This is a medical malpractice action. D utilizing a suction device, perforated P's uterus and drew portions of her small intestine through the perforation, through her uterus, and into her vagina. In an attempt to repair the damage to the uterine wall, made a transverse incision on P's abdomen and requested the assistance of Jose Flores, a general surgeon. Because he could not adequately explore the plaintiff's abdomen, Flores made another incision perpendicular to the one made by the defendant. Flores repaired the injury to P's intestine by means of a bowel resection, removing approximately one foot of the intestine and connecting the two ends of the remaining intestine. Flores, testifying for P, stated that, as a result of the bowel resection, adhesions had more probably than not formed in the plaintiff's abdomen. He also testified that P faces an increased risk of future bowel obstruction as a result of these adhesions, but that he thought the risk was remote. P's expert, Sullivan, also testified that the plaintiff was subject to an increased risk of future bowel obstruction and that, based on literature he had consulted, she had an 8 to 16 percent chance of developing such an obstruction. P sued D. P got the verdict, and D appealed. D claims that P should not have been permitted to present any testimony regarding her increased susceptibility to a future bowel obstruction resulting from D's actions.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.