Complaint Filed Against Obstetrician, Hospital for Unauthorized Sterilization During Cesarean
Monday, August 17, 2009 at 11:20PM
A Chicago woman filed a complaint on August 7, 2009 alleging battery and negligence after a bitubal ligation was performed on her against her will and without her consent. The alleged unauthorized sterilization was performed on Nada Dollah at Rush-Copley Medical Center by her doctor, Nizar Olabi, whom Dollah claims had only obtained informed consent to perform a cesarean section.
Dollah is seeking compensatory damages from Olabi as an individual as well as from Olabi’s company, Women’s Health Physicians and Rush-Copley Medical Center, which the plaintiff claims negligently failed to ensure that Olabi understood his role and did not obtain informed consent prior to sterilizing her, thereby failing to protect her from unauthorized intrusion.
__________________________
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
NADA DOLLAH
Plaintiff,
v.
NIZAR F. OLABI; Individually,
WOMEN’S HEALTH PHYSICIANS,
S.C., an Illinois corporation, and RUSH-
COPLEY MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
An Illinois corporation
Defendants.
COMPLAINT AT LAW
Plaintiff, Nada Dollah, by and through her attorneys, Boyd & Kummer, LLC, by way of Complaint against the Defendants Nizar Olabi, Women’s Health Physicians, S.C. and Rush-Copley Medical Center, Inc., states as follows:
Introduction
1. This Complaint at Law arises out of the Defendant’s unauthorized sterilization procedure of the Plaintiff, Nada Dollah by performing a bitubal ligation of her against her will and without her consent.
Parties
2. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiff, Nada Dollah (“Dollah”), resided in Naperville, County of DuPage, State of Illinois.
3. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Nizar Olabi (“Olabi”), is and was an obstetrician- Gynecologist licensed to practice medicine in the state of Illinois. Olabi is a physician, the President and Secretary of Women’s Health Physicians, S.C. in Aurora. On information and belief, Olabi is a staff member with admitting privileges at Rush-Copley Medical Center, Inc. in Aurora, Illinois. Olabi is being sued in his individual capacity.
4. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Women’s Health Physicians, S.C. (“Physicians”) was an Illinois Corporation authorized to and doing business in the State of Illinois. Physicians is in the business of providing medical care and treatment.
5. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Rush-Copley Medical Center, Inc. (“Rush-Copley”) was an Illinois Corporation authorized to and doing business in the State of Illinois. Rush-Copley is in the business of providing medical care and treatment. On information and belief, Olabi is a staff member with admitting privileges at Rush-Copley.
Jurisdiction and Venue
6. This Court has jurisdiction over the persons and subject matter to this action because acts underlying this cause of action took place in Illinois.
7. This Court is the appropriate venue in which to adjudicate this action because ne or more of the Defendants reside in Cook County and/or does business in Cook County.
Acts Complained Of
8. Dollah was pregnant with her third child in March 2008.
9. In or around March 2008, Dollah sought obstetric-gynecological services of Olabi at Physicians.
10. Dollah consulted with Olabi regarding her pregnancy at Physicians.
11. Dollah employed Olabi for compensation paid and/or to be paid, to provide her with proper gynecological medical and surgical care and treatment to attend and perform certain surgical procedures on her, namely, a cesarean section for delivery of her child.
12. Olabi accepted employment for consideration, pursuant to which he undertook, entered upon and rendered to Dollah gynecological medical and surgical care and treatment, namely, a cesarean section for delivery of her child.
13. On or around May 28, 2008, Dollah was scheduled for a cesarean section.
14. Olabi agreed to perform the cesarean section on Dollah at Rush-Copley.
15. Rush-Copley granted Olabi admitting privileges at Rush-Copley and granted him staff status.
16. Olabi is an officer and employee of Physicians.
17. Olabi is an agent, apparent agent and/or employee of Rush-Copley.
18. Dollah was admitted to Rush-Copley on May 28, 2008, for the purpose of delivering her child via cesarean section.
19. Olabi and his employees and agents performed the scheduled cesarean section on Dollah and delivered Dollah’s daughter.
20. The only surgical procedure Olabi was scheduled to perform on Dollah was a cesarean section.
21. Unbeknownst to Dollah, Olabi and/or his employees or agents also performed the surgical procedure of bitubal ligation (“Sterilization”) on Dollah.
