Wrong-Leg Amputation Lawsuit: 2 Surgical Time-Outs Failed Ohio Patient

For medical malpractice litigators, the case against Selby General Hospital offers an unusually stark liability picture: two documented surgical time-outs and a site mark left on the correct leg while the wrong leg was amputated. The complaint essentially alleges a never event—a wrong-site surgery that federal and private payers generally refuse to reimburse—making settlement pressure on the defense significant. Expect the central legal battles to revolve around vicarious liability, apparent agency, and whether the hospital's protocols, if followed, would have prevented the error.

An Ohio woman, Sharon Jacks, is suing Selby General Hospital in Marietta, Ohio, its unnamed surgeon, and other members of the surgical team after a below-the-knee amputation on September 19, 2025, allegedly removed her left leg instead of her cancer-affected right leg. The lawsuit, reported by WBNS and syndicated by Fox affiliates on October 1, 2026, claims she woke from anesthesia to discover the wrong leg had been amputated, and that the right leg was subsequently removed as well, leaving her a double amputee. The complaint and attorney Brad Layne characterize the case as a complete failure of basic surgical safety procedures.

“

For medical malpractice litigators, the case against Selby General Hospital offers an unusually stark liability picture: two documented surgical time-outs and a site mark left on the correct leg while the wrong leg was amputated.

The procedural details make this case remarkable. According to Layne, medical records indicate the surgeon initially marked the correct leg, but the wrong leg was still amputated. Even more damaging for the defense, Layne stated the mark was still on the correct leg after the wrong leg had been removed. The lawsuit further alleges that two surgical 'time-outs' were conducted before the procedure. A time-out is a required pause in which the team confirms patient identity, the planned operation, and the correct surgical site before incision. That two time-outs reportedly occurred and the team still operated on the wrong leg suggests a collapse of verification, communication, and situational awareness in the operating room.

Wrong-site surgery occupies a unique place in medical safety and legal liability. Under the Joint Commission Universal Protocol, adopted in 2004, surgical teams must perform a pre-procedure verification process, mark the surgical site, and conduct a time-out immediately before the procedure. Wrong-site surgery is classified as a sentinel event and a 'never event' under Medicare and Medicaid policies, meaning it should not occur and is generally not reimbursable. Each incident triggers a root-cause analysis and can expose a hospital to accreditation scrutiny, state health department review, and professional licensing board investigations. For Selby General Hospital, the reported facts could draw exactly this kind of regulatory attention.

From a legal standpoint, the plaintiffs will likely argue that the hospital is vicariously liable for the negligence of its staff, including nurses, surgical technologists, and the surgeon, and that the institution failed to enforce its own time-out protocols. The fact that two time-outs were conducted but the wrong leg was still amputated suggests either checklist activity without meaningful participation or a team hierarchy that silenced anyone who noticed the inconsistency. The surgeon may face direct claims for negligent performance, and the hospital may face claims for negligent credentialing, supervision, and failure to maintain safe systems. The written documentation surrounding the time-outs and site marking will be central evidence.

Damages are likely to be substantial. Jacks lost both legs, one of them unnecessarily, and will require lifelong prosthetics, rehabilitation, home modifications, and psychological care. Her economic damages may include past and future medical costs and lost earning capacity, while non-economic damages will reflect pain, suffering, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life. If discovery shows reckless disregard for safety protocols, punitive damages could also be considered. For the defense, the main dispute may be over the allocation of fault among the hospital, surgeon, and team members rather than liability itself.