Sommers Schwartz attorney John Malone filed a medical malpractice lawsuit on behalf of a woman whose orthopedic surgeon performed a different knee operation than the one he recommended, and she consented to, leaving her with an unnecessary procedure and the likelihood of a far more extensive surgery in the future.
The claim centers on a straightforward patient-safety failure: the surgery performed was not the surgery recommended, consented to, or medically indicated by the plaintiff’s workup.
In December 2023, the plaintiff presented to an Oakland County orthopedic practice with bilateral knee pain that was most severe on the right side and specifically involved the patellofemoral joint, the joint between the kneecap and thighbone. Cortisone injections and gel treatments had stopped providing relief. Her surgeon examined her, reviewed radiographs, and concluded that her arthritis was isolated to the patellofemoral joint. He then ordered an MRI of her right knee. When the MRI confirmed severe degenerative changes confined to that compartment, he discussed moving forward with a right patellofemoral arthroplasty, a joint-sparing procedure in which only the worn kneecap joint surface is replaced. The plaintiff agreed to that surgery. There was no clinical or imaging basis to operate on any other compartment of her knee.
On March 12, 2024, the plaintiff went to the hospital for the planned right patellofemoral arthroplasty. Her surgeon did not perform that procedure. Instead, he performed a right medial unicompartmental arthroplasty, a fundamentally different operation targeting the inner side of the knee joint. That procedure had never been discussed with the plaintiff, was not supported by her imaging, and was not indicated by any clinical findings. A week later, the surgeon acknowledged the error in writing, stating that he “take[s] full responsibility” and attributing the mix-up to “clerical errors.”
The consequences of the wrong surgery extend well beyond an unnecessary recovery. Because the medial compartment of the plaintiff’s right knee was surgically altered, she is no longer a candidate for the isolated patellofemoral arthroplasty that would have addressed her actual condition. To treat the patellofemoral joint pain that brought her to the surgeon in the first place, she will most likely now require a total knee arthroplasty, a full knee replacement that is substantially more complex, carries greater risks, and involves a significantly harder and longer recovery than the procedure originally planned. In other words, the surgical error likely converted a targeted, joint-sparing operation into the need for replacement of the entire knee.
The standard of care required the surgeon to perform the procedure that was planned, communicated to, and agreed upon by the patient; to refrain from performing an operation unsupported by clinical or imaging findings; and to take all steps necessary to ensure the correct surgery was performed, including accurate communication with surgical staff and the hospital team. Had the correct procedure been performed, the plaintiff would have received the intended treatment for her existing knee pain and would not now face the likelihood of a more extensive knee replacement.
Our attorneys have been featured on local and national media outlets, including:
