hospital, Michael Xxxxx, Michael Xxxxx M.D., P.C.); Edward V. Schwendemann, Peltz & Walker, New York, NY (Keith Xxxxx, Lenox Hill Radiology and Medical Imaging Associates P.C.)
Facts & Allegations:
In early 2000, plaintiff, 24, a waiter, sought evaluation of right-shoulder pain that was ostensibly the result of an injury he had sustained several years earlier. Plaintiff presented to orthopedist Dr. Michael Xxxxx, at Lenox Hill Hospital, in Manhattan. Xxxxx determined that radiological studies were necessary, so Plaintiff was referred to radiologist Dr. Keith Xxxxx, of Lenox Hill Radiology and Medical Imaging Associates P.C., in Manhattan. Xxxxx performed an MRI, and he and Xxxxx determined that the test’s file showed no abnormalities. However, based on his own clinical findings, Xxxxx opined that Plaintiff was suffering impingement of his right shoulder.
On April 13, 2000, Xxxxx performed an arthroscopic procedure that addressed the shoulder.
Plaintiff continued to experience right-shoulder pain. He sought the evaluation of another orthopedist, who reviewed Plaintiff’s MRI film and determined that hangman’s pain was being caused by a Hill-sacks lesion an impression fracture of the numeral head. The lesion has not been treated, and Plaintiff continues to experience right-shoulder pain.
Plaintiff commenced a medical-malpractice split against Xxxxx; Xxxxx’s practice, Michael Xxxxx M.D., P.C.; Lenox Hilt Hospital; Tocsin; and Lenox Hill Radiology and Medical Imaging Associates. He alleged that cousin misdiagnosed his condition, that Xxxxx performed an unnecessary surgical procedure, and that Xxxxx and Xxxxx’s respective practices and professional affiliates were vicariously liable for their actions.
Plaintiff claimed that Xxxxx and Xxxxx misread his MRI film. He also contended that he was not suffering shoulder impingement and, as such, that the arthroscopic surgery was unnecessary.
Xxxxx and Xxxxx contended that the MRI film did not reveal a Hill-Sachs lesion. Xxxxx claimed that he performed an intra-operative examination of Plaintiff’s right humeral head and that he did not detect a lesion. He also claimed that the arthroscopic surgery was necessary and that it was properly performed.
Injuries / Damages:
- arthroscopy; shoulder
- Plaintiff’s right-shoulder arthroscopy included decompression of the subacromial area; release of the shoulder’s coracoacromial ligament; an arthroplasty, or reshaping, of the shoulder’s acromioclavicular joint; and a partial acromionectomy, which involved excision of a portion of the acromion — the triangular bone that constitutes the point of the shoulder.
- Plaintiff claimed that the surgery was unnecessary and that he experiences residual injuries that include pain, shoulder instability and a limitation of the shoulder’s motion range. He also contended that the surgery involved structural alterations that wilt diminish the treatability of his Hill-Sachs lesion, which has not been addressed. Surgery might improve Plaintiff’s condition, but Plaintiff has expressed hesitance regarding further surgery.
- Plaintiff sought recovery of unspecified damages for his past and future pain and suffering.
Shortly before the scheduled start of jury selection, the parties agreed to a $ 185,000 settlement, which was paid by Xxxxx and Lenox Hill Radiology and Medical Imaging Associates. The remaining defendants did not contribute to the settlement.
[Correction (11/2/05): Payment was actually attributed to Xxxxx, and was not shared by Lenox Hill Radiology and Medical Imaging Associates.]