{"id":590218,"date":"2026-04-17T18:21:13","date_gmt":"2026-04-17T18:21:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/590218\/"},"modified":"2026-04-17T18:21:13","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T18:21:13","slug":"ct-woman-with-internal-bleeding-claims-mistakes-led-to-emergency-surgery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/590218\/","title":{"rendered":"CT woman with ‘internal bleeding’ claims mistakes led to emergency surgery"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Connecticut woman who had to undergo emergency surgery to stem \u201csubstantial internal bleeding\u201d and removal of her ruptured fallopian tube alleges negligence on the part of the doctors and hospital.<\/a><\/p>\n

The woman was seen at Bridgeport Hospital<\/a> in 2023 after she was evaluated at Fairfield University Health Center where a urine pregnancy test showed as \u201cfaintly positive\u201d and she was urgently referred to the hospital emergency department to rule out an ectopic pregnancy, according to a lawsuit filed in state Superior Court. Fairfield University Health Center is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, nor are claims made regarding it.<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for Bridgeport Hospital, asked for a response to the suit, said, \u201cBridgeport Hospital is aware of this lawsuit and is committed to providing the safest and highest quality of care possible, however, we are unable to comment on pending litigation.\u201d Bridgeport Hospital is part of Yale New Haven Health<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The suit on behalf of the woman was filed by Rural Mechan and Richard J. Meehan of\u00a0Meehan Law, LLC, of Fairfield.<\/a> Requests for comment were sent to the firm. Because of the nature of the case, The Courant is not naming the woman.<\/p>\n

According to the suit,<\/a> consultation notes generated after the woman was seen at the hospital in late 2023 reference that there was a \u201cpregnancy of an unknown location,\u201d that there was a thin endometrial stripe on transabdominal exam, that transvaginal ultrasound was not indicated and another blood test should be done in 48 hours. Testing led \u201cmedical staff to suspect a miscarriage,\u201d the suit claims.<\/p>\n

The woman was cleared for discharge.<\/p>\n

The discharge recommendations at that time were \u201cnoted as not finalized until discussed and co-signed\u201d with the attending provider and go on to state that the patient was seen and discussed by two doctors, one of whom allegedly wrote that \u201cvital signs, ultrasound, and nature and duration of symptoms did not suggest a dangerous medical emergency.\u201d<\/p>\n

The consultation notes generated later that day described the case as a \u201cpregnancy of\u00a0unknown location,\u201d noting a thin endometrial stripe on transabdominal imaging and\u00a0indicating that transvaginal ultrasound was not performed.<\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough a transvaginal ultrasound was initially ordered\u201d the order was canceled without explanation, the suit claims. \u201cThe plaintiff was discharged with the diagnosis of pregnancy of unknown location and was instructed to return for additional bloodwork\u201d to ascertain changes in pregnancy hormone levels.<\/p>\n

The patient recalls being told by one of the doctors: \u201cI don\u2019t want to put you through\u00a0this,\u201d referencing the more invasive transvaginal ultrasound<\/a> procedure, the suit claims.<\/p>\n

The woman was seen again for follow-up testing, where labs were ordered and reviewed by two doctors, and it was found there was \u201ca pattern not consistent with a viable intrauterine pregnancy. Despite this abnormal result, again no transvaginal ultrasound was performed at this visit,\u201d the suit claims.<\/p>\n

Then, approximately five days after she originally presented, the woman returned to Bridgeport Hospital, where she was seen by an attending OB-GYN, and underwent a\u00a0transvaginal ultrasound, which revealed \u201can ectopic pregnancy that had ruptured her left\u00a0fallopian tube. Emergency surgery was necessary to address substantial internal bleeding\u00a0along with the surgical removal of the entire left fallopian tube.\u201d<\/p>\n

The suit alleges medical providers \u201cfailed to appreciate that in addition to the immediate surgical and psychological consequences, the long-term implications of salpingectomy are clinically significant, including that a unilateral salpingectomy nonetheless reduces the\u00a0opportunity for natural conception.\u201d A salpingectomy<\/a> is surgical removal of one or both fallopian tubes.<\/p>\n

