A man left with incontinence and partial paralysis in the legs after spinal surgery received a $1.25 million settlement in his Essex County medical malpractice suit on Aug. 2.
Orlando Figueroa was 61 years old when he first saw neurosurgeon Antonios Mammis at University Hospital in Newark in April 2017, according to the plaintiff’s lawyer, James P. Kimball of Seigel Law in Ridgewood. When he sought treatment, Figueroa had significant pain in his lower back that radiated into his legs, Kimball said. Figueroa used a walker or wheelchair at times and he had sporadic incontinence, according to Kimball.
Mammis suggested implanting a spinal cord stimulator for Figueroa’s condition, but did not order any diagnostic studies of the spine before the surgery on May 22, 2017, Kimball said.
In the days after surgery, Figueroa experienced significant incontinence and difficulty walking, Kimball said. He returned to the hospital on May 26, 2017, and received a CT scan that led to a determination that he was experiencing significant spinal cord compression and that the spinal cord stimulator had to be removed, Kimball said.
Figueroa underwent surgery to remove the stimulator, and had additional laminectomies where narrowing of the spinal canal was found to create more room for the spinal cord, Kimball said. Despite the emergent surgery, Figueroa was left with significant dysfunction of his bladder and the loss of use of his lower extremities, which continues, Kimball said.
While Figueroa had some paralysis before the device was implanted, his loss of function was more severe afterward, Kimball said. Outside, Figueroa can’t walk significant distances and has increased his reliance on his wheelchair, Kimball said.
Figueroa filed a lawsuit against Mammis, the hospital and Rutgers University.
Figueroa’s neurosurgery expert said that Mammis’ failure to obtain a preoperative thoracic magnetic resonance image violated the standard of care of the patient and placed the spinal cord stimulator paddle in a spinal canal too narrow to accommodate it, according to Kimball.
The defendants’ neurosurgery expert said that neurologic deficits and deterioration are a known risk of spinal cord stimulator placement. The defense expert opined that although a thoracic MRI may be obtained preoperatively to assess the thoracic spinal cord, it is not necessarily required in all cases. The defense expert said observations during placement are often used to ascertain whether the spinal canal is large enough to accommodate the stimulator, according to Kimball.
The plaintiff’s significant preexisting conditions were a mitigating factor, Kimball said. The defendants also claimed Figueroa was partly to blame for waiting five days after having the device implanted, Kimball said. The defense claimed that if Figueroa had sought treatment within 24 hours, his loss of function might have been less severe, according to Kimball.
The $1.25 million settlement was reached with New Jersey on behalf of the defendants on May 13, after the case was scheduled for trial. The settlement was disbursed on Aug. 24.
Gary L. Riveles of MacNeill, O’Neill, Riveles & Spitzer in Cedar Knolls, who represented the defendants, declined to comment on the settlement.