Then Kowalski testified, and he was devastating in the way surgeons often are when forced to become witnesses. He walked the board methodically through the operative findings, the pathology, the timing, the distinction between uncomplicated appendicitis and perforated appendicitis, the consequences of delay, the evidence supporting recent rupture, and the increased morbidity caused by perforation. He explained that timely diagnosis likely would have allowed laparoscopic removal prior to rupture, avoiding generalized contamination, drains, prolonged hospitalization, and broader risk of infection.
“In my professional opinion,” he said, “the delay in diagnosis and treatment directly caused the rupture and the subsequent complications, including peritonitis, need for more extensive surgical management, prolonged IV antibiotics, and prolonged recovery.”