# data[].attributes.body
1. Read the provided case study carefully

2. Create a post that includes:

A brief analysis of the surgical technology issue

Your proposed solution or recommendations

An attachment (PDF or diagram) that supports your analysis

3. Review your peers’ responses and provide constructive feedback on 2 responses

4. Use the star rating to acknowledge particularly insightful analyses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Association of periOperative Registered Nurses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Surprise Testimony From Surgical Tech Leads to $2.15M Malpractice Awar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Surprise Testimony From Surgical Tech Leads to $2.15M Malpractice Awar

# data[].attributes.body
This situation occurred in 1997 when Katie Shreffler, then 17 underwent hip arthroscopy. Dr. Philippon was relatively inexperienced with the procedure and during surgery a shaver reportedly broke. Post‑operatively, the patient suffered cartilage damage and persistent pain and now is required to walk with a cane.

At trial in 2007, Julie Snogles, a surgical technologist unexpectedly testified for the plaintiff, stating that the surgeon admitted using a new procedure and that a shaver broke. That testimony became vital after the hospital and surgeon failed to disclose her as a witness. Her unexpected testimony led to a $2.15M malpractice verdict. There’s a couple red flags here: 1.  Equipment failure not documented or communicated properly. 2. The surgeon lacked experience with the technique. 3. OR staff (tech) was not officially disclosed as a witness. 4. There was poor communication and documentation in the OR.

A lot of things could and should have been done. Here’s a few recommendations:

1. Mandatory Incident Documentation:
All equipment failures must be recorded immediately in the operative note and incident log.

2. Establish a chain of accountability:
If complications occur during surgery, every member of the team should document what happened, not just the surgeon.

3. Training & supervision for newly performed procedures:
Surgeons performing new or uncommon techniques should undergo proper training and simulation, and be proctored on early cases.

4. Team-based risk communication :
All OR staff must be empowered to speak up about complications and deviations. Silence should never be the default.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1997, Marc Philippon, a surgeon, performed a hip arthroscopy on a teenager named Katie Shreffler. After the operation, she developed pain and mobility issues. A year later, another surgeon said that he discovered that there were sharp marks in her cartilage. She then filed a lawsuit against the doctor and Holy Cross Hospital in 1999. During the trial, the plaintiffs were able to present evidence from Julie Snoggles, a surgical tech during the operation. The testimony became an issue during the appeal, and on June 4, the court denied the hospital's and the surgeon's request for a rehearing. Prior to the incident, the defense had no idea that Ms. Snogles would be testifying. During her trial in 2007, Snogles noted that Shreffler was Philippon's third or second patient who had undergone the procedure. She said the doctor told her it was a new technique and that he was only new to performing it. According to court documents, the surgeon then created a third portal during the operation. According to Snogles, Philippon told her that he was creating a third portal to remove a foreign body. The implication was based on his statement that one of the shavers broke during the operation. However, Snogles disputed this claim, stating that she did not see either of the devices break. After Snogles left Holy Cross Hospital in 2007, the plaintiff's lawyers could not find her. However, through an internet search, they were able to find her. The appeals court noted that the hospital and the surgeon were aware that Snoggles could be a possible witness, and they could not have been surprised by her testimony. Philippon's attorney, Bruce Montoya, stated that the teenager's mobility issues and pain were not caused by the surgery. He said that she had a congenital hip defect, and this continued to affect her even after the corrective procedure that the doctor performed in 1997. According to him, an MRI taken in 2003 revealed that the labrum was normal. Philippon went on to work at the hospital and became its chief of orthopedic surgery. He now practices in Colorado and specializes in sports medicine. According to his attorney, the jury failed to take into account the medical evidence that was presented during the trial. Despite the verdict, the case is still on appeal.

