Mr. Liew needed a kidney transplant. The kidney he received had unknowingly had cancer. The patient's family claimed that the hospital should have taken steps to determine whether the kidney was cancer free, and once they knew about it should have made every effort to remove the kidney in order to prevent spread of the cancer. The hospital claimed that once they learned the donor had cancer, even though the chances were very slim of the kidney having some type of cancer they recommended that the kidney be removed. They stressed that they repeatedly offered the option to the patient, but the patient refused to have it removed.
Should this case have been won by the patient? If you believe the patient's attorney, they had medical experts who claimed and firmly believed that the treatment rendered by the hospital was inappropriate and that it was improper for them to have given this kidney if the donor had cancer. The experts also argued that the kidney should have been immediately removed once it became clear the owner had cancer.
What happened here? The jury determined that the hospital was not responsible, and the patient lost not only his life but his lawsuit as well.
A patient's attorney relies on the medical experts who have reviewed the patient's records to determine whether there is a valid basis to proceed forward with a medical malpractice lawsuit in New York. Should this case have been won at trial? The patient, his family, his attorney and his experts believed so. The jury didn't. That's frustrating.
Join The Conversation