By Damian D. Capozzola, Esq., and Jamie Terrence, RN
News
A jury awarded $20 million to the estate of a 68-year-old patient who died following what was supposed to be a routine abdominal surgery. The three-week trial revealed that the patient experienced internal bleeding during a sigmoid colon resection, but neither the hospital’s surgeons nor the anesthesia group recognized or adequately responded to it. By the time action was taken, the patient had entered hemorrhagic shock and could not be revived.
The jury held both the hospital and the anesthesia group liable for negligence, assigning 85% of the fault to the hospital. The damages included $5 million for wrongful death and $15 million for the loss of the decedent’s enjoyment of life. The patient had recently retired and was described as healthy, active, and close with his family. The verdict shows how cumulative failures and communication breakdowns can carry large legal consequences for healthcare providers.
Background
A jury recently returned a $20 million wrongful death verdict against a hospital and an affiliated anesthesia practice after a 68-year-old patient died from an undiagnosed internal hemorrhage following what was supposed to be a routine abdominal surgery. The trial lasted about three weeks and revealed serious lapses in care during the patient’s elective sigmoid colon resection. Jurors found that both the hospital’s surgical staff and the anesthesia team were negligent, assigning 85% of the fault to the hospital and 15% to the anesthesia group. The verdict included $5 million for the wrongful death itself and $15 million for the patient’s lost enjoyment of life, which are the years of life and activities he would no longer experience.
According to case filings, the patient bled continuously and significantly during the operation, but the surgical and anesthesiology team failed to recognize or properly manage the bleeding. The amended complaint alleged that the anesthesia providers missed clear clinical signs of decompensation — for example, falling blood pressure and other signs of hemorrhage. The complaint alleged that the team did not alert the surgeons to these obvious changes. Instead of starting a blood transfusion and calling for help, the anesthesia team delayed critical emergency interventions. It also alleged that the hospital’s operating room staff ignored those concerning signs. Despite the patient’s deteriorating vital signs, the surgical team did not halt or abort the procedure quickly enough and did not promptly order fluids.
As a result of these compounding failures in monitoring and communication, the patient slipped into hemorrhagic shock. Evidence showed that his unchecked internal bleeding led to hypotension, cardiac arrest, and respiratory failure, and he could not be revived. He died on the operating table or shortly thereafter. This was not a sudden, unpredictable complication. Rather, it was an avoidable disaster unfolding in slow motion. In post-verdict interviews, one plaintiffs’ attorney noted that the jury was “pretty appalled” by the lack of vigilance during and after the six-hour surgery. There were multiple missed opportunities for the providers to notice the patient’s condition and intervene before it was too late.
Ultimately, the jury held both the hospital and the anesthesia group accountable for breaching the standard of care. The $20 million award, with $15 million of it attributed to the lost enjoyment of life’s pleasures, reflected the jury’s valuation of the life that was unnecessarily cut short. Notably, the deceased patient had been a healthy, active individual who had just entered retirement and had a family, factors the jury likely considered in assessing damages. While both defendants were found liable for negligence, the hospital was deemed principally responsible for the systemic failures. This case underscores how a series of communication breakdowns and delayed responses in the operating room can result in a preventable loss of life and large damages awards.
What This Means for You
The $20 million verdict in this case offers several important legal takeaways for hospitals, physician groups, and healthcare professionals facing potential malpractice exposure. While the case arose from specific facts involving postoperative hemorrhage and monitoring failures, its legal implications are broader and speak to how courts and juries evaluate liability, assign damages, and interpret institutional responsibility.
This case illustrates the deference courts give to jury verdicts, especially in wrongful death cases. As a general rule, trial judges will not disturb a damages award unless it is so excessive that it indicates a manifest injustice. Here, although the $20 million award was very large, it has not yet been reduced. There is a high legal bar for modifying a jury’s findings on damages. Once the jury determines what a life was worth, factoring in lost enjoyment of life, pain and suffering, and the death itself, courts rarely interfere. Jury perception of the loss is key.