22. Dollah had not authorized the Sterilization.
23. Neither Olabi nor his employees or agents obtained Dollah’s consent to sterilize Dollah.
24. As such, Olabi and/or his employees or agents sterilized Dollah against her will and without her consent.
COUNT I – BATTERY
25. Dollah re-alleges, restates and incorporates paragraphs one through 24 above as if fully set forth herein.
26. Defendants contacted Dollah in a harmful and/or offensive nature insofar as Defendants performed/allowed to be performed the Sterilization on Dollah’s person.
27. Dollah did not consent to the Sterilization.
28. Through performing the unauthorized Sterilization on Dollah, the Defendants willfully and wantonly battered Dollah.
29. Moreover, under the doctrine of apparent authority, Rush-Copley is vicariously liable for the intentional torts committed to Dollah while furthering the business of Rush-Copley.
30. Under the doctrine of apparent authority, Physicians in vicariously liable for the intentional torts committed to he Dollah while furthering the business of Physicians.
31. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant’s battery on Dollah, Dollah has been denied the opportunity to bear any more children, has sustain permanent damages and loss of normal life, and experienced and will continue to experience extreme pain and suffering.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nada Dollah, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Defendants, and award her compensatory damages in an amount to be established by the proofs, but in no event less than $1,000,000.00; punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter future similar conduct on the part of Defendants, but in no event less than $1,000,000.00; the costs incurred in this matter and any further relief that this Honorable Court deems fair and just.
COUNT II – NEGLIGENCE
32. Dollah repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 31 above as if fully set forth herein.
33. Olabi was the obstetrician-gynecologist scheduled to perform a cesarean section on Dollah on or around May 28, 2008, at Rush-Copley.
34. Olabi exercised supervision and control of his employees and/or agents during Dollah’s delivery.
35. Olabi had a duty exercise due care in, inter alia, obtaining informed consent to sterilize Dollah, limiting the surgery performed on Dollah to that which Dollah consented to, properly informing Dollah of the extent of the surgery that was going to be performed on her; protecting Dollah against unauthorized intrusion; and maintaining orderly records.
36. Rush-Copley, as an institution and through the physicians practicing within the obstetrician-gynecological unit, had a duty to exercise due care in, inter alia, determining which physicians are granted admitting privileges at their facility, ensuring that Olabi understood his role and what was expected of him in carrying out its surgical procedures; maintaining procedures to ensure Dollah provided informed consent for the Sterilization, enforcing that Olabi – who was granted admitting and staff privileges at Rush-Copley – obtain informed consent from Dollah prior to sterilizing her; and protecting Dollah from unauthorized intrusion.
37. Physicians, as an institution and through the physicians practicing within the obstetrician-gynecological unit, had a duty to exercise due care in, inter alia, determining which physicians are granted admitting and staff privileges at their facility, ensuring that Olabi understood his role and what was expected of him in carrying out its surgical procedures; maintaining procedures to ensure Dollah provided informed consent for the Sterilization, enforcing that Olabi – who was granted admitting and staff privilgese at Physicians – obtain informed consent from Dollah prior to sterilizing her; and protecting from unauthorized intrusion.
38. Olabi, in breach and violation of his duty of due care, negligently failed to obtain informed consent to sterilize Dollah, negligently expanded the scope of the surgery beyond what Dollah consented to including, but not limited to the Sterilization of Dollah without her consent; negligently failed to inform Dollah of the extent of the surgery that was going to be performed on her; negligently failed to protect Dollah against unauthorized intrusion; and negligently failed to maintain orderly records.
39. Rush-Copley, in breach and violations of its duty of care, negligently failed to ensure that Olabi understood his role and what was expected of him in carrying out its surgical procedures; negligently failed to maintain procedures to ensure Dollah provided informed consent from Dollah prior to sterilizing her, negligently failed to protect Dollah from unauthorized intrusion, and negligently failed to protect Dollah.
40. Physicians, in breach and violations of its duty of care, negligently failed to ensure that Olabi understood his role and what was expected of him in carrying out its surgical procedures; negligently failed to maintain procedures to ensure Dollah provided informed consent from Dollah prior to sterilizing her, negligently failed to protect Dollah from unauthorized intrusion, and negligently failed to protect Dollah.