There's quite a few things that should have been done. Philippon, who was only on his second or third hip arthroscopy, told the tech that he was doing a new procedure. This issue should be addressed in order to ensure that the providers have the necessary skills and experience to perform the procedures. Besides being trained and credentialed, hospitals should also ensure that the people who undergo these procedures are informed about the risks and benefits of the procedure. There has been an issue with the reporting of intraoperative incidents. Although a broken instrument might have been involved, it was not reported as an incident. This issue should be addressed in order to ensure that the providers have the necessary skills and experience to perform the procedures. One of the most important steps that hospitals should take is to implement mandatory reporting protocols. These include requiring all complications involving foreign objects and broken instruments to be documented and disclosed immediately. The issue of early and transparent witness disclosure is also a concern. The defense claimed that the tech's testimony was unexpected even though she was in the OR. To address this matter, hospitals should establish policies and procedures that will allow them to provide lists of all individuals who are involved in surgeries. They should additionally help former employees access the legal proceedings related to their cases.

# data[].attributes.body
Let me tell you, this case makes me happy that the surgeon doing my hip arthroscopy has done a lot of them lol.

There are a few issues that need to be discussed with this case. This particular surgeon told the surg tech that he was new when it came to performing this surgery. If that was the case, there should have been another surgeon in the OR assisting him. He should have put his ego aside and asked for another ortho doc to come scrub in with him. A second doctor could have helped walk him through it and offered bits of advice or help whenever he needed it. The patient's safety should always come first.

The next thing is the "breaking equipment". If there was truly a piece of equipment that broke, every individual in the OR should be alerted. A plan needs to be discussed as to how things will be corrected. A new sterile shaver would need to be brought up to the OR and the old would need to be set aside so it could be marked for repair or replacement. The case also should have been temporarily paused to inspect the shaver and any pieces that were "removed" from the patient to ensure it is whole. It is the same concept as examining a placenta to ensure none is left in the uterus. It doesn't take long to do and there's no excuse not to.

The last big thing I want to discuss is that the patient should have been told about the equipment failure. The information about the shaver breaking didn't come out until a decade after the procedure happened. If the surg tech wouldn't have given her testimony, the patient would never have known what happened. The doctor and staff were completely prepared to hide that information and play it off like the surgery went exactly as expected. The patient should always be alerted to errors like this after the procedure.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Verde Amarillo Empacar Lista de Verificación

# data[].attributes.body
The incident happened in 1997, when a Dr. Philippon performed a hip arthroscopy to repair a labral tear on Katie Shreffler, who was a 17 year old ballerina. After said surgery, she continued to have pain and mobility issues, which resulted in her going back under for a debridement with a different surgeon. The other surgeon discovered there were gouges caused by a sharp instrument on her cartilage. Two years after the original procedure, Shreffler filed a lawsuit against Dr. Philippon and the hospital for negligence. During the trial, a key witness, Julie Snogles’, a surgical technician during the procedure, was found and was going to give testimony. In 2007, she gave testimony that changed the way the procedure was viewed. Firstly, she said that this procedure was some of the earliest done by Dr. Philippon. Secondly, he created a third portal that he said was to remove a foreign object, which she didn’t see at all being removed. This was a part of the implication that the shaver broke during the surgery, however she also says she never saw him break the shaver either. Mr. Montoya, Dr. Philippon’s attorney said that his client is not at fault and that Shreffler had an abnormality in her hip that was causing continuous problems. An MRI that was taken in 2003 shows that the labral repair that Dr. Philippon was healed perfectly normal. Mr. Montoya says that the jury ignored medical evidence that was presented at the trial.

I would recommend that there be a system in place for when instruments break in the middle of the procedure, making sure that documentation is in place. Being able to have accountability is important, as well as showing transparency to ensure that all patients are safe. There should have been a pause in the procedure and the sterile processing team should have brought up another shaver to use instead of continuing to use the broken one.

# data[].attributes.body
This case revolves around a surgical malpractice lawsuit in which a former ballerina, Katie Shreffler, who underwent hip arthroscopy in 1997, ended up with long-term damage. The orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Marc Philippon, was relatively inexperienced with the procedure, and a shaver broke during the surgery. Years later, a court ruled that both the surgeon, Dr. Marc Philippon, and Holy Cross Hospital were responsible and awarded her $2.15 million in damages. A critical element of the trial was the testimony from surgical technologist, Julia Snogles, who revealed that Dr. Philippon created an additional portal to retrieve a foreign object, but no object was documented as being removed.

It’s upsetting to see how lack of transparency and communication can have life-altering consequences for a patient. She was only 17 and a dedicated ballerina with dreams and a future in dance. It really saddens me to read that she now walks with a cane..

