Surgery stated not performed

[rmet4nzkx]

I have the report the Doctor submitted to the hospital stating that the right ovary was removed in hole with sized notated. As for the left the report states that it was removed in two separate pieces stating sizes.

The lab report from the Doctor states a whole right ovary was examined with size and a hole left ovary was examined with size and the findings.

The Doctor is still stating that he removed them and one of the ultra sounds is from a Doctors office that he sent her to that knew the ovaries were removed but stated the ultra sound shown other wise.

As for the Doctor that now is doing the up coming surgery when they asked my wife if she still had her ovaries she stated at this point I don’t know. This doctor does not know about the bilateral because we don’t want to be sent back to the original Doctor which has already happened since the other Doctors did not want to touch her after reading her entire medical history.

What you are saying is that the doctor removed what he thought were 2 ovaries, 1 removed whole and 1 removed in 2 parts and confirmed by a PATHOLOGIST, that is the "Lab" report, this raises another question re the competence of the pathologist, not the surgeon. Examination by a pathologist is far more precise, as long as there is no error in ID of the tissue samples, than an Ultrasound. As I said before, cysts can be very tricky and sometime continue to grow even after the ovaries are removed. Did your wife have a diagnosis of PCOS? Were her hormonal levels monitored post operatively or did she receive hormone replacement therapy? Many questions would arise from this new evidence but are beyond the scope of these forums, which is why, you will still need to do as I first advised, consult with a med mal attorney and they will have the records reviewed. Please do this or get a second opinion before subjecting her to any further surgery.

[booboohal]

My wife had a partial hysterectomy in the early nineties due heath problems. The bilateral three years ago was due to a demoid cyst in the right ovary with simple cysts in the left. Yes she was placed on hormone patches and then was switched over to pills. My wife experienced the same problems regardless of the milligrams or type of hormones. Her main complaint while on hormones was severe headaches, once she stopped taking the hormones the headaches stopped with no complications or heat flashes.

Yes, during one of the recent exams she had blood work done to see if she was producing hormones, which she is. She has now been off the prescribed hormones for a little over two years by her own accord.

The surgery that is now scheduled is to remove a complex cyst of 4cm that has a blood supply and is located on the outside of her right ovary. As for the left ovary she has some simple cysts that her system should take care of over time. The surgery is to just remove the complex cyst its self.

[deadlock]

If the Doctor reported removing both ovaries three years ago and my wife now finds out she still has both ovaries is this medical malpractice?

From the information that you have provided so far, it doesn't sound as if the first surgeon would be considered negligent of misdiagnosis or negligent in treatment.

This forum can help you to understand malpractice based on the information that you provide. No one can diagnose or make recommendations about what you should do. Of course you can and should consult an attorney if you believe that you have a claim.

[rmet4nzkx]

It was clearly apparent from OP first post that there it was unlikely to be malpractice by the surgeon because those in the health care professions understand the routine verification of excised surgical tissues by a pathologist and that an ultrasound is not the gold standard. It is appropriate to refer OP to a second opinion and to a med mal attorney for a case review before further surgery, that is not making a diagnosis. Asking further questions is also appropriate but in this case still doesn't change my first response. A qualified medical reviewer will know immediately the role of the pathologist in these data.

[deadlock]

It was clearly apparent from OP first post that there it was unlikely to be malpractice by the surgeon because those in the health care professions understand the routine verification of excised surgical tissues by a pathologist and that an ultrasound is not the gold standard. It is appropriate to refer OP to a second opinion and to a med mal attorney for a case review before further surgery, that is not making a diagnosis. Asking further questions is also appropriate but in this case still doesn't change my first response. A qualified medical reviewer will know immediately the role of the pathologist in these data.

Those of us who are in the medical field do recognize the second and third opinion have been obtained as stated in this persons first post. The need at this point is to identify not the pathology but the the diagnosis before and after. The pathology report and the treatment are irrelevant to his case.

Most of us know what a potential claim might be. That is the first step in evaluating a POTENTIAL CASE. These steps are essential to a malpractice case.

[lealea1005]

Those of us who are in the medical field do recognize the second and third opinion have been obtained as stated in this persons first post. The need at this point is to identify not the pathology but the the diagnosis before and after. The pathology report and the treatment are irrelevant to his case.

Most of us know what a potential claim might be. That is the first step in evaluating a POTENTIAL CASE. These steps are essential to a malpractice case.

