My question involves medical malpractice in the state of: Texas
Suppose these are the facts:
1) Patient complains of pain following a specific
2) Orthopedic surgeon contemplates two separate procedures based on MRI report, but only mentions ONE procedure to patient, who agrees to the one procedure.
3) Surgeon submits operative plan to hospital in which both procedures are cited, and, surgeon does perform the second procedure, without the patient's knowledge nor consent. This 2nd procedure was not due to any life-theatening condition, nor any pressing need, but, is a procedure described as usually performed along with the first procedure.
4) The first procedure (disclosed and agreed to) consisted of removing frayed portions of connective tissue - the 2nd procedure (not disclosed nor agreed to) consisted of severing a healthy ligament, and excising 1 cm each of facing ends of two healthy bones.
5) Patient experiences excrutiating pain and significant disability due to the second procedure, and remains ignorant about the cause for 6 months, until patient retrieves hosptical records and discovers that the 2nd procedure was contemplated AND performed without his consent.
5) Doctor explains (6 months AFTER surgery) that the 2nd procedure was pre-emptive (to avoid patients complaining about still having pain after surgery), and "only takes 15 minutes".
6) No photos were taken of the target ligament nor target healthy bone-ends prior to the second procedure.
7) The activity cited by patient in the original complaint is in no way related to any symptoms for which the 2nd procedure would be indicated.
Does anyone here have experience or prior study concerning a patient's rights to be informed about ALL contemplated procedures prior to elective, non-life-threatening, surgery? Does consent to have one non-altering-of-healthy-tissue procedure imply consent to other procedures that severe/remove healthy tissue for pre-emptive purposes?
Before contemplating legal action, is there any medical association that can hear complaints of this nature and reguire surgeons to present themselves and explain this kind of behavior? Is there such a thing as "censuring" a surgeon for performing additional, contemplated, and un-necessary, procedures without the patient's consent?
How does one go about locating an expert in arthroscopic surgery who is willing to studiously examine the facts and report honestly and thoroughly, without any prejudice favoring the practice of orthopedic surgery, his expert opinion as to the relative consequences of the 2nd procedure, as related to the painful and disabling consequences to the patient.