Do I have a legal recourse after surgery was done, excessive amount of bone was removed and it never healed?

You should either consult with or retain a plaintiff's medical malpractice lawyer for specific legal advice regarding your medical problems.

Sometimes, no matter how perfectly the doctor does the treatment, there is a bad result. In this case, you need to consult with another doctor to determine if your condition can be fixed, and if the first doctor screwed up. If the first doctor screwed up, then you have a medical malpractice case.

You really do not have enough information tell know whether you have enough for a case. To successfully sue for malpractice, you need three things: 1. Evidence that the doctor deviated from acceptable standards of due care, either by act or omission. This is also referred to as negligence. A bad outcome, in of itself, is not evidence of negligence. You need a doctor to testify that the doctor was negligent. 2. Evidence that the negligence cause some harm. For example, there are times when a doctor is negligent. An you have all sorts of medical problems after the procedure or medical treatment, but your problems are not caused by or related to the negligence. An example might be where a doctor fails to diagnose cancer, it is later diagnosed, and now you are having debilitating procedures, and a questionable outcome. If earlier treatment would have made no difference in your treatment and prognosis, then the negligence caused no damages (the negligence did not cause the cancer) 3. Significant damages. If the negligence caused minor damages, it would not be economically feasible to bring a ,malpractice case, because the cost in expert witness fees to bring these cases to court are so high. It is not unusual for costs to exceed $50,000.00 and sometimes $100,000.00. Some malpractice attorneys who require at least $500,000 in medical bills or lost wages caused by the negligence before they will consider the case. Issues #1 and #2 above are medical questions that a doctor must answer. You will need to find an attorney that takes malpractice cases who will find a doctor, or group of doctors, to review your medical records and get an answer to questions 1 and 2. I cannot tell where you are in your "medical journey". Often, I advise prospective clients to go a little further with medical treatment so that we have better idea of question #3 above. Some people contact me at the first sign that something may have gone wrong in their medical treatment, and I advise them to get whatever medical treatment is needed to correct the problem. If it is corrected satisfactorily, then there is probably no point in spending money to get answers to questions #1 and #2. In your case, it may be wise to see how the third surgery turns out. You have 3 years from the date you knew or should have known you have a potential case to file the case (I always assume this to be the date of the procedure to be safe, but with you it could be the date you first suspected something had gone wrong). You have 2 years if your suit is against a government or charity. I also assume 2 years because many medical practices these days are under the umbrella of a hospital, many of which are government or charitable entities (plus your suit may be against the hospital rather than the doctor or in addition to the doctor). If it approaching two years since the original procedure, you may want to contact an attorney to begin looking into this..

In order to prove a medical malpractice case, a claimant must prove a failure to conform to accepted practice, resulting in an injury. A bad result is not enough. You will need to get copies of ALL of your medical records and have a doctor review them; if he/she is willing to testify that the hospital failed to conform to accepted practice, then you have a case. But even then, you have to prove how much worse you are as a result of the malpractice. These cases are difficult and expensive to prove and they do not settle out of court. So unless you have catastrophic injuries, it does not make financial sense to go forward even if malpractice was committed.

It will be tremendously difficult to show that had the sliver of bone been removed on both ends, that the bones would have aligned better and you would have avoided the need for more surgery. You have to keep in mind that the issue of malpractice (whether the doctor acted below the standard of care) is separate from whether you can prove that had you received the appropriate treatment, more likely than not you would have achieved a better result. In other words, it's not enough to prove that the standard of care required the doctor to remove a sliver of bone on both ends (and even that will be a difficult argument to win, because the doctor will say that in his or her judgment, it was most appropriate not to remove a tiny sliver of bone on each end). You must also prove that if the doctor had complied with the standard of care, you would have achieved a significantly better result. You have two years from the date of malpractice to formally assert a claim of medical malpractice in Michigan. If you wish to pursue the matter at all, I urge you to immediately contact a medical malpractice attorney for another opinion.

It is certainly possible that provable malpractice occurred. The whole series of treatments need to be carefully evaluated to go further. Please be aware of the limitations periods. For medical malpractice you must file an action or request for formal mediation within three years of the malpractice or when a reasonable person should have discovered it. If the doc was a state employee you must file a formal notice of claim within 180 days.

Perhaps, but unlikely. Doctors can do their best and properly practice the best medical practice but that does not mean they guarantee results. There, to form an opinion I would need to have all of the facts.