Meigan Maher v. University of Toledo Medical Center, Case No. 2012-08818

Applying radiotherapy to the wrong sites to treat a Michigan woman’s cervical and endometrial cancer will cost the University of Toledo Medical Center more than $200,000. The Court of Claims of Ohio approved the $214,403.55 settlement agreement on Friday.

According to a December 19, 2012 complaint, Meigan Maher received four brachytherapy treatments a year earlier. Besides treating the wrong areas as opposed to her cervix and uterine cavity, Maher alleged in her complaint that the doctors also “failed to fully insert the catheter properly.” As a result, Maher suffered “severe burns to her distal vagina and upper thigh and permanent and substantial disfigurement.”

In her claim of medical malpractice/medical negligence, Maher alleged that her doctors, Toledo Radiation Oncology Inc., University of Toledo Physicians, and University of Toledo Physicians Clinical Faculty Inc. “failed to provide Ms. Maher with competent, skilled, safe, and acceptable medical treatment; negligently failed to exercise that degree of care and skills ordinarily employed by members of the profession in the same line of practice and/or specialty and negligently failed to follow the customary and usual skills and practices of members of the profession in the course of treatment rendered to Ms. Maher, departing, with marked deviation, from the accepted standard of care.”

Under the settlement, Maher will receive $200,000, while $14,403.55 will reimburse Toledo Physicians for medical expenses incurred because of the hyperbaric oxygen treatments related to Maher’s injuries.

The Court of Claims is given original jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil actions filed against the State of Ohio and its agencies.

To access information on other cases visit the Court of Claims website.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.