I would guess the defense of Casianos earlier, stupid statement, that the "...rectum was closed because of staples" will be accompanied by the defense (assuming it's written down somewhere in a medical record and can't be avoided) that the swelling caused the bowel to press upon itself forcing the wall opposite the staples into the barrier of staples.
But then Watkins should argue that a physician would have to reasonably assume that swelling from this sort of operation was to be expected and using staples was not the appropriate course of action.
But it sounds like Casiano's attorney will have him try to deny that statement altogether. Which is the unethical smart thing to do, assuming that Cassiano did in fact say that.
Then it will come down to whether or not Watkin's ill-advised smoking could have caused enough swelling to put Casiano in the clear.
Had Watkins gone to a different doctor after the initial surgery, he would have had expert testimony that Casiano in fact botched the surgery. But instead all he has is what Casiano allegedy told him. If he had gone to a different doctor Casiano would have realized that he was screwed and settled this outside of court. (But I'm assuming a lot here)
|
