Man Sues Hospital After Surgeons Allegedly Take Out Part of Bowel Instead of Appendix

A Washington man is suing a Seattle hospital and two doctors for medical malpractice after he claims they removed the wrong organ during emergency surgery last December.

George Piano and his wife Elizabeth filed the lawsuit November 2 against the University of Washington Medical Center and surgeons Nidhi Udyavar and Paul Herman. The 13-page complaint alleges botched surgery and serious complications resulting from the doctors' failure to remove Piano's appendix as intended.

The lawsuit states that on December 6th, Piano experienced stomach pain and went to the UW Medical Center emergency department, where he was diagnosed with appendicitis. His inflamed appendix necessitated emergency surgery. The complaint, however, claims that the doctors were unable to find the appendix during the procedure. Instead, doctors removed part of Piano's bowel.

"Following surgery, Mr. Piano began to experience abdominal pain which was worse than before his surgery," the couple's attorneys said. "The bowel contents began to spill into his abdominal cavity causing him to become much sicker."

Two days later, a CT scan showed Piano's appendix was never removed, the attorneys said. On December 8, he underwent a second surgery at the same hospital to finally remove his appendix. But according to the suit, the initial incorrect surgery removed a piece of lower colon rather than the appendix. This required more procedures to repair a "leaky colon" and abdominal infection.

"It's been a hell of a year," Piano told USA Today on Tuesday. He said that during the previous year, he had spent 53 days in the hospital, during which time he had lost 40 pounds and experienced anxiety and memory problems.  Piano also went on to say  "I'm not the same person I was when this started."

Despite initial reluctance, Piano and his wife pursued legal action after receiving no response from the hospital. University of Washington Medicine spokesperson Susan Gregg provided a statement saying the hospital strives to give excellent care and patient safety is deeply important. But she said they cannot comment on pending litigation.

The complaint alleges medical negligence and demands a jury trial plus monetary damages resulting from the botched surgery. Removing an intact organ unnecessarily during rushed emergency surgery represents a major medical error with profound consequences.

While appendicitis is very common, differentiating inflamed appendices from other abdominal issues can prove challenging. But cutting out the wrong part of a patient's intestine is rare and highly problematic. This case highlights the dire impacts of mistaken organ removal and the immense harms that can ensue.

Rushing into surgery without clear confirmation of the diagnosis raises serious questions about the medical decision-making. The alleged failure to locate the appendix indicates potential inadequacies in surgical skill and patient evaluation. Removing a healthy section of colon due to misdiagnosis is difficult to justify medically.

The plaintiff's steep weight loss, extended hospitalization, lingering pain and other long-term effects also showcase the lasting damage from major surgical mistakes. Events like this can completely upend a patient's life in just one day. Hospitals normally move swiftly to address egregious errors internally. But the plaintiff reports getting no response or accountability from the institution so far. This perceived stonewalling likely contributed to the couple's difficult decision to pursue legal action.

Mistakes and complications inevitably occur in demanding hospital environments, even among skilled practitioners. But admitting errors promptly and outlining plans to prevent recurrences can help rebuild trust after problems. Ongoing silence from the hospital may exacerbate the patient's frustrations and prolong the case.

While further details await potential trial, the core allegations describe an acute failure in surgical care with immense consequences for the patient. The case underscores the heavy burdens patients face to pursue accountability through the courts when internal hospital processes offer no answers or redress.