Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 12-11-2024

Case Style:

Roxine Lachney v. James L. Gates, M.D., et al.

Case Number: 259,930

Judge: Lowell C. Hazel

Court: Ninth Judicial District Court, Rapides Parish, Louisiana

Plaintiff's Attorney:


Click Here For The Best Alexandria Personal Injury Lawyer Directory



Defendant's Attorney: Randall M. Seeser

Description:


Alexandria, Louisiana personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a medical malpractice claim.


Prior to the events leading to this malpractice lawsuit, Plaintiff, Roxine Lachney ("Ms. Lachney"), suffered from various women's health issues for years. From 2009 through 2012, Ms. Lachney treated with various doctors for symptoms and diagnoses ranging from lower abdominal pain, interstitial cystitis, frequent urination, excessive bleeding, and chronic pelvic pain. In November of 2012, after trying Depo-Provera and oral contraception, Ms. Lachney presented with excessive bleeding to Dr. K. Rabie at the Rabie Clinic for Women, who concluded she had dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

On January 23, 2013, Ms. Lachney began treating with Defendant, Dr. James Gates, at the Alexandria Women's Center. She presented with complaints of menometrorrhagia (excessive uterine bleeding) and explained her history of bleeding and of taking birth control. Dr. Gates noted her history of interstitial cystitis and abnormal uterine bleeding. He assessed her and noted that her uterus was "boggy, tender retroflexed uterus consistent with adenomyosis."

The medical records state that Ms. Lachney, who had one child, did not want any more children and wanted "definitive" treatment, which according to Dr. Gates, was a hysterectomy. Dr. Gates claimed he counseled Ms. Lachney on alternative treatments, but says she rejected the alternative treatment options. However, Ms.
Lachney denied such discussion and testified Dr. Gates encouraged her to undergo the hysterectomy.

On February 4, 2013, Dr. Gates performed a vaginal hysterectomy on Ms. Lachney, who was twenty-nine years old at the time. Her uterus was removed and sent to pathology, the results of which indicated that Ms. Lachney did not have adenomyosis.

The hysterectomy did not resolve all of Ms. Lachney's symptoms. A few months later, Ms. Lachney returned to Dr. Gates complaining of abdominal and pelvic pain. She was treated with medication in the months following, until November 25, 2013, when Dr. Gates performed a diagnostic laparoscopic surgery and removed adhesions and her right ovary (in a procedure known as a right salpingo oophorectomy). Similar to the hysterectomy, Dr. Gates and Ms. Lachney's version of events leading to the right oophorectomy differ.

Ms. Lachney continued to have symptoms in the months following the right oophorectomy. In May of 2014, Ms. Lachney returned to Dr. Gates, complaining of chronic pain and requesting definitive treatment. Dr. Gates performed a left oophorectomy (removal of the left ovary) on June 6, 2014. The pathology report revealed that the left ovary had a benign follicular cyst.

Unfortunately, Ms. Lachney suffered serious complications following the left oophorectomy. She became feverish after surgery and feces leaked from her vagina. On June 9, 2014, Dr. Gates and a general surgeon performed surgery on her again and found a pelvic abscess with a fistula. She continued having health complications from the left oophorectomy and began treating with a different doctor, who performed another surgery on her in January of 2015 to repair the fistula.

On April 29, 2015, Ms. Lachney filed a medical malpractice claim against Defendant, Dr. Gates, asserting that he breached the standard of care in performing three surgeries on her: the hysterectomy, the right oophorectomy and the left oophorectomy. The medical review panel issued its opinion on July 21, 2017, and said, in part, that "in light of the sworn affidavit testimony submitted by the claimant, Roxine Lachney, there is a material issue of fact, not requiring expert opinion, which the panel cannot resolve without making a credibility determination, bearing on liability for consideration by the court." Following the medical review panel proceeding, Ms. Lachney filed a petition for damages.

* * *

The standard of care in a medical malpractice claim is based on a locality standard. In a malpractice action based on the negligence of a physician licensed in Louisiana, where the defendant practices in a specialty and the alleged acts of medical negligence raise issues peculiar to that specialty, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the degree of care ordinarily practiced by physicians within the same medical specialty.

* * *

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE. STANDARD OF CARE. The case involves an appeal concerning whether the trial court erred by applying a locality standard rather than a national standard of care in a medical malpractice lawsuit concerning gynecological surgeries.

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE. SURGICAL STANDARD OF CARE. The court had to determine if the defendant deviated from the standard of care in performing a hysterectomy and subsequent ovarian surgeries without adequate pre-surgical testing and informed consent.

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE. INFORMED CONSENT. The appeal addressed whether the defendant obtained valid informed consent from the plaintiff before proceeding with gynecological surgeries, including a hysterectomy and right salpingo-oophorectomy.

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE. BREACH OF STANDARD OF CARE. The dispute revolved around whether the defendant's failure to conduct comprehensive diagnostic evaluations before proceeding with irreversible surgeries breached the standard of care required in the medical specialty of obstetrics and gynecology.

Key Phrases Legal malpractice lawsuit. Medical review panel. Standard of care. Informed consent. Manifest error standard.

Outcome: Summary judgment in favor of Defendant affirmed on appeal.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: