$300,000 Settlement in Virginia Surgical Malpractice Case
- Glen Sturtevant
- 4 days ago
- 2 min read
Richmond medical malpractice attorneys at Rawls Law Group obtained a $300,000 settlement for a patient who required a second surgery after alleged negligence during a laparoscopic hemicolectomy.
The Case Details
During a colonoscopy, the patient's gastroenterologist identified a 4 cm precancerous polyp and marked its location with an endoclip and India ink before referring the patient for surgical removal. The patient underwent a laparoscopic hemicolectomy to remove the polyp.
However, the subsequent pathology report showed neither the polyp nor the endoclip were present in the removed tissue. Despite having undergone major abdominal surgery, the polyp remained in the patient's colon.
The Patient's Experience
A year later, a follow-up colonoscopy confirmed the original polyp was still present, requiring the patient to undergo a second surgery with a different surgeon. The polyp was successfully removed and found to be benign.
Legal Complexities in Medical Malpractice
This case illustrates the challenges involved in Virginia medical malpractice litigation. Establishing that medical professionals failed to remove a clearly marked polyp required detailed medical expert analysis and examination of surgical procedures.
Patient Impact
The patient experienced:
An initial surgery that failed to achieve its purpose
Extended recovery from the first procedure
Uncertainty about their medical condition for a year
Additional medical expenses for corrective surgery
Time away from work and normal activities
The polyp was ultimately removed successfully by a different surgeon and determined to be benign.
About the Settlement
The case was resolved on July 22, 2025, for $300,000. The attorneys representing the plaintiff were Glen Sturtevant, Brewster Rawls, and Melissa Kouri from Rawls Law Group in Richmond.
Medical malpractice cases involving surgical procedures often require extensive medical expert testimony and detailed analysis of care standards. This case demonstrates the importance of proper surgical protocols and the consequences when those standards are not met.