Seattle Jury Awards $8.1M in Surgical Fall Case

Overview of the Verdict

A Seattle jury has awarded $8.1 million to an Adobe manager and his spouse after concluding that a fall from an operating table during shoulder surgery caused permanent neurological injury. The verdict followed a trial in King County Superior Court examining whether the incident, which occurred while the patient was under full anesthesia, resulted in lasting brain damage that significantly altered his professional and personal life.

The jury unanimously awarded $7,762,500 to Jason Suplizio for past and future noneconomic damages. By an 11-1 vote, jurors also awarded $380,500 to his wife, Abigail Suplizio, for loss-related damages. The defendant, Proliance Surgeons Inc., admitted liability for the incident but disputed the severity and permanence of the alleged injuries.

The Surgical Incident and Alleged Negligence

The case centered on a June 24, 2021, outpatient shoulder surgery performed while Suplizio was fully anesthetized. According to evidence presented at trial, Suplizio was positioned in a specialized surgical chair commonly referred to as a “beach chair.” Shortly after the procedure concluded, his upper body fell forward from the chair while his feet remained restrained, causing his head to strike the operating room floor.

Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the fall occurred because appropriate safeguards were not maintained while Suplizio remained unconscious. They further asserted that medical staff failed to promptly respond after the incident, allowing critical time to pass before emergency services were contacted. Testimony indicated that approximately 24 minutes elapsed before an ambulance was called.

Jurors were shown photographs depicting injuries to Suplizio’s forehead and heard medical testimony describing a coup-contrecoup mechanism of injury, in which the brain strikes one side of the skull and then rebounds to the opposite side. The anesthesiology team accepted responsibility for 50% of the fault associated with the fall, a factor the jury was instructed to consider when assessing damages.

Claims of Permanent Neurological Injury

Central to the plaintiffs’ case was the assertion that Suplizio suffered irreversible brain damage that continues to affect his cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning. Expert witnesses testified that his neurological symptoms have persisted since the incident and have not abated despite ongoing medical evaluation.

Prior to the surgery, Suplizio was a senior manager at Adobe earning more than $500,000 annually. Evidence presented at trial suggested he was leading increasingly complex projects and was positioned for continued advancement. Following the head injury, however, his work capacity diminished. Adobe implemented accommodations requiring him to work no more than six hours per day, with approximately one-third of his compensation categorized as disability pay.

Plaintiffs argued that although Suplizio remains employed, his professional responsibilities have stagnated and certain duties have been reassigned, reflecting a loss of career trajectory rather than simple workplace flexibility.

Defense Arguments and Disputed Medical Evidence

While Proliance admitted liability for the fall itself, the defense contested the extent of Suplizio’s injuries and the magnitude of damages sought. Defense counsel maintained that objective medical testing did not support a diagnosis of permanent traumatic brain injury.

“There’s no permanent brain injury,” defense attorney James Looper stated during closing arguments, asserting that neuropsychological evaluations, vision testing, and hearing assessments were within normal ranges. He further contended that Suplizio’s documented depression, anxiety, and sleep apnea were treatable conditions not causally linked to structural brain damage.

The defense emphasized that the plaintiffs did not seek compensation for past or future medical expenses, instead requesting noneconomic damages for pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life. Looper argued that these damages should be capped at $850,000, including $400,000 for future pain and suffering, noting that Suplizio continues to receive annual salary increases and received an “exceptional” performance review in 2024.

Defense counsel also highlighted the couple’s continued travel and Abigail Suplizio’s ongoing employment with National Geographic Expeditions, suggesting that their lifestyle demonstrated preserved functional capacity and enjoyment of life.

Jury Findings and Allocation of Damages

After deliberation, the 12-member jury rejected the defense’s characterization of Suplizio’s condition and awarded damages substantially exceeding the amount proposed by Proliance. The verdict reflects the jury’s acceptance of expert testimony linking the fall to lasting neurological impairment and diminished life experience.

The damages awarded were limited to noneconomic losses, including pain, suffering, emotional distress, and loss of consortium. No compensation was awarded for medical expenses or lost wages, underscoring the jury’s focus on the broader personal and functional consequences of the injury rather than direct financial losses.

The verdict also illustrates how juries may weigh admitted liability heavily when paired with expert testimony describing permanent cognitive or neurological change, even in the absence of universally abnormal diagnostic findings.

Broader Implications for Surgical Safety Litigation

The Suplizio verdict highlights the legal risks associated with patient positioning and post-operative monitoring in ambulatory surgical settings. Proliance operates 14 ambulatory surgery centers and more than 80 locations statewide, placing increased scrutiny on standardized safety protocols during and immediately after anesthesia.

From a litigation perspective, the case demonstrates the potential impact of noneconomic damages in medical negligence claims, particularly where plaintiffs can show long-term impairment affecting identity, career progression, and daily functioning. It also underscores the evidentiary role of expert testimony in bridging gaps between subjective symptoms and objective testing results.

As outpatient surgical procedures continue to expand, the case may serve as a reference point for future disputes involving anesthesia-related falls, delayed emergency response, and the assessment of neurological injury claims.

Case Details

Case Name: Suplizio et al. v. Proliance Surgeons Inc.
Court Name: Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County
Case Number: 23-2-25448-1 SEA
Plaintiff Attorney(s): The Rowley Law Firm
Defense Attorney(s): Hall Booth Smith PC