Dr. Thomas Shaknovsky Lawsuit — What’s Going On?

Dr. Thomas J. Shaknovsky, an osteopathic general surgeon based in Florida, is facing a major malpractice and wrongful-death lawsuit after an alleged surgical disaster: he is accused of removing a patient’s liver instead of the spleen, which resulted in the patient’s death. The case has raised alarms about surgical competence, alleged cover-ups, and regulatory oversight. Multiple medical-licensing bodies have taken action, and the legal fallout is ongoing.

What Is Alleged — Key Facts of the Case

Here’s a breakdown of the core allegations against Dr. Shaknovsky:

• Wrong Organ Removed: The plaintiff, Beverly Bryan, on behalf of her late husband William Dale Bryan, alleges that during what was supposed to be a splenectomy (spleen removal), Dr. Shaknovsky actually removed her husband’s liver.
• Cover-Up: The lawsuit claims that after removing the liver, Shaknovsky mis-identified it as a “spleen” on surgical records.
• Misleading the Family: According to the complaint, the doctor told the wife that her husband’s spleen was “so diseased” that it had grown massively and shifted places — justifying why it was supposedly removed.
• Previous Incidents: Regulatory documents (suspension order) state that this is not the only incident; in another surgery (2023), Shaknovsky allegedly removed part of a pancreas instead of the adrenal gland, leaving the surviving patient with “long-term, permanent harm.”
• Regulator Response / License Suspension:
  • Florida’s Surgeon General suspended his medical license.
  • The Alabama Medical Licensure Commission also suspended his license, citing him as a potential danger to patients.
  • Later, he surrendered his Alabama license.
• Medical Malpractice / Wrongful Death Suit: On January 30, 2025, a detailed complaint was filed in Florida’s First Judicial Circuit Court (Walton County) by Beverly Bryan as the personal representative of her husband’s estate.
• Hospital Named: The lawsuit also names Ascension Sacred Heart Emerald Coast Hospital (Miramar Beach, Florida) along with several nurses and Ascension Health, alleging institutional failure, cover-up, and misreporting.

Why This Case Is Especially Concerning / Significant

• Surgical Competence Risks: Removing the wrong organ is a “never event” — a serious medical error that should not happen if standard surgical protocols (like verifying before excision) are followed.
• Patient Safety & Oversight: The fact that two regulatory bodies (Florida and Alabama) have acted by suspending his license suggests that authorities believe there is a serious risk.
• Possible Institutional Failures: The lawsuit doesn’t just target Shaknovsky but also the hospital and its staff — alleging that others in the OR knew something was wrong, but suppressed or mis-documented it.
• Transparency & Accountability: The plaintiff is calling for more transparency when doctors make grave errors. She argues that patients and their families should be able to find out if a physician has made serious mistakes in the past.
• Regulatory Precedent: If the case results in a finding of gross negligence or other liability, it could influence how hospitals supervise surgeons, how surgical mistakes are reported, and how doctors are disciplined.

Potential Outcomes & What to Watch For

Here are potential legal and regulatory outcomes, and what they could mean:

1. Trial / Jury Verdict: If the case goes to trial, a jury could award significant damages for wrongful death, pain and suffering, and other losses.
2. Settlement: Often, medical malpractice cases are settled out of court. A settlement could include a large payout to the family, non-financial remedies (e.g., hospital policy changes), and confidentiality terms.
3. License Revocation: Regulators (Florida, Alabama) could permanently revoke Shaknovsky’s license if the evidence is strong and the disciplinary hearings conclude he committed egregious errors or cover-up.
4. Institutional Reform: Ascension Sacred Heart Emerald Coast Hospital could face internal and public pressure to improve surgical protocols, OR staffing, and incident reporting.
5. Policy Implications: This case might fuel legislative or regulatory efforts to make medical error reporting more transparent to the public (for instance, making malpractice settlements or severe disciplinary actions more easily searchable).

Advice / Take-Home Points (For Readers)

• If You’re a Patient / Family Member:
  • Be proactive in asking about a surgeon’s track record (hospital privileges, board certifications).
  • After surgery, if something seems off (unusual recovery, pain, or details shared about surgery), don’t hesitate to ask for an explanation and potentially a second opinion or autopsy (in fatal cases).
  • Know your legal rights: if there’s evidence of negligence, you can contact a malpractice attorney.
• If You’re a Hospital or Doctor:
  • Reinforce surgical safety protocols (timeouts, team verification, correct-site surgery).
  • Ensure all staff feel empowered to speak up in the OR if something looks wrong — culture matters.
  • Keep transparent, accurate documentation; cover-ups or mis-labeling (especially of removed organs) can severely backfire legally and reputationally.
• If You’re a Regulator or Policy Maker:
  • Consider stricter public disclosure of serious medical errors or repeated malpractice.
  • Support policies that require hospitals to adopt more robust surgical verification systems.

Current Status & Next Steps to Watch

• The civil wrongful-death lawsuit is active in Florida (Walton County) as of January 2025.
• Regulatory investigations are underway in both Florida and Alabama; his license in Alabama has already been surrendered.
• Media and public scrutiny are high; this could increase pressure for a significant settlement or disciplinary action.
• Legal observers will be watching whether this case influences reforms in surgical safety or medical-licensing transparency.

Bottom Line

The Dr. Thomas Shaknovsky case is more than a tragic medical error — it potentially exposes deeper issues around surgical oversight, institutional cover-up, and accountability. If the plaintiffs are successful, the case could set a precedent for how hospitals respond when “never events” happen and how regulators discipline surgeons. For patients and families, it’s a stark reminder to stay informed and vigilant when undergoing major surgery.