The plaintiff, a then-32-year-old, married mother of three, alleged that the hospital, an attending orthopedic surgeon, and an orthopedic surgery resident, committed medical malpractice in the performance of a right total hip replacement (THR), as well as in the post-operative care. During the THR procedure, a drill bit broke off in the patient’s right trochanter and the decision was made by the attending surgeon not to try to remove it, as it was buried in the bone and extremely unlikely ever to cause any harm, whereas attempting to remove it presented a risk to the structural integrity of the bone. The event was well-documented in the hospital records. The THR was successfully completed. However, the plaintiff alleged in the action that she was never told of the broken drill bit, first learning of its presence when she sought further treatment at another hospital, as it was revealed on X rays. She alleged that the failure to advise her of it was a departure from the prevailing standard of care, and that the retained bit exacerbated her preexisting condition of avascular necrosis, causing pain and weakness in the right hip. While our clients were certain they discussed the retained bit fragment with the patient, they could not demonstrate it through documentation of the conversation. In defense of the action, based upon expert reviews, we averred in discussions with plaintiff’s counsel that the random breaking of the bit during the surgery was a risk of the procedure, and not the result of any malpractice, and that the retained fragment of the metal bit deep in the patient’s trochanter, a large bone, would simply be enveloped by bone callus and would not cause any harm or make any functional difference. We contended that the plaintiff could not objectively demonstrate that the bit fragment aggravated her preexisting condition of avascular necrosis, and that the suit was cynical and opportunistic, based simply on the happening of the broken bit. We further contended that, even if, for sake of argument, the plaintiff was not advised of the breaking of the drill bit and the retention of the bit fragment, she would not be able to demonstrate that any harm came of that alleged omission, as it would not have caused her to take or refrain from taking any particular action in regard to the bit fragment (since it nonetheless would not have been indicated or recommended to go back and try to remove it). We were prepared to try the case, perfectly aware that a jury could have some misgivings about the lack of documentary evidence of any post-operative conversations about the broken bit. Nonetheless, despite that evidentiary issue in the plaintiff’s favor, plaintiff’s counsel opted to move to be relieved as counsel, and the motion was granted. When the plaintiff failed to retain new counsel or otherwise proceed with the action after a period of time, we moved to dismiss it for failure to prosecute, and our motion was granted. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants.