In New York, an injured patient has 30 months to bring a lawsuit for alleged medical malpractice. However, in the case of a foreign object, the time limit is one year after discovery of the foreign object. The statute CPLR 214-a expressly excludes “a chemical compound, fixation device, or prosthetic aid or device.” In Walton v. Strong Mem’l Hosp., 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04786 (June 10, 2015), a catheter was intentionally placed in the plaintiff’s heart during surgery when he was three years old in 1986. A few days later, the catheter was removed, but a fragment was inadvertently left behind. Fast forward 20 years later, the plaintiff suffered an embolic stroke and a transient ischemic attack following the insertion of a pacemaker and replacement of a damaged heart valve, and the catheter fragment was discovered during a procedure to replace the battery in the plaintiff’s pacemaker.
The plaintiff alleged medical malpractice arising out of the alleged negligence in leaving the catheter fragment as a foreign body in his heart. The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, contending that the plaintiff was too late in bring his claim because it was beyond the 10-year limit on an infant’s medical malpractice claim limitation – that period expired in 1996. In addition, the defendants argued that the catheter fragment was not a foreign object.
The critical question became whether the catheter fragment was a foreign object or a fixation device. Traditionally, a foreign object has been defined as one “negligently ‘left’ in the patient’s body without any intended continuing treatment purpose.” See Rockefeller v. Moront, 81 N.Y.2d 560, 566 (1993). The trial court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the catheter fragment was not a foreign object because it was initially left in the plaintiff’s body intentionally with a continuing medical purpose. The appellate court agreed with the trial court but ruled that the catheter was a fixation device, since it was deliberately inserted into the plaintiff’s heart for the purpose of monitoring atrial pressure.
The Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in New York state, considered the following when reviewing this case:
Considering the above, the Court of Appeals, unanimously reversed the appellate court and ruled the catheter fragment that had been left in the plaintiff was a foreign object. The judges decided that because, similar to a clamp, a scalpel, or a sponge, was introduced solely to facilitate surgery and performed no securing or supporting role during or after surgery.
Are you an
Get specially curated clinical summaries delivered to your inbox every week for free
Please log in to ObGFirst to access this page
OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.
This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.
The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.
Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.
You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site