Injury In Idaho

Med Mal Cases Are Tough!

A recent Idaho Supreme Court case illustrates the great jury resistance to finding doctors at fault in medical malpractice lawsuits.  Here are the facts as reported in the case of Blizzard vs. Lundeby:

On January 5, 2008, Rick Blizzard went to Kootenai Medical Center for lower abdominal pain. At the time, Dr. Lundeby was on-call as the general surgeon. Dr. Lundeby performed an exploratory surgery after an endoscopy revealed that Blizzard had a severely obstructed and distended bowel. During the exploratory surgery, Dr. Lundeby removed a portion of Blizzard’s colon and created a temporary colostomy.

On June 4, 2008, Dr. Lundeby performed a colostomy reversal, by which Blizzard’s colon was intended to be reattached to his rectum via a circular stapler. This procedure was to create acolorectal anastomosis. The day after Blizzard’s discharge on June 11, 2009, Blizzard complained of air and fecal material in his urine. On June 13, 2008, Dr. Lundeby performed a second exploratory surgery where he discovered that Blizzard’s bladder had been stapled wrongly “through and through” into the anastomosis, creating a fistula—a passageway between two organs that normally do not connect—which was depositing fecal material into his bladder.

Over the course of the next two years, Blizzard underwent eight surgical attempts by specialists to repair his bladder and bowel. Blizzard had no insurance and consequently incurred $852,213 in medical expenses.  Blizzard eventually committed suicide, and his widow pursued a medical malpractice case.

Despite the above evidence, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the surgeon.  The surgeon’s expert witness at trial testified that no negligence had been committed, “Nobody has ever made the mistake of stapling a bladder to a rectum. That just doesn’t happen; therefore, it’s within the standard of care.”  Although the trial judge described this testimony as ‘nonsense,’ he denied the widow’s motion for a new trial.   She had argued that a new trial was required because the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence.

The Idaho Supreme court overruled the trial judge, and held that the judge had applied an incorrect legal standard in determining whether a new trial should be granted.

Scroll to Top
Scroll to Top