On the morning of April 22, 1996, defendant Robert Tenny, M.D., performed a left carotid endarterectomy on 74-year-old Mary Baumgartner, which eventually led to her death. Following her surgery, Mrs. Baumgartnfer was brought to the recovery room, and within a half hour developed neurologic signs and symptoms highly suggestive of a dangerous obstruction of the carotid artery in the area of surgery. These signs necessitated rapid return to the operating room for immediate exploration of the surgical site looking for a blockage. Instead, Dr. Tenny ordered a variety of tests, and then he left to perform an elective procedure on another patient. The test results all supported the idea that there was in fact a thromboembolism which impaired the flow of blood into the left side of Mrs. Baumgartners brain Ü a reversible condition with prompt surgery.
Dr. Tenny disregarded these neurologic signs and symptoms and the results of the tests that had been done, and ordered the nurses to infuse heparin, a blood thinner, into Mrs. Baumgartner, in the mistaken belief that heparin could dissolve an existing thrombus. The heparin therapy caused extensive bleeding from the surgical site, placing Mrs. Baumgartner into a downward cycle of starting and stopping of the heparin, resulting in resumed bleeding with each reinstitution of the therapy. Dr. Tenny delayed Mrs. Baumgartners transfer to the intensive care unit, denied that the bleeding was significant, even though the nurses thought it was, and allowed Mrs. Baumgartner to linger and deteriorate for two days before she was found by a nurse with blood oozing from underneath her left neck dressing, pooled under her head, saturating the sheets and gowns on her bed, and spurting from a hole at the surgical site at the base of her neck.
The plaintiffs had two vascular surgeons who testified that Dr. Tenny must have had a realization of the imminence of danger to Mrs. Baumgartner when the signs and symptoms of carotid artery blockage developed post operatively, and particularly when the tests he ordered came back confirming that there was a blockage, but that Dr. Tenny acted in reckless disregard of this information and Mrs. Baumgartners safety by not taking her back to surgery immediately. The case was settled before the plaintiffs planned motion to amend to add punitive damages was filed.
Prior to her surgery, Mrs. Baumgartner had severe underlying coronary artery disease and other medical problems which had left her partially disabled. She was widowed, not working, and had two adult children, who were the plaintiffs in the action. There was a limited amount of evidence that Mrs. Baumgartner had meaningful conscious responses on a few occasions before her death 10 days after surgery. The settlement was for $750,000, including $150,000 for the survival action brought by Mrs. Baumgartners estate for her conscious pain and suffering between the time of the surgery and the time of her death; approximately $80,000 for medical expenses; and the remaining $520,000 for the wrongful death action on behalf of Mrs. Baumgartners two adult children. The wrongful death settlement included $100,000 of capped non-pecuniary loss, plus $420,000 of pecuniary damages including the items set forth in the case of Wentling v. Medical Anesthesia Services, 237 Kan. 503 (1985), including loss of the decedents services, attention, marital, parental, or filial care, protection, training, guidance, education and loss of complete family. This case is yet another example of the significant value that the so-called Wentling damages can bring to a wrongful death case where there is evidence of a good relationship between the decedent and the heirs-at-law, even where, as here, the decedents life expectancy was limited even in the absence of negligence.
The case was handled by Vic Bergman, of our office, working cooperatively with our good friend and referring attorney Gary Matthews, who took the lead in the preparation of the case.
