Senior Trial Partner Daniel Freidlin and Associate Christina Pingaro obtained a defense verdict in Suffolk County Supreme Court in an obstetrician/gynecologist case. Plaintiff, a then 51-year-old married female, presented to defendant obstetrician/gynecologist with a complaint of painful menstruation and heavy bleeding due to a fibroid uterus. Our client offered and performed a laparoscopic hysterectomy. At the conclusion of the operation, our client re-insufflated the pneumoperitoneum and retraced his surgical steps. He noted the ureters to be patent and peristalsing. The operative report did not, however, document identification of the ureters intraoperatively. Plaintiff argued that our client failed to properly visualize the ureters intraoperatively resulting in a ureteral transection and need for a laparotomy to re-implant the ureter. We argued to the jury that injury to the ureter is a known risk of hysterotomy, that the operative report documents that the appropriate surgical steps were taken to identify the ureter, that identification of the ureter is a basic principle of performing hysterectomy and is implied by taking these surgical steps, and that negligence cannot be implied by the subsequent development of an injury. The jury returned a defense verdict in under three hours.