Mazow/McCullough, PC Obtain Settlement For Young Woman Due to a Retained Foreign Object Left After Surgery

On May 4, 2004, the plaintiff, age 18 at the time, underwent an elective laparoscopy and lysis of adhesions at a hospital in Haverhill, Massachusetts.  The procedure began as a diagnostic laparascopy and during surgery was converted to a laparatomy.  Two nurses allegedly made the initial sponge count, and a different nursing team allegedly made the first and second close count.  The surgeon was allegedly notified that the sponge count was correct.  Over the next several months, the plaintiff developed complications.  She had frequent night sweats, abdominal pain, consistent fever and weight loss of around ten pounds.  In early 2006, she developed a lump in her groin.  Nearly one year after the surgery a CT scan revealed a collection in the mid-lower abdomen consistent with an abscess and a foreign body consistent with a surgical sponge.  Surgery was ordered immediately and she was admitted to the hospital and operated on that same day.  During the surgery, a laparotomy pad/surgical sponge was found soaked with a bilious colored greenish material and removed.  Cultures taken of the laparotomy pad revealed infections of klebsiella, oxytocin, enterococcus faecalis, enterococcus faecium and bacteriodes ovatus.  The abscess was irrigated which revealed two cavities.  Large soft sump drains were placed in the abscess cavities and passed through separate stab wounds in the abdominal wall.  An attempt was made to protect the adjacent small bowel by passing the tube through a portion of omentum and tucking the omentum into the abscess cavity so that there would be no contact between the small bowel and the sump drains.

Postoperatively, the plaintiff remained at the hospital until April 19, 2005 when a repeat CT scan of the abdomen was conducted to assure that no further abscess remained and that there was no evidence of small bowel leak.  On April 20, 2005, the drains began producing copious amounts of small bowel contents which indicated an abnormal opening in the intestine in communication with the drain and the skin.  Due to the high output, a second surgery was recommended.  At this point, the plaintiff requested a second opinion and asked to be transferred to the Massachusetts General Hospital.  The plaintiff was admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital on April 23, 2005 and ultimately required another surgery.  The surgery consisted of an extensive lysis of adhesions, small bowel resection and repair of enterotomy.  She also had an appendectomy because the appendix contained a fecolith which was thought to potentially dispose her to appendicitis in the future.  Furthermore, she had 15 cm of small bowel removed.  She remained at Massachusetts General Hospital until June 15, 2005 when she was discharged.

A lawsuit was filed against the hospital, the three nurses involved in the sponge count and the original surgeon.  The nurses all denied that they made an error in the sponge count.  However, during discovery, Mazow/McCullough obtained a copy of the Operating Room Nurse’s Notes which revealed that a team of different nurses participated in the initial sponge count and the final sponge count.  This was a deviation from the protocols established by the hospital and a violation of standard nursing procedures.

Click here to view the nurse’s notes.

Mazow/McCullough, PC was able to obtain Summary Judgment in regards to liability on behalf of its client.  Shortly after Summary Judgment was obtained, the insurer for the hospital offered to mediate the case and the matter was settled for $535,000.00.

This settlement was featured in Lawyer’s Weekly. Click here to view the article.

Dorchester District Court Judge Cites Expert Testimony of Kevin J. McCullough, Esquire in Finding that Commerce Insurance Company Violated the Consumer Protection Act, G.L. c. 93A

On March 20, 2009, Kevin J. McCullough, Esquire of Mazow/McCullough, PC testified at trial before Judge Sydney Hanlon in the Dorchester District Court.  Attorney McCullough was retained by the plaintiff, Arelis Beato to provide an expert opinion as to the investigation and claims handling practices of Commerce Insurance Company in regards to Commerce Insurance Company’s handling of Plaintiff’s first party Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) claim.  Judge Hanlon cited to and referenced Attorney McCullough’s expert opinion in the Court’s written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding the decision.  Based upon Attorney McCullough’s testimony the Court found that Commerce Insurance Company had in fact violated G.L. c. 93A (The Consumer Protection Act) and ordered that Commerce Insurance Company pay attorney fees in the amount of $20,000.00 and costs incurred by Plaintiff.

To read more about this case, please click here.

On July 12, 2007 Justin Crow was stopped in traffic on Route 114 in North Andover, Massachusetts. The two vehicles behind him collided and the car directly behind Mr. Crow violently collided into the rear of his vehicle. Mr. Crow’s seat snapped and he was pushed off of the road. Mr. Crow suffered neck and back injuries and was out of work for several months due to the collision. Despite the fact that the insurance companies of the two cars behind Mr. Crow’s vehicle both agreed that Mr. Crow did nothing to cause or contribute to the collision, neither company made any offers of settlement. Even after Mr. Crow filed a lawsuit and extensive material and discovery was exchanged between the parties involved, no settlement offers were extended to Mr. Crow to compensate him for his injuries. A few days before the trial date the insurance company offered to settle the case with Mr. Crow in exchange for a payment of $20,000.00. Mr. Crow rejected the unreasonably low settlement offer. On October 23, 2009, after a one week trial the Newburyport Superior Court jury returned a verdict for Mr. Crow in the amount of $75,253.17, plus interest and costs. Mr. Crow’s post trial motions for costs and expenses are still pending.

Justin Crow vs. Galina Zhevakin and Martin D. Johnson
Newburyport Superior Court Civil Action No.: 2007-01981B

The number one misconception people have in car-pedestrian accidents in Massachusetts is that if they don’t have the contact information of the person who hit them or if that person does not have automobile insurance then they can’t make a claim. That is not correct. If your struck as a pedestrian by somebody who does not have insurance or who has left the scene of the accident and you have your own automobile insurance coverage, you can still make a claim against your own insurance policy for your lost wages, your medical bills, and your pain and suffering.

Within the state of Massachusetts, the law recognizes the fact that an unborn child, a fetus, has recourse when they are killed or murdered due to an intentional act, an accident, or a collision. If an injury is suffered by a woman carrying a child and she loses that child, there may be a course of action there.  It is important to consult with an attorney about a course of action.