41. Moreover, Rush-Copley is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of Olabi in providing care at the hospital.
42. Physicians is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of Olabi in providing care through its clinic.
43. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants’ deviation of its standard of care, Dollah has been denied the opportunity to bear any more children, has sustained permanent damages and loss of normal life, and experience and will continue to experience extreme pain and suffering.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nada Dollah, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Defendants, and award her compensatory damages in an amount to be established by the proofs, but in no event less that $1,000,000.00; attorney fees, the costs incurred in this matter and any further relief that this Honorable Court deems fair and just.
Jill--Unnecesarean
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (28)
Incredible!
Why in the world would a doctor do that?!?
I will say that with my 3rd. c-section, during my surgery prep. I was asked over and over whether I was getting a tubal. I said "no!" every time. Thankfully I have a doctor that is supportive of me having a large family. I can't imagine being sterilized against my will.
I have met numerous women on the net and in real life that have had 4 c-sections. 3 is not the magic number when it comes to cesareans.
Hi Morgan,
I have no idea! You don't perform surgery unless you have informed consent, so what happened? I guess a bad mix-up?
Thanks for your blog - it's really awesome! Great info.
Oh, wow. How did she find out? The bill? I think it's interesting that some of these cases are being tried in criminal court as battery. So was the case in which the surgeon put the temporary tattoo near a patient's genitalia while she was under anesthesia.
There is an increased risk to mother and fetus / baby with every subsequent cesarean, so usually, several repeat cesareans are not a good plan of action. Unfortunately, with so many nonindicated primary sections and an insistence by most doctors and facilities that women do not try VBACs, women who have many more pregnancies are forced into multiple repeat cesareans.
"I was asked repeatedly if I wanted to be sterilized before my second c/s. I emember thinking that they were being insensitive to ask me while I was being rolled away.
"You don't perform surgery unless you have informed consent, so what happened?"
Actually, you do not perform surgery unless you have informed consent and written/signed consent from the patient. (Unless it is an emergency and the patient is incapacitated). This case is dead in the water for the hospital if they do not have a signed consent for tubal ligation. The mom may have verbally stated up and down a thousand times that she wanted one, if that paper is not signed, it means nothing. Makes no difference how many previous C-Sections she had. She could of had 5 previous sections and her uterus could be paper thin, we are still not performing a tubal without written consent. My educated guess is this is a colossal process fail, just like amputating the wrong leg in the OR. Let me give you all a little OR primer to help you understand, if I may:
1. First thing we do is obtain a signed written and witnessed informed consent from patient stating the reason for the surgery. A C-Section and Tubal should have been on the consent.
2. In the OR right before the surgeon starts we perform a "Time Out" procedure. This is were the OR nurse states loudy "Time out. We are performing a C-section and bilateral tubal ligation on Ms.X" The surgeon and anesthesiologist must verbally acknowledge this is correct before beginning surgery. The "Time Out" is stated loudly and in front of the patient as an added safety net.
3. After acknowledgment of the right surgery, right patient, etc, the procedure begins.
It sounds like maybe this process was not under taken in this case. To be perfectly honest, some surgeons (not the majority) can be impatient, A-holes and ignore the nurse during the time out. Or they will mumble acknowledgment under their breath. Basically they can act like impatient toddlers. It makes me crazy when safety measures are poo-poohed as ridiculous, yet this is why wrong legs still get amputated, and women get sterilized without consent.
Although I'm not real familiar with med/mal cases, the interesting thing to me is that they sued for medical battery in addition to negligence. I think that battery is an underutilized cause of action in birth lawsuits.
Hey, Mommy Blawger! How have you been? I check your blog-- er, blawg-- every now and then to see what's going on.
Thanks for stopping by.
MomTFH - I still have nightmares from the tattoo story. Wasn't it a pretty little rose or something? I cringe just typing it.
Audrey, that is really insensitive. Is that common to ask someone going in for a c/s? :(
RR, I was thinking about the surgical consent form, but I forget that "informed consent" can be a nod or a "yes."
Reality Rounds, this is what I posted on the Facebook fan page earlier this morning...
