Latest News

Scott L. Mathless, of O'Connor McGuinness Conte Doyle Oleson Watson & Loftus LLP, successfully defended a bariatric surgeon from malpractice claims in which plaintiff alleged a “candy cane” complication following Roux en Y gastric bypass surgery that resulted in 16 months of pain and suffering and required a revision surgery. A “candy cane” is an elongated afferent loop, or Roux limb, emanating from the gastric pouch anastomosis, the creation of which is part of the Roux en Y gastric bypass procedure. The defense presented a strong case through the testimony of the defendant doctor, the doctor's spouse who assisted during the surgery, and an expert. The defendant doctor and his spouse both said the loop was cut 1 centimeter from the gastric pouch anastomosis. Plaintiff’s expert witness, who performed her subsequent gastric revision surgery, testified that he could not state how long an elongated loop was left by the defendant physician, although it was excessively long when he resected the limb 16 months later. The defendant expert opined that the roux limb was cut approximately 1 centimeter from the anastomosis and would have risked damage had it been cut any closer; thus, it was within acceptable bariatric surgery standards. The jury was convinced by the defense's evidence and expert testimony, unanimously finding in favor of the defendant surgeon, and his practice, after 45 minutes of deliberation. Congratulations to Scott and his team.

Bob Cypher, of O'Connor McGuinness Conte Doyle Oleson Watson & Loftus LLP, successfully defended an anesthesiologist from claims in which plaintiff alleged that he was caused to aspirate vomitus and gastric contents during induction and extubation, subsequently resulting in a prolonged stay in the intensive care unit of Hudson Valley/New York, Presbyterian Hospital, and causing bilateral foot drop. The medical condition at the center of this case, bilateral foot drop, is a neurological condition where a person experiences weakness or even paralysis in both feet. This makes it difficult to lift the front part of the foot and can affect walking and mobility. The defense presented a strong case through the testimony of the defendant anesthesiologist and experts in neurology, radiology, and anesthesiology. Mr. Cypher, with the assistance of his experts, utilized film studies to support the argument that no aspiration occurred during the medical procedure. . T he jury was convinced by the defense's evidence and expert testimony, unanimously finding in favor of the defendant anesthesiolog ist. Congratulations to Bob and his team for starting 2024 on a strong note and earning yet another defense verdict for a deserving client.