Routine Surgery Leads to Permanent Damage
Michael Arroyo tore his bicep tendon while lifting weights. He was referred to an orthopedic surgeon for surgical repair. The outpatient procedure was expected to restore strength and mobility in Arroyo’s dominant arm. Instead, the operation resulted in significant nerve damage that left him with chronic pain and impaired hand function.
Following the procedure, Arroyo reported symptoms that fell well outside the expected course of recovery. Pain persisted, hand control was compromised, and physical therapy failed to provide relief. Further evaluation identified the cause: a nerve had been completely severed during surgery. This damage went unrecognized at the time of the operation and was not promptly addressed in follow-up care.
Corrective Surgery and Delayed Recovery
Less than two months after the original operation, Arroyo underwent a second procedure performed by a different physician. The goal was to repair the severed nerve and restore function. He began physical therapy shortly afterward and reported improvement three months later. However, full use of his arm and hand was never regained. The damage proved permanent.
Trial Outcome: Jury Finds Full Liability
A jury awarded Arroyo $2.04 million in damages after finding that the conduct fell below the accepted standard of care. Jurors concluded that the nerve injury was not an unavoidable surgical complication but the result of a preventable error. The verdict covered pain and suffering, loss of mobility, and the need for additional medical treatment.
Significantly, the jury assigned 100 percent liability to the surgeon. This allocation of fault indicates that the jurors saw no credible evidence of shared responsibility or unforeseeable complication. Their decision reflected a clear determination that the injury could and should have been prevented with appropriate surgical care.
Defense Argument and Expert Rebuttal
The defense asserted that nerve damage is a known risk in bicep tendon repair and may result from patient-specific anatomical variation. However, expert medical testimony presented by the plaintiff directly challenged this position. Specialists in orthopedics and neurology reviewed operative records and clinical timelines. They concluded that the nerve in question was located in a predictable anatomical position and should have been identified and protected during the procedure.
The medical experts further testified that the complete transection of the nerve indicated a critical lapse in technique. In their analysis, the injury was consistent with an avoidable surgical misstep, not with ordinary post-surgical inflammation or delayed healing. The jury was also presented with evidence that the injury was not disclosed promptly, and no diagnostic efforts were made during the initial recovery period despite Arroyo’s persistent symptoms.
Expert Medical Witnesses Provided Case Clarity
The plaintiff’s case was anchored by expert medical witnesses who systematically connected the intraoperative error to Arroyo’s long-term impairment. These experts reviewed imaging, surgical notes, and clinical follow-up records to establish a clear link between the original procedure and the outcome.
By explaining the nerve’s anatomical location and the methods typically used to avoid such injury, they helped the jury understand that the damage was not an unavoidable consequence of surgery but a preventable deviation from standard practice. Their testimony was critical to establishing causation and refuting the defense’s argument that this was merely a known risk.
Disclosure Obligations and Postoperative Oversight
Physicians have an ongoing duty to inform patients of known complications and intraoperative events that could affect recovery. Failure to document and disclose significant findings, such as suspected nerve damage, may not only impact clinical outcomes but also expose the healthcare provider to legal liability.
In this case, the absence of timely disclosure and diagnostic escalation during Arroyo’s early recovery period factored heavily into the jury’s determination. The combination of a preventable surgical error and a lack of follow-through afterward strengthened the plaintiff’s position and made the case more compelling in the eyes of the jury.
The jury’s verdict reflects how focused, well-supported expert testimony can define negligence and drive outcomes. They responded not only to the extent of Arroyo’s injuries but also to the evidence that those injuries were preventable. The absence of shared liability further underscores the strength of the expert testimony and the clarity of the connection between negligence and harm.
When expert medical witnesses provide grounded, case-specific insight supported by the record, their role becomes central to the court’s understanding of causation and standard of care. This case highlights the importance of expert testimony in medical malpractice litigation, as it often serves as the foundation for a successful claim.
