Opinion ID: 1114170
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Liability for Reversal of Colostomy and Death

Text: In refusing to award damages for the reversal of the colostomy and subsequent treatments to stop the bleeding, the court of appeal concluded that these procedures were not required to resolve the original harm. Likewise, the court found no connection between the hip separation and the rectal perforation and Mrs. Jones' death. We disagree. In determining whether the reversal of the colostomy and Mrs. Jones' subsequent death were connected with the original harm, we look to the duty/risk analysis set out in Weber v. Charity Hospital of Louisiana, 475 So.2d 1047 (La.1985). In Weber, we addressed the issue of whether a host driver was liable to a tort victim who contracted hepatitis from a blood transfusion during treatment at Charity Hospital for injuries received in an automobile accident. We first determined that the host driver's negligence was a cause in fact of the victim's contracting of hepatitis, since the transfusion would not have been necessary but for the original injury caused by the negligence. Next, applying duty-risk principles, we determined that the duty of the host driver to refrain from causing injury to another by negligent operation of his vehicle encompassed the risk that the tort victim's injuries may be worsened by treatment for those injuries. Therefore, we held the host driver was liable for any damages resulting from the blood transfusion. See also Younger v. Marshall Industries, Inc., 618 So.2d 866 (La.1993). Applying this analysis to the instant case, we conclude that the rectal perforation (for which Cabrini statutorily admitted liability) was clearly a cause in fact of the reversal of the colostomy, since the reversal would not have been necessary but for the rectal perforation and the resulting colostomy. Having established causation in fact, we must next determine whether the duty on Cabrini not to injure Mrs. Jones encompassed the risk that she would undergo a procedure to correct the original harm which would ultimately result in her death. We conclude that is reasonably foreseeable that Mrs. Jones, having been forced to submit to a colostomy due to Cabrini's negligent perforation of her rectum, would seek to have this procedure reversed, especially in light of her difficulty in managing the colostomy bag brought on by her arthritis. Nonetheless, the PCF argues that Cabrini should not be held liable for the reversal and resulting death, since the testimony established that the reversal was a risky procedure and Mrs. Jones could have continued to live with the colostomy. Essentially, the PCF argues that Mrs. Jones' decision to undergo the reversal was unreasonable. We find no support in the record for this position. Although Dr. Edgerton testified he tried to dissuade Mrs. Jones from having the reversal due to the risks involved, he unequivocally testified that at the time he admitted her to perform the reversal of the colostomy, he did not know that she would die as a result. He felt she had a 50/50 chance of survival and testified that if Mrs. Jones wanted the surgery done with a reasonable hope that she would survive, I would do it. Based on this testimony, we are unable to conclude that Mrs. Jones' decision to undergo the reversal was unreasonable. Accordingly, we find that Cabrini's liability extended to the reversal of the colostomy. Therefore, the PCF is responsible for any damages arising from the reversal, including Mrs. Jones' death.