Quick Summary: The lawsuit alleged the hospital’s nurses were negligent for allowing fecal matter to contaminate his surgical wound, resulting in gross contamination.  SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, 1999.

   The patient had surgery to implant a steel spinal fixation device in his back. After surgery the wound became severely infected and the patient needed a series of additional operations on his back costing over $700,000. There was a serious dispute over the medical cause of the infection.

   In court the patient’s expert witnesses noted the patient was having episodes of bowel incontinence, which must have resulted in fecal matter being introduced into the wound. The hospital’s expert witness related the infection to necrosis of muscle tissue near the surgical site.

   The Supreme Court of Nevada agreed that fecal contamination of a surgical wound would be grounds for a negligence lawsuit against a hospital.

  However, in this case the jury returned a verdict in favor of the hospital, apparently believing the hospital’s expert witness’s testimony about muscle necrosis. The court let the jury’s verdict stand, as there were two fully plausible competing explanations for the events in question from which the jury made its own choice.

   The court ruled it was proper for the judge to exclude from the jury’s attention hospital infection control reports not connected to this incident, as potentially confusing and prejudicial to the jury. Hansen v. Health, 974 P. 2d 1158 (Nev., 1999).