.jpg)
Senior Trial Partner Rosaleen T. McCrory, Partner Elizabeth J. Sandonato, and Associate Edmund T. Rakowski obtained a Defense Verdict in a Queens County Supreme Court matter arising from a 2021 left superficial femoral and posterior tibial arterial angioplasty. The plaintiff underwent a left lower extremity angiogram with balloon angioplasty of the superficial femoral artery, with access obtained through the right common femoral artery under ultrasound guidance. Two days later, the plaintiff returned reporting recurrence of rest pain.
The following day, the plaintiff underwent a repeat left lower extremity angiogram, during which an attempt was made to gain access through the right femoral artery. Upon ultrasound-guided assessment, a stable pseudoaneurysm was identified. The angiogram was then performed through the left common femoral artery, during which dissections of the superficial femoral artery were managed with angioplasty and stenting.
After closure of the groin access site, while still in the procedure room, the plaintiff became hypotensive and complained of leg and abdominal pain. It was determined that there was active extravasation from the right common femoral artery at the site of the pseudoaneurysm. The plaintiff developed clots occluding the right lower extremity arteries and, after transfer to the hospital and the performance of a thrombectomy, the plaintiff ultimately underwent a right below-the-knee amputation and transmetatarsal amputation of the left foot.
Plaintiff alleged a failure to diagnose and treat the pseudoaneurysm and a failure to admit him to the hospital, claiming the amputations would have and could have been avoided in a hospital setting. MCB established that the pseudoaneurysm was not diagnosable until identified during the second performance of the angiogram, was stable, and did not require immediate treatment and/or hospital admission. MCB further established that performing the procedures in a hospital setting would not have changed the outcome. Plaintiff’s expert conceded that referral to interventional radiology and outpatient treatment were appropriate. Prior to trial, plaintiff made a $12 million settlement demand. The jury ultimately returned a defense verdict in favor of MCB’s client.