Transoral Incisionless Fundoplication Case

Plaintiff, a long time suffer of GERD, gastroesphageal reflux disease, having failed conventional PPI medication and semi-conventional endoluminal surgery (Bard Endocinch), was reccomended to undergo Esophyx Transporal Incisionless Fundoplication, and endoluminal surgery, as an alternative to the gold standard surgical approach (Nissen Fundoplication).  This procedure, done by endoluminal approach (through and within the  esophagus), was relatively new.

After surgery, the "recreated" and supposedly reinforced lower esophageal sphincter (the valve that keeps partially digested stomach contents from back-washing up the esophagus) failed.  It was further adduced at trial that the surgeons sutured the crus of the diaphragm to the esophagus and entrapped the vagus nerve which resulted in gastroparesis-a dysfunction of the stomach which serious affected the plaintiff's ability to digest certain foods, severely restricting his dietary intake and activities of daily living. 

Proof of these departures was made through extensive use of diagrams and videos, some manufacturer of the device used in the surgery-created for marketing purposes-as well as videos from the surgery itself.  Live in front of the jury still captures of the depiction of the failed valve demonstrated the departure.  The jury found that the main treating surgeon, in light of the risks of the procedure and the apparent over-sale of the procedure as safe and effective without sufficient discussion by the defendant surgeon with the plaintiff, supported a lack of informed consent cause of action and a substantial award of damages for pain and suffering to the plaintiff and loss of services to plaintiff's wife.

Note the sequence of images which were part of the pre-scripted and totally visual summation, the next to last image, from the manufacturer's video showing what was supposed to have been the result of the surgery (a neat and clean reconstructed valve) instead (as shown in by the final image from the video of the plaintiff's surgery) was a bloody and poorly formed valve  It should be noted that the green outline of the alleged valve was made by the defendant surgeon live during cross examination of him, he having claimed that the valve created was of the required configuration when in fact, by the simple visual difference as shown to the jury, it was not..

It was only through the use of's techniques that the jury could have been fully informed and persuaded of the validity of the cause of action.