The suit claims that in the woman\u2019s case, there was failure to appreciate that a fallopian tube rupture can cause the \u201cimmediate risk of life-threatening hemorrhage\u201d and necessitates more radical intervention; and failure to \u201cappreciate that fertility rates are reduced in women who undergo salpingectomy compared to women who undergo tube-sparing procedures, and assisted reproductive technologies may be required in some cases, and \u201cas a result of negligence of the defendants, she suffered and will continue to suffer possible\u201c loss of the possibility of natural conception; risk of reduced fertility; risk of adhesion formation, among other claims.<\/p>\n

\u201cHad a timely transvaginal ultrasound been performed at the first emergency department presentation, the diagnosis could have been established before rupture, potentially sparing (the plaintiff) the loss of her fallopian tube, the morbidity of emergent surgery, the risk of reduced fertility, and the lasting physical and psychological consequences that followed,\u201d the suit claims.<\/p>\n

As a further result of negligence of the defendants, the plaintiff has continued to be sick, sore, disabled and unable to pursue her usual occupation, the suit claims.<\/p>\n

It also claims that, \u201cas a further result of the negligence of the defendants the plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer anxiety and fear of future harm and an increased risk of future harm,\u201d and has suffered and will continue to suffer anxiety and fear of loss of the possibility of natural conception and reduced fertility, the suit claims.<\/p>\n

The suit claims injuries suffered by the woman \u201cwere caused by the failure of the defendants,\u201d including doctors, Bridgeport Hospital, Yale, and a medical group \u201cto exercise that degree of skill and knowledge, reasonably and ordinarily practiced by like physicians under the circumstances as\u201d alleged in the suit.<\/p>\n

The attorney for one of the doctors named as a defendant in the suit asked that it be dismissed as to his client<\/a> as they maintain the plaintiff has \u201cfailed to obtain a detailed opinion letter from a healthcare provider with a similar specialty\u201d to that doctor.<\/p>\n

\u201cA prerequisite for bringing a claim pursuant to General Statutes \u00a752-190a is that the plaintiff append their complaint with a detailed opinion letter from a similar healthcare provider \u2026 [but the doctor named] is a board-certified Emergency Medicine physician, yet the opinion letter is authored by a board-certified Obstetrics and Gynecology and Maternal Fetal Medicine physician. In addition to this, the plaintiff has failed to include any allegations in their complaint setting forth [the named doctor\u2019s] board certification or qualifications. Accordingly, there is no way that this court can determine from reading the plaintiffs\u2019 complaint whether the author of the opinion letter is a similar health care provider as required under\u201d state law.\u201d<\/p>\n

The opinion letter, written by a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and surgery, who is with the Division of Fetal Medicine and Surgery and Director of the Fetal Care and Surgery Center at Boston Children\u2019s Hospital<\/a>, and is included with the suit alleges that \u201cfrom a standards-of-care standpoint, the management of this case involved multiple deviations.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAs a result of these events, [the woman] suffered significant physical and psychological harm. She endured the pain of a ruptured ectopic pregnancy and the risks associated with emergency surgery. In the weeks following the operation, she experienced repeated panic attacks, ongoing anxiety, and a prolonged physical recovery that interfered with her ability to attend classes and participate in her collegiate tennis matches during her senior year. She now faces the distressing reality of reduced fertility due to the loss of a fallopian tube and lives with heightened fear of recurrence of ectopic pregnancy in the future,\u201d the letter included in the suit states.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A Connecticut woman who had to undergo emergency surgery to stem \u201csubstantial internal bleeding\u201d and removal of her…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":590219,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[257746,113310,244434,20242,2858,15861,3281,20130,28540,97,252,5123,253,1493,2932,6655,67149,113627,11282,257748,11363,257749,257747,1764,123285],"class_list":{"0":"post-590218","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-health-care","8":"tag-bleeding-ectopic","9":"tag-boston-childrens-hospital","10":"tag-bridgeport-hospital","11":"tag-connecticut-news","12":"tag-court","13":"tag-ct-news","14":"tag-doctors","15":"tag-emergency-surgery","16":"tag-fertility","17":"tag-health","18":"tag-health-care","19":"tag-health-news","20":"tag-healthcare","21":"tag-hospital","22":"tag-lawsuit","23":"tag-legal","24":"tag-litigation","25":"tag-needed","26":"tag-pregnancy","27":"tag-salpingectomy","28":"tag-student","29":"tag-substantial-internal-bleeding","30":"tag-transvaginal-ultrasound","31":"tag-women","32":"tag-yale-new-haven"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590218","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=590218"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590218\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/590219"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=590218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=590218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=590218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}