Cosmetic ProcedureBreast Reconstruction After Double Mastectomy
Time Frame6 months
LawyerLouiza Tarassova
Case DescriptionAfter being diagnosed with breast cancer, the patient made the difficult decision to undergo a bilateral mastectomy followed by reconstructive surgery using tissue expanders and later implants. What should have been a structured, two-stage reconstruction quickly turned into a prolonged and traumatic medical ordeal. Following her initial surgery, the patient began experiencing complications almost immediately, including: • Pain and swelling • Signs of infection • Issues with surgical drains • Redness and inflammation Despite repeated complaints and dozens of follow-up visits, the operating surgeon never personally evaluated the patient after surgery. Instead, all care was delegated to mid-level providers. Over the next two years, the patient underwent multiple additional surgeries due to complications, including: • Infection requiring removal and replacement of tissue expanders • Hematoma requiring emergency surgical intervention • Implant complications and persistent asymmetry At one point, a separate surgeon identified a rare hospital-acquired infection (Acinetobacter baumannii complex) during one of the procedures. Despite continued symptoms, including persistent left-sided pain and swelling, the root cause of the problem was never identified by the original surgical team. It was not until the patient sought care from a new surgeon that the true cause of her suffering was discovered.
The InjuryDuring corrective surgery performed by a new board-certified plastic surgeon, a critical and preventable error was uncovered: A retained foreign object — a plastic tab from a tissue expander — had been left inside the patient’s breast for close to two years. This foreign body became embedded in surrounding tissue, causing chronic inflammation, persistent pain, fluid accumulation (seroma), and ongoing complications that were repeatedly dismissed by the original providers. By the time the issue was identified, the patient had already endured: • Five surgeries, many of which were avoidable • Long-term pain and discomfort • Recurrent infections and antibiotic treatments • Significant breast deformity and implant malposition • Emotional distress and loss of quality of life Corrective surgery required extensive reconstruction, including removal of damaged tissue, repositioning of implants, and structural repair using mesh. What should have been a routine reconstructive process became a complex, invasive correction due entirely to prior negligence.
Attorney’s EffortOur firm conducted a comprehensive presuit investigation and built a strong case demonstrating clear deviations from the standard of care. Our efforts included: • Preparing a detailed and compelling case supported by medical evidence • Conducting a thorough investigation into the patient’s surgical history and complications • Reviewing records across multiple providers and facilities • Consulting with medical experts to establish negligence and causation
Case ChallengesThis case involved several complex challenges: • Multiple surgeries over an extended period, complicating causation analysis • Involvement of multiple providers and healthcare facilities • Defense arguments that complications were known risks of reconstructive surgery • Lack of direct physician follow-up, with care delegated to mid-level providers • Delay in discovering the retained foreign object Despite these challenges, the evidence, particularly the retained foreign body and extensive documentation of ongoing complaint, clearly demonstrated negligence.
ResultsThe case proceeded through the medical malpractice presuit process and was ultimately resolved at presuit mediation. After several hours of negotiation with both the hospital and the physician, the parties reached a resolution without the need for formal litigation. The strength of the evidence and the detailed presuit presentation played a critical role in achieving a favorable outcome.
Lessons Learned This case underscores the importance of taking persistent post-surgical symptoms seriously and seeking a second opinion when concerns are dismissed. The patient had been scheduled for another surgery with the same surgeon despite ongoing complications, but after consulting with our firm, she chose to seek care elsewhere. That decision led to the discovery of a retained foreign object and the full extent of the negligence. Her extensive documentation of complaints and repeated attempts to obtain proper care also played a critical role in establishing liability and achieving a successful resolution.