"There are unauthorized sterilazations that make the news occasionally and some are manipulative. I'll try to find some links. I'm withholding judgment on this one for now and hoping it's *just* a medical error, like amputating the wrong leg, rather than a sneaky plot to do someone a favor they didn't ask for by sterilizing them. Know what I mean?
Not that amputating the wrong leg isn't a horrible medical error, of course! I'm really curious about the intent of the doc in performing the tubal ligation."
My guess is that it was an "oh crap" moment. And some "oh crap" events are far worse than others.
Oh no. I followed a link back to a forum discussing this and found:
"I didn't read the whole thing, but did she already have a frillion other kids? Was she on welfare?
If she was, and i was the doc, i would be tempted to do the same thing. Even though I know it's not right."
o hai. itz 2009.
Jill, absolutely. This is probably not surprising at all: the same medical student who say across from me at a journal club and said that poor women should be sterilized "for their own good" even if it's against their will also told me that he thought the tattoo incident was hilarious. He said surgeons do "the tattoo thing" all the time, and what he thinks is even more awesome, amirite? is when surgeons carve their initials (!!!) in people's skulls or perotineums or the like. He says it happens, and surgeons brag about it online in forums. I want to know what is going on with all the people in the room at this moment. Does the anesthesiologist know? How about the OR nurses? I am horrified at the thought.
MOMTFH,
I am praying to God that this is an urban legend! My hubbie's best friend is an ortho surgeon, so we are very friendly with lots of surgical docs and I have never heard of this, personally. I have not heard about it from any of my OR nurse friends either, but that does not mean it can't happen. Yuck!
As far as this sterilization case, I am not surprised by the ignorant comments. There is a story in my local paper today of a 29 year old mom who left her 8 kids home alone and living in squalor. You can only imagine what the comments were on that thread! It would be difficult in my opinion for a surgeon to "hide" the fact of a tubal ligation in the OR. He is not alone inside the open cavity. There would also be an OR nurse (or OR technician), and a first assist on the case. They would have seen him, because they would have had to of assisted him in the procedure.
Not that this matters, but the 30 day consent prior to a tubal is only required for patient's on public aid. I believe it was set up this way so poor women would not be coerced into sterilization when they entered the hospital to give birth.
This isn't the first time I've read of someone being sterilized during a c/s procedure (or given a hysterectomy for that matter). I really do hope this was just a mistake and not intentional - sometimes you have to wonder. I try really hard not to go the tin foil hat route and see a conspiracy everywhere, but with our birth climate sometimes it's a bit difficult. As much as some web medical types try...ahem...they don't exactly inspire confidence in the OB profession.
RR: "Not that this matters, but the 30 day consent prior to a tubal is only required for patient's on public aid. I believe it was set up this way so poor women would not be coerced into sterilization when they entered the hospital to give birth."
I didn't realize that! I suppose it's good and bad... less freedom to decide in the last week or two of pregnancy and exercise autonomy. Pretty troublesome that coercive sterilization is still something from which women need to be protected.
Yep,
The 30 day TL consent was set up in the 70's to protect against coercive sterilization. Most private insurance has a very small waiting period, or none at all. This long waiting period can be good to prevent corersion, but it can also be bad. We often have moms (usually drug addicted) on their 5,6,7,8, etc....baby who really want a tubal. We of course can not comply without that 30 day prior consent. How many of these mom's do you think will come back in 30 days? (answer is none if you really need to know). Yes there are ethical issues with giving a drug addicted mom a requested tubal. That is a whole other discussion in itself.
There are few attitudes that piss me off more than "I think you have too many kids and I'm going to tell you so." First, and most importantly, how many kids someone has is NOBODY'S business except the parents. Now, if someone is being reckless or can't afford to feed them or whatever, there is a time for judicious intervention. But if you want to have ten kids? Shoot, have 'em! Second, who defines "too many kids"? For some people, two is too many!
I hope to goodness that this isn't an incidence of someone trying to sterilize a woman with "too many kids". As horrible as an "oops" would be, it's not near as bad as the alternative!