The jury allocated $15 million of the award solely for the “loss of life’s enjoyment.” This is a form of noneconomic damages. These noneconomic damages are subjective and rooted in the jury’s sense of what the decedent lost by dying prematurely. Economic damages are tied to tangible financial losses, such as medical expenses incurred prior to death, funeral costs, and the loss of the decedent’s earning capacity. These typically are supported by documentation and expert testimony. Noneconomic damages, by contrast, compensate for harms like pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress. In this case, the jury awarded $15 million for noneconomic loss, reflecting the decedent’s lost opportunity to live out his retirement, spend time with his family, and engage in the daily pleasures and milestones of life. Because noneconomic damages are inherently subjective, they often become the largest and most unpredictable component of a medical malpractice verdict.
Here, the decedent had just retired and was described as healthy, active, and deeply connected to his family. Those facts likely shaped the jury’s verdict. The legal system permits this open-ended valuation, and it is a key reason why verdicts in wrongful death cases can be very high, even without punitive damages.
Although both the hospital and the anesthesia group were found liable, the jury assigned 85% of the responsibility to the hospital. This reflects the legal doctrine that a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the conduct of its agents, where state law permits. This is an issue that can vary by state, so consulting experienced counsel is critical. In any event, even where a physician group is independent or contracted, the hospital can be held responsible for systemic failures, inadequate supervision, or lack of policies. This verdict illustrates how vicarious liability can apply broadly to hospitals when overlapping responsibilities among defendants exist.
Despite the large damages awarded, this was not a case involving intentional wrongdoing or punitive damages. Rather, the theory was classic negligence. It was the failure to recognize and act upon signs of internal bleeding. The jury’s response shows that egregious conduct warranting punitive damages (which are designed to punish, not to compensate) is not required for a significant award. The result shows that juries will issue substantial damages awards for ordinary negligence when the harm is grave and the failure to act is clear.
To elaborate in the context of this particular case, anesthesiologists monitor patients during surgery, not just to assure the sedation level is adequate enough to prevent the patient from waking up and experiencing pain, but also to assure that the patient is physiologically tolerating the procedure. The excessive bleeding occurred during the procedure. The anesthesiologist knew of the patient’s increased heart rate and a falling blood pressure. And, unless the anesthesiologist turned off the alarm capability of his equipment, these symptoms were known to the surgeon, nurses, and technicians in the room. The surgeon and those by his side should have noticed the excessive amount of blood in the surgical field and the frequent use of suction during the procedure. This was the time when the staff should have responded as an expert team and quickly repaired whatever vessel was damaged or not tied off — or repaired it after the resection, when all the tools and staff necessary to save a life were within reach. The surgeon leads the team. However, each team member has the responsibility to step in and speak up when they become aware of a safety issue. Unfortunately, an intimidating leader who staff fear often can shut down communication, which is the greatest risk to patient safety.
Large verdicts like this one also can serve a quasi-regulatory role. The public statements from the plaintiff’s family focused not only on their personal loss, but on sending a message to all hospitals that safety and communication must be prioritized. While not a legal doctrine per se, this underscores the reputational and institutional costs of trial. Courts do not impose fines in malpractice cases, but juries, through damages, sometimes serve a parallel function by calling attention to lapses in care.
This case shows how malpractice litigation is as much about legal standards of care and liability sharing as it is about medicine. For healthcare providers, the verdict is a reminder that juries do not require outrageous facts to assign serious consequences. They require only a compelling narrative of preventable harm.
Damian D. Capozzola, Esq., The Law Offices of Damian D. Capozzola, Los Angeles
Jamie Terrence, RN, President and Founder, Healthcare Risk Services, Former Director of Risk Management Services (2004-2013), California Hospital Medical Center, Los Angeles
Reference
- Verdict on July 9, 2025, in the Superior Court Judicial District of Bridgeport, CT, Case No. FBT-FBT-CV-21-6105210S.
A jury awarded $20 million to the estate of a 68-year-old patient who died following what was supposed to be a routine abdominal surgery. The three-week trial revealed that the patient experienced internal bleeding during a sigmoid colon resection, but neither the hospital’s surgeons nor the anesthesia group recognized or adequately responded to it. By the time action was taken, the patient had entered hemorrhagic shock and could not be revived.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content