$67.35 Million Colorado Record for Infant Brain-Damaged When Surgeon Tied Off Aorta in Heart Surgery

On May 21, 2019, a seven-month-old boy underwent surgery at Rocky Mountain Hospital for Children in Denver to repair a ventricular septal defect and atrial septal defect, two congenital holes between the heart's chambers. The procedure required a perfusion team to maintain circulation while the surgeon operated.

During the surgery, the cardiothoracic surgeon accidentally ligated the infant's descending aorta, cutting off blood flow to the abdomen and lower body. The parties later stipulated that this was a surgical error. What followed compounded the harm: the perfusionists employed by Comprehensive Care Services, Inc. (CCS) failed to recognize or respond to the resulting loss of perfusion for over seven hours. By the time the obstruction was identified and corrected, aspergillus, a common environmental fungus, had crossed the blood-brain barrier and seeded in the child's brain, causing permanent neurological damage.

Jim Puga of Leventhal Puga Braley, along with co-counsel from the Wagstaff Law Firm, filed suit against CCS and others, focusing at trial on the CCS perfusionists' failure to monitor and respond to obvious signs that the infant's lower body was receiving no circulation. Other medical providers, including the surgeon, had settled before trial or were named as nonparties for the jury's fault allocation.

Trial before Judge Andrew McCallin in Denver District Court ran from July 8 to July 24, 2024. The jury returned a gross verdict of $67,349,380 for the child, including over $14.5 million for past pain and suffering and more than $52.8 million in future damages. The jury assigned 7% of fault to CCS, with the remainder distributed among the nonparty surgeon and other physicians. The verdict was reported at the time as Colorado's largest medical malpractice jury award on record.

As of June 2026, a Colorado Court of Appeals panel was weighing arguments over whether the surgeon bore exclusive liability under the 'captain of the ship' doctrine, a question that could affect how the gross judgment is allocated. No reduction to the verdict had been ordered as of that date.