This case involves a sixty-eight-year-old male who had an osteoma in his external auditory canal for several years. It did not compromise his hearing when diagnosed, but he eventually lost all hearing ability in the afflicted ear due to a maximum conductive hearing obstruction. The patient underwent a procedure to resect the mass and was noted to have facial paralysis in the immediate, postoperative period. The medical records acknowledge the nerve paralysis but contributed it to postoperative swelling. After the postoperative swelling subsided, the patient still experienced paralysis and had severe problems with vertigo, and has had to have numerous canalith re-positioning procedures. The plaintiff retained an expert witness in audiology and otolaryngology for this case.
Question(s) For Expert Witness
1. Was this surgery absolutely indicated and, if so, are these accepted complications of the procedure?
Expert Witness Response E-001049
A well trained ENT should be able to perform this surgery adequately. It is not a run-of-the-mill case, as they are uncommon, but the indications for the surgery are there (conductive hearing loss secondary to the osteoma). Nerve dysfunction is a possible complication (either through post-op edema or damage in the surgery) and nerve monitoring is typically used in these cases to help limit any possibilities of post-op complications. If there were post-op complications that were attributed to a deviation of the standard of care, then a consult should have been considered.
About the author
Michael Talve, CEO
Michael Talve stands at the forefront of legal innovation as the CEO and Managing Director of Expert Institute. Under his leadership, the Expert Institute has established itself as a vital player in the legal technology arena, revolutionizing how lawyers connect with world-class experts and access advanced legal technology. Michael's role involves not only steering the company's strategic direction but also ensuring the delivery of unparalleled intelligence and cutting-edge solutions to legal professionals. His work at Expert Institute has been instrumental in enhancing the capabilities of attorneys in case preparation and execution, making a significant impact on the legal industry's approach to expert consultation and technological integration. Michael's vision and execution have positioned the Expert Institute as a key facilitator in the intersection of law and technology.