I scrubbed in a c-section once where the mom was a G3 of only 22 years. Her OB told her that her uterus was paper-thin (and it was - you could see hair, fluid, and the cord through the muscle wall) and that he would not suggest any more pregnancies due to risk of uterine rupture and that he would not provide her OB services if she was to get pregnant again. She was asked repeatedly throughout the pregnancy (according to both patient and doc) if she wanted a tubal, but she refused. He very well could have sterilized her during the section, and some would have found his judgment logical. However, it would have been illegal and unethical. That same OB refused to consent to the request for a tubal from a 22-weeker (also G3) who was going into HELLP and needed a section. He said that he couldn't ethically consent to the procedure without more consideration and time (on the mother's part) going into that decision. Funny how some people think that legality and ethics are below them as the closertogodthanyoucouldeverbe surgeons they are.
I only assisted on one tubal. The consent had been signed LONG before the scheduled third c-section and the mother was 39 years old. After the baby had been delivered, the OB stopped and spoke with the mother, making sure that she understood that he was about to perform the sterilization. Maybe it's because this was at a Catholic hospital where ALL tubals have to go through an approval committee, but I like to think that our docs have a little bit of goodness and decency about them.
What about hospitals that require "blanket" consent forms for anyone checking in for a birth. I've heard of women planning on having natural birth and being given epidurals, pitocin, and or c-sections and hysterectomies against their will with the expressed view that the blanket consent allows OBs to do anything they feel is "necessary". Stories like this just reinforce my belief that the medical establishment aims to prevent empowering birthing women.
This totally broke my heart. Whether it was a 'Whoops, I thought we had the consent" or a "Well, this is her third and she will most likely be back in a few months to have it done anyway" scenario, I am left feeling so sad for this mother. My grandmother had a hysterecomy without her consent after giving birth to a still-born baby at 7 months gestation. The doctor convinced my grandfather it was in her best interest, since they already had 6 living children and another pregnancy would be too hard on her. She only recently spoke with me about it and told me that she hopes that no other woman has to be violated the way she was.
I cant begin to imagine the anger and hurt this woman feels.
Lindsey, I just got shivers thinking about your grandmother reeling from the news of a stillborn baby and finding out that, by the way, she's now sterile and doesn't have to be. When I see the vestiges and evidence of institutionalized decision-making on behalf of women by people who have no business altering or commandeering their bodies, I get pissed.
I agree that it's heartbreaking either way. If it was an error, it's in the same file as amputating the wrong limb. Really, really bad but hopefully not intentionally malicious.
Thanks for your comment.
I wish I could say I was surprised that it was a male physician from the East or Middle East. I am in no such way being racist, I'm merely pointing out that it's another act of "controlling what a woman does" and their culture seems to be so fond of doing just that!!
"Is that common to ask someone going in for a c/s? :( " No. I think it's just that so many women DO want a tubal during a c-section, so they feel they have to ask. To the patient that doesn't want a tubal, it just comes off insensitive.
I was never asked with my 1st., 2nd. or 4th. c-sections. I
@ morgan,
My SIL was asked after the vaginal birth of her first child if she wanted her tubes tied! Perhaps it's just something they asked every woman in her hospital?
Immediately following the birth of my 2nd child (both vaginal) the doctor said to me as she was changing her gloves "Your going to have a tubal ligation, right!" I was floored and highly offended. Of course I told her "NO" that I had never even considered it. She then questioned me again. The next morning, the nurse that came to check on me, said "so you had your tubes tied". I told her NO and then I asked her if it was hospital policy to only ALLOW white women only 2 children. She quickly appologized and left. This from the same Medical Group that gave a welfare mom 8 kids by IVF.
Sharon, that is insane. This cracked me up a little... "I told her NO and then I asked her if it was hospital policy to only ALLOW white women only 2 children."
That must have been bizarre. Jeez, when you think about defending yourself from interventions, you never think about having to fight off sterilization. I guess it's a good thing you didn't wind up with a c/s under general because they might have just snipped you.
Yeesh.
I was always pretty sure that asking about a tubal was routine (at least at my hospital). I've been asked with all three of my born children (including my first son who was born when I was 17. *Yikes*.) and they asked for the record when I went in to be monitored with my current baby.
It wasn't in an offensive way as in "You shouldn't have any more kids." and they only asked once with each baby "for the record" more like the, if you're planning on having a tubal anyway and we have to do a c-section we might as well do it while we're in there.