Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 17, 1994 TAG: 9403170098
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: STATE
SOURCE: KATHY LOAN STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: CHRISTIANSBURG LENGTH: Medium
The five-man, two-woman jury deliberated for 45 minutes after hearing three days of testimony and arguments.
Diane Whited, 35, had sued Dr. David Meincke and Dr. William Isenhour, alleging they had committed medical malpractice by removing her reproductive organs during what she said she understood was to be exploratory surgery.
But Meincke testified Wednesday that he believed the surgery was necessary to relieve Whited's pelvic pain and because of his concern about her enlarged uterus.
And Meincke refuted Whited's statements that she had told him she did not want a hysterectomy. He said when he explained there was a possibility of a hysterectomy, Whited gave her OK.
Bill Eskridge, an Abingdon lawyer representing Meincke and Isenhour, said after the verdict that the doctors felt "relief, but also vindication."
Eskridge said the doctors declined to be interviewed after the verdict because it had been a tiring trial, and because Meincke was on call Wednesday night.
"I think what it boiled down to is, I think the jury got the impression that the doctors thought they were sincere in trying to treat her pain," said Jimmy Turk, one of two Radford lawyers representing Whited.
A consent form, signed by Whited at the hospital before the November 1989 surgery, mentioned hysterectomy would be performed if necessary. Whited had told the jury she understood the procedure would be done only if a life-threatening illness, such as cancer, were found.
Meincke said that when Whited confronted him during a follow-up visit with questions about the need for the hysterectomy, "I was flabbergasted. I did not know what to tell her."
A Michigan doctor who consults on wrongful hysterectomy cases and a North Carolina doctor who treated Whited after her hysterectomy had testified that they believed the hysterectomy was unnecessary.
Both said the doctors' diagnosis of a slightly enlarged uterus and filmy adhesions were not sufficient. Those findings, they said, did not present significant enough reason to justify the hysterectomy.
But Eskridge told the jury not to be swayed by the testimony of the Michigan doctor, whom he called "a hired gun" receiving $350 an hour for coming to testify, and by the North Carolina doctor, who admitted she believed there were entirely too many hysterectomies performed.
Meincke said he did not plan to conduct a hysterectomy when he began the exploratory surgery until he discovered the enlarged uterus, which he said likely was a source of Whited's pelvic pain.
He consulted Isenhour, who was concerned about the adhesions, and both agreed a hysterectomy was needed, Meincke said.
Dr. Debra Clapp, a Salem gynecologist, testified that the deep pelvic pain Whited was experiencing usually involves the uterus, and not the vagina. Dr. Linn Parsons, the North Carolina gynecologist, had testified that she successfully treated Whited by injections deep into the vaginal walls about 1 1/2 years after the surgery.
Meincke said he didn't believe the pain Whited was experiencing when she visited the North Carolina doctor was the same for which he had treated her by removing her uterus.
Whited's lawyers had keyed on accepted standards of care gynecologists generally abide by, which outlined several possible treatments for pelvic pain where there is not significant pathology.
A hysterectomy should have been done, the lawyers said, after other treatments such as pain medication and breaking up the adhesions had been tried.
"I think it was a very reasonable alternative," Clapp said of the hysterectomy.
Even though the doctors didn't try the other alternatives before deciding on the hysterectomy, Clapp said that did not constitute malpractice.
"It was not necessary to save her life . . . but it was a reasonble thing to do to improve her quality of life," Clapp testified.
In closing arguments, Turk and Clifford Harrison asked the jury to award Whited the $2 million she was seeking to send a message that unnecessary surgery would not be tolerated in the community. They told the jury the consent papers clearly said, "hysterectomy if necessary," and the evidence was clear that the procedure was not necessary.
Turk said after the verdict that Whited had earlier declined a $75,000 settlement offer.
"If I had to try it over again, I would do absolutely nothing different. I thought we presented an excellent case," Turk said.
Memo: NOTE: Shorter version ran in Metro edition.