Proposed solution /recommendations:

1. Enhance transparency and documentation: All intraoperative incidents must be thoroughly documented in the operative report. This is essential for patient safety and to mitigate legal risk.

2. Surgical tech empowerment and reporting: Surgical technologists and other team members should be empowered to report procedural irregularities and safety concerns without fear of professional retaliation.

3. Enhance hospital record-keeping: Hospitals must maintain accurate and accessible records of all personnel present during surgical procedures to ensure that all relevant witnesses can be easily identified.

4. Credentialing and procedure privileging: Hospitals should enforce stricter protocols requiring surgeons to demonstrate competence and undergo proper training before being granted privileges for new or complex procedures.

5. Patient-centered care: Surgeons are responsible for fully informing patients about their experience level with a particular procedure and must provide complete and timely disclosure of any complications that occur during surgery.

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Marc Philipon claimed a congenital abnormality of a patient’s hip while second opinion from another surgeon argued otherwise. Katie Schreffler, a ballerina who now walks with a cane, was awarded a large settlement from Holy Cross Hospital and Philipon. In 1997, Philipon performed a hip arthroscopy on a then-17 year-old Schreffler, leaving her in chronic pain. In 1999, a second surgeon indicated she had gouges in her cartilage from a “sharp instrument”. A surgical tech, who worked at Holy Cross at the time, and was scrubbed in the case with Philipon, was the key witness to the whole fiasco. The scrub tech told the jury that during the procedure, she saw Philipon create a third hole in Schreffler’s hip, and told her he needed to “retrieve a foreign object”. She indicated that she did not see him remove a foreign object, nor see anything broken off from the shaver.

I am completely confused about this case. Who was telling the truth-the scrub tech or Philipon? Did the scrub tech lie on his behalf to protect him (perhaps they were close colleagues), or did the piece break off when she wasn’t paying attention, and he retrieved it without her knowledge (in which I highly doubt could be possible in that amount of time frame)? The gouges prove malpractice otherwise, right? Does she or does she not have a congenital issue? I find it kind of sleazy though, that Holy Cross did not provide witnesses of the staff involved with the case.

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article regarding shavers.

# data[].attributes.headline
surgeon performed operation he allegedly claimed he was inexperienced with and permanently injured patient.

# data[].attributes.subject
surgeon performed operation he allegedly claimed he was inexperienced with and permanently injured patient.

# data[].attributes.body
in 1997 an operation was performed on a teenage ballerina to correct a labral tear, which lead to permanent pain and quality of life altering effects. during the operation the surgeon allegedly stated to the scrub that he had only completed this procedure a few times before. In a later surgery a second surgeon found cartilage damage caused by a sharp tool. during the 2007 trial the surgical tech made a surprise testimony stating the surgeon was new to that kind of operation at the time. the surgeon, at one point made an unusual third incision. the scrub inquired as to why to which she was told "to remove a foreign object." from this statement it was implied that dr. philippon had broken an instrument within the body.

surgical tech issues that can be pointed out are the lack of communication between the surgical team, lack of documentation, and lack of incident reporting. The lack of transparency and accountability lies with the surgeon attempting hide mistakes though.

some solutions and protocols could be mandatory real time incident reporting. multiple staff members could have to sign off on an incident report to agree.