I'm sorry, I disagree. The pathologic evaluation of the specimen(s) provided by the original surgeon ARE important to properly evaluate the case. Actually, the results may help to clear up any confusion by her current treating Physician. They should be considered along with diagnosis, treatment, etc., for evaluation of any med-mal case.

OP, please do yourself a favor and fully inform your wife's current surgeon of her ENTIRE medical history. You are doing him/her, as well as yourself, a disservice if you don't.

[Mr. Knowitall]

There's sufficient grounds for concern that it makes sense for your wife to consult a medical malpractice lawyer, taking with her all of the medical records she has. The stuff that's being hashed out here? Any decent malpractice lawyer will have a medical professional available to review the medical records and treatment history to determine what happened with a lot more certainty than you can get here.

[deadlock]

I'm sorry, I disagree. The pathologic evaluation of the specimen(s) provided by the original surgeon ARE important to properly evaluate the case. Actually, the results may help to clear up any confusion by her current treating Physician. They should be considered along with diagnosis, treatment, etc., for evaluation of any med-mal case.

OP, please do yourself a favor and fully inform your wife's current surgeon of her ENTIRE medical history. You are doing him/her, as well as yourself, a disservice if you don't.

Since this is a legal forum and not a medical forum the information a member provides in answer to questions about a potential case. The pathology report is not significant at this point. Perhaps you might wish to offer your services on diagnosing and pathology on a forum where that is offered.

If you have ever done any screening for potential malpractice and/or defense in tort law you would know what the first step is in order to identify a potential claim.

If you were a registered nurse you would also know that nurses are not licensed to diagnose or interpret findings on a pathology report. Speculation on that issue is to be done by a professional who is licensed to do that.

What this person does with this surgeon is not the business of anyone on this forum.

[lealea1005]

Since this is a legal forum and not a medical forum the information a member provides in answer to questions about a potential case. The pathology report is not significant at this point. Perhaps you might wish to offer your services on diagnosing and pathology on a forum where that is offered.

If you have ever done any screening for potential malpractice and/or defense in tort law you would know what the first step is in order to identify a potential claim.

If you were a registered nurse you would also know that nurses are not licensed to diagnose or interpret findings on a pathology report. Speculation on that issue is to be done by a professional who is licensed to do that.

What this person does with this surgeon is not the business of anyone on this forum.

Gosh, why so hostile? Please read my post again. I was not diagnosing, nor interpeting findings. I was, however, pointing out ALL information (including pathogy reports/findings) in relation to this case should be provided, and is equally important, in evaluating whether the OP has a malpractice case. As a previous poster stated, when she consults a med-mal lawyer, she should take ALL records with her.

As for my credentials, they've been verified and aren't the subject of this thread.

[deadlock]

Gosh, why so hostile? Please read my post again. I was not diagnosing, nor interpeting findings. I was, however, pointing out ALL information (including pathogy reports/findings) in relation to this case should be provided, and is equally important, in evaluating whether the OP has a malpractice case. As a previous poster stated, when she consults a med-mal lawyer, she should take ALL records with her.

As for my credentials, they've been verified and aren't the subject of this thread.

You must get a lot of hostility thrown at you. I cannot imagine why you sense hostility when I clarify the forum and clarify the intent of medical malpractice.

Also, you may want to consider that I am not interested in you credentials. Never asked for them nor am I challenging your statements as being correct or incorrect. It is you who stated you are a registered nurse.

And in the legal content of interpreting medical statements and telling someone to go tell their wife's surgeon this or that is beyond the scope of nursing practice. Any state board will clarify that for anyone who wants to check it out.

I suggest that you are defense about your statements being correct or not correct. Read these words-

I am not interested in the correctness of your statements. I am concerned that you offer your advice in areas that you are not liscensed to make comments about as a registered nurse.

Google state board of nursing new jersey- read the competencies. See if you have been liscensed to provide information as a registered nurse about what "you think" they should do. I am telling you that you might want to check out the nurse practice act in your state before you argue with me about what your credentials are.

U don't seem to get it and I have tried to inform you before, I don't care what your credentials are. I know what mine are and I know I am not authorized by my state board of nursing to diagnose and interpret surgical procedures and pathology reports.

The boards of nursing are in business to prevent harm to the public for the unauthorized practice of giving medical advice and interpretations of reports.