Retained Surgical Sponge Case Summary
Running head: RETAINED SURGICAL SPONGE
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Estate of Genrich Versus Ohio Insurance Company
Retained Surgical Sponge
1
RETAINED SURGICAL SPONGE
2
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Estate of Genrich Versus Ohio Insurance Company
Retained Surgical Sponge
In October, 2013 The Joint Commission (TJC) released a sentinel event alert pertaining to the prevention of retained surgical items. These retained items could have serious consequences for the patient. According to The Joint Commission Sentinel Event Alert, 2013 Issue 51, incidents of retained objects reported to TJC totaled 772 from 2005 to 2012, sixteen resulting in death and 95 percent of these cases requiring additional treatment. Over the course …show more content…
This fear sparked my interest in researching a legal case involving a retained surgical sponge ultimately resulting in the patient’s death. I will present the case, provide an analysis, and the outcome of the Estate of Genrich versus Ohio Insurance Company, 2008 WI 67.
Case Summary
In July 2003, a male patient underwent abdominal surgery for an ulcer. He developed an infection and on August 8, 2003 it was determined a surgical sponge was left in the abdomen.
He was taken to the operating room in order to remove the retained sponge. After this surgical procedure, he did not recover from the complications of sepsis and the patient died on August 11,
2003. His wife filed a law suit on August 9, 2006 against the doctors and staff involved in the initial surgery (Estate of Genrich v. Ohio Ins. Co., 2009).
RETAINED SURGICAL SPONGE
3
Analysis
In my opinion, given the facts of this case, the wife had legal grounds for a lawsuit.
Hardwired systems are in place in the operating room to prevent the adverse event of a retained surgical sponge. The surgical count is a standard procedure in operating rooms. As stated …show more content…
Based on this information and upon a initial review of this case, I had no doubt the wife would receive monetary compensation for her lawsuit. The incident of a retained surgical sponge is negligent, and according to Stiller,
Thompson, and Ivy (2010), fail to uphold the standards of patient safety and quality, resulting in the liability of the health care professional.
Outcome
To my surprise, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled in favor of Ohio Insurance
Company based on the fact that the state of Wisconsin has a three year statute of limitation. To make this judgement even more complex, the wife filed her lawsuit on August 9, 2006, two days under the three year anniversary of his death (Estate of Genrich v. Ohio Ins. Co., 2009).
However, the court concluded that his injury resulted from the retained sponge, was the start of the three year limitation. The initial surgery occurred on July 24, 2003. The court determined that the negligent act occurred during the initial surgery. The sponge that was left in the
RETAINED SURGICAL SPONGE
4
abdomen caused the infection which ultimately resulted in the patient’s death (Estate of
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Estate of Genrich Versus Ohio Insurance Company
Retained Surgical Sponge
1
RETAINED SURGICAL SPONGE
2
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Estate of Genrich Versus Ohio Insurance Company
Retained Surgical Sponge
In October, 2013 The Joint Commission (TJC) released a sentinel event alert pertaining to the prevention of retained surgical items. These retained items could have serious consequences for the patient. According to The Joint Commission Sentinel Event Alert, 2013 Issue 51, incidents of retained objects reported to TJC totaled 772 from 2005 to 2012, sixteen resulting in death and 95 percent of these cases requiring additional treatment. Over the course …show more content…
This fear sparked my interest in researching a legal case involving a retained surgical sponge ultimately resulting in the patient’s death. I will present the case, provide an analysis, and the outcome of the Estate of Genrich versus Ohio Insurance Company, 2008 WI 67.
Case Summary
In July 2003, a male patient underwent abdominal surgery for an ulcer. He developed an infection and on August 8, 2003 it was determined a surgical sponge was left in the abdomen.
He was taken to the operating room in order to remove the retained sponge. After this surgical procedure, he did not recover from the complications of sepsis and the patient died on August 11,
2003. His wife filed a law suit on August 9, 2006 against the doctors and staff involved in the initial surgery (Estate of Genrich v. Ohio Ins. Co., 2009).
RETAINED SURGICAL SPONGE
3
Analysis
In my opinion, given the facts of this case, the wife had legal grounds for a lawsuit.
Hardwired systems are in place in the operating room to prevent the adverse event of a retained surgical sponge. The surgical count is a standard procedure in operating rooms. As stated …show more content…
Based on this information and upon a initial review of this case, I had no doubt the wife would receive monetary compensation for her lawsuit. The incident of a retained surgical sponge is negligent, and according to Stiller,
Thompson, and Ivy (2010), fail to uphold the standards of patient safety and quality, resulting in the liability of the health care professional.
Outcome
To my surprise, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled in favor of Ohio Insurance
Company based on the fact that the state of Wisconsin has a three year statute of limitation. To make this judgement even more complex, the wife filed her lawsuit on August 9, 2006, two days under the three year anniversary of his death (Estate of Genrich v. Ohio Ins. Co., 2009).
However, the court concluded that his injury resulted from the retained sponge, was the start of the three year limitation. The initial surgery occurred on July 24, 2003. The court determined that the negligent act occurred during the initial surgery. The sponge that was left in the
RETAINED SURGICAL SPONGE
4
abdomen caused the infection which ultimately resulted in the patient’s death (Estate of