# data[].attributes.headline
Florida surgeon permanently changes a teenagers life.  

# data[].attributes.subject
Florida surgeon permanently changes a teenagers life.  

# data[].attributes.body
In 1997 at the Florida hospital Holy Cross Hospital of Fort Lauderdale Marc J. Philippon, MD, performed hip arthroscopy on Katie Shreffler, then 17, to repair a labral tear. After surgery, Ms. Shreffler continued to be in pain and had limited mobility. A year later Katie undergone another surgery this time with a new surgeon to prefrom an debridement. The surgeon said he found gouges in her cartilage caused by a sharp instrument. In 1999 Katie filled a negligance charge against Dr. Philippon and Holy Cross Hospital. During the trial Julie Snogles who was the surgical technologist during the first surgrey testified. Julie testified that Katie was Dr. Philippon's second or third hip arthroscopy patient. Julie testifed that Dr. Philippon told her that it was a newer procedure and that he was new at performing it. This story was already alarming to me and reading this key detail was no different. While we all have to learn and perfect our craft that learning time should never be at the detrament of the patient. The chance that the surgeon recognized he was not familar with this procedure and still preformed it without help is horrifying. The lawyer for Dr.Phillippon said he was not responsible for the pain Katie experianced. The lawyer mentioned Katie had a genetic abdominality but I do not think a genetic abdominality would cause sharp gouges in cartlidge. While equitment always has the chance to fail that does not make it right to not be documented. Proper documentation should include proof that the patient or care givers were notifed of the failure. This should also include proper and complete investigation into possible patient injury. Above all do no harm is a common oath among the medical community, this includes puting pride aside to ensure patient safety. I would hope that any concerns about anything that happened during a procedure would be communicated. Training and supervision should be non negotiable with any surgeon branching out to new surgreys. I would also like if hospitals had cameras in all operating rooms, this would help mangement and supervisors watch.

# data[].attributes.body
The AORN case study detailing a $2.15 million malpractice verdict following a hip arthroscopy serves as a reminder of the critical role surgical technologists play in the operating room and how lapses in procedural oversight or even communication and training can lead to devastating consequences. In this case, a surgical technologist unexpectedly testified in court that the surgeon had only performed the procedure a few times prior and that a shaver instrument had broken during the operation, gouging cartilage. This testimony which had not yet been addressed in the original medical documentation or raised by the defense ended up playing a pivotal role in the jury’s decision. At the core there were two main failures which included the equipment malfunction and inadequate procedural preparedness. The broken instrument was neither properly documented nor handled in accordance with standard protocols and the surgeon’s lack of experience with the specific procedure was not addressed before or during the case. I think the most concerning thing is the lack of structured communication between the surgeon, the technologist, and the rest of the team which could have allowed for the early identification of risk, intervention, and mitigation. To prevent similar incidents, operating rooms must implement stronger systems for real time incident documentation. Any complications, particularly those involving equipment failure, should be reported immediately and agreed upon by all members of the surgical team. This includes verifying the integrity of instruments before during, and after the procedure not as a suggestion, but as a standardized part of the surgical workflow. Additionally, surgical facilities must reinforce credentialing standards and limit procedural autonomy until proficiency is verified. Surgeons performing new or complex techniques should be proctored or mentored until competency is demonstrated. This ensures that the surgical technologist, circulating nurse, and scrub team are not placed in ethically challenging situations where they must silently witness preventable mistakes.

Another lesson from this case is the importance of considering all operating room staff as potential legal witnesses. Those present during surgery must be briefed and included in postoperative debriefs and if needed legal preparation. Testimony should never come as a surprise neither to the defense nor to the staff member themselves. This case shows how seemingly minor oversights like skipping an instrument check or neglecting to document a procedural difficulty can snowball into major liabilities. But more importantly it highlights that surgical technologists are not just passive assistants they are active participants in patient safety and should be treated as such through empowered communication and defined responsibilities.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1997, there was a patient who needed a hip arthroscopy for a repair of a labral tear. The patient after surgery stated that she was still in pain and had limited mobility. After a year the patient came back for a debridement which also did nothing to help with the pain and mobility issues and the patient was informed that there were gouges in her cartilage caused by a sharp object in the previous surgery. The surgical technologist who was assisting during this case spoke up and gave the information that during the arthroscopy a third port hole was created and when asked why it was said it was to remove a foreign object. The foreign object was said to be the blade of a shaver but the surgical technologist had not seen a broken shaver inside the patient nor on the shaver itself. The surgical technologist also stated that the surgeon was new to the procedure and had only completed 2 or 3 on his own prior to this patients. The patient still continues to have pain and mobility issues and needs a cane to walk.

My recommendations for this case is that there should have been a report made from the first case discussing what happened during the procedure, meaning those who were involved in the case should have spoke up against the surgeon when it seemed that there may be a malpractice issue. There should have also been better follow up care for the patient so that if there could be a solution to the problem, it could be met. There should have also been a review of the surgeons case and a higher level surgeon should have been called in to assist in the procedure.