This is a medical malpractice action arising from the Defendant's improper performance of unnecessary and unwarranted surgeries on the left knee of the Plaintiff. These surgeries destroyed the Plaintiff’s knee necessitating seven additional major surgeries which ultimately resulted in a total knee replacement.

The Plaintiff is a beautiful young African American Female who possesses an excellent work history. Her resume includes twenty two years of military service.

The Plaintiff was originally injured in the course and scope of her employment when she banged her knee on a desk.

Immediately following her injury the Plaintiff came under the care of her primary physician and also treated under the auspices of the workers' compensation physicians. Through that process, the Plaintiff was referred to and orthopaedic surgeon "Dr. A" who performed an exploratory arthroscopy. Other than some gentle debridement of the back of the kneecap, the Plaintiff's knee was in architecturally excellent condition. Dr. A found no problems with the medial meniscus, the medial femoral condyle, or the anterior cruciate ligament. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff returned to her pre-injury job.

Upon returning to work the Plaintiff had some pain complaints. So she went to the Defendant Orthopaedic Surgeon for a second opinion.

In July of 2000, the Defendant performed an exploratory arthroscopic surgery. During that procedure the Defendant described the anterior cruciate ligament as "present and patent." He describes the Plaintiff's medial femoral condyle as "grossly within normal limits." His postoperative diagnosis is "nearly separated hypermobile detached medical meniscus." In the audio portion of his surgical video he states this is a diagnosis that he has "been trying to prove."

Pursuing his quest to prove his theory, the Defendant performed a second operation in August 2000. During this operation, the Defendant detached a perfectly healthy medial meniscus, pulled it tight, and then reattached it with sutures. The Defendant used a series of instruments including laser, rasps, and biters in the knee compartment. Pre-operatively, the Defendant continued to report that "the anterior cruciate ligament appeared to be normal." The medial femoral condyle was also normal as per the operative video and films.

In January 2001, the Defendant performed his third and final operation upon the Plaintiff's left knee. In his own words he reports that he found a "torn, fraying medial meniscus," an "osteochondral defect of [the] medial femoral condyle," and an "incompetent anterior cruciate ligament." The Defendant is seen on the surgical videotapes destroying the knee throughout this procedure.

The Plaintiff contended that the surgeries performed by the Defendant were unnecessary; were based upon misdiagnoses; and were performed below the standard of care for orthopedic surgeons.

Thereafter the Plaintiff required seven additional surgeries to fix the injuries caused by the Defendant ultimately leading to a total knee replacement.