George Mason University John Fry Surgical Procedure Case Discussion HEALTHCARE LAW – SUMMER 2020 CASE NUMBER ONE: John Fry underwent a surgical procedure

George Mason University John Fry Surgical Procedure Case Discussion HEALTHCARE LAW – SUMMER 2020

CASE NUMBER ONE:

John Fry underwent a surgical procedure to replace his left hip. The procedure was going to use a new type of ball joint and Dr. Bake was to perform the procedure. During the operation a representative of the medical device company, (Cook ortho) Mike Brown, that manufactured the ball socket, was present to assist Dr. Bake on the mechanics of using the new device. After opening up the left hip and while removing the original hip bone a small piece on the original bone broke off. Once Dr. Bake thought the original bone was cleared the representative of the device company, Mike Brown instructed Dr. Bake on how the new ball joint was inserted during all the trials. After considerable effort by Dr. Bake and Brown, to hammer in the ball, it was fitted into the hip socket. A month later, after PT and normal healing time, Mr. Fry was experiencing extensive pain all the way down his left leg. He went to Dr. Bake who contacted Brown to see if others with the device were having issues. Brown said they have had 35 operations and no issues. Dr. Bake said to Fry just scar tissue. After two months, Fry had even more pain, returned to Bake who called Brown again and same answer, no problems. Dr. Fry ordered an MRI the result showed a bone sliver in the hip area had pierced the nerves to the leg and the ball would have to be removed to get the bone sliver out. Mr. Fry comes to your law firm and you are the medical consultant, what would you advise on the negligence Fry might allege against the hospital, Cook and Bake and Brown.

Can Fry prove negligence against hospital, or Bake and Brown?

Can the lawyers argue “res ipsa” to allow Fry to expand the case against Bake and Brown?

Please be complete in your analysis and findings and always remember – any finding or outcome must be support by cases in law.