|
Medical
Malpractice Representative Cases
Medical Malpractice - A patient was admitted to her local hospital for an abdominal hysterectomy. The surgery was successful and without complications. After surgery, the patient was transferred from the recovery room to a regular hospital room where she was able to communicate with her family. The patient complained of abdominal pain to her attending nurse who promptly administered 100 milligrams of Demerol IV. This excessive amount of pain medication resulted in depressed respirations and cardiopulmonary arrest. A code was called and the patient was successfully resuscitated but remained comatose for approximately seven weeks before her death. Her death was determined to be the result of multi-system failure resulting from an anoxic brain injury and cardiopulmonary arrest suffered as a result of the excessive pain medication. The patient’s attending physician wrote a “double variable” order for post-operative pain control. The double variable order (which is no longer permitted by the hospital) provided for “Demerol 50 -100 milligrams, Intramuscular or Intravenously, every 4 hours as needed.” The hospital defended the case based on the argument that the pain medication administered by the nurse was within the dosage range permitted by the physician’s order. The plaintiff’s nursing experts opined that the administering nurse had the responsibility to utilize her own professional judgment and should have first administered the lowest permitted dosage allowed by the range-dose order (50 milligrams) and only increase that dosage after evaluation of the resident’s vital signs. The case was successfully mediated shortly before trial for a confidential amount.
Medical Malpractice - The plaintiff arrived at the emergency department of
her local hospital with confusion, disorientation and
fever. It was determined that she wasn’t getting
enough oxygen and a chest x-ray indicated possible
pneumonia. Because of her altered mental status, the
emergency room physician performed a lumbar puncture
to check for meningitis. The woman's spinal fluid
contained red blood cells. The plaintiff received
oxygen and was admitted to the hospital. The next day
she had worsening respiratory distress and required intubation and transfer to the intensive care unit.
She developed heart pain and her cardiologist
diagnosed a possible heart attack and ordered IV blood
thinner (Heparin). Heart attack was ruled out over the
next 48 hours after an analysis of her cardiac
enzymes. The plaintiff remained in the ICU, intubated,
and on IV Heparin for 5 days. When she was extubated,
her legs were paralyzed. An MRI revealed extensive
blood in her spine. The woman was transferred to
another hospital for treatment and her paralysis was
permanent. Suit was filed against her attending
physician, consulting cardiologist, and hospital. The
allegations against the cardiologist were based upon
the order for Heparin in light of the traumatic spinal
tap and questionable cardiac changes as well as the
continued use of Heparin after a heart attack had been
ruled out. The arbitrator found that the attending
physician and cardiologist met the standard of care.
The arbitrator also found that the nurses’ notes from
the Intensive Care Unit contained indications of
decreased sensation and motor function in the
plaintiff’s legs and that her attending physicians
should have been alerted to these findings. The case
was resolved through binding arbitration with an award
of $1,000,000.00. The plaintiff died a few days after
the arbitration award as a result of lung cancer that
was first diagnosed during her hospitalization for her
paralysis.
Dental Malpractice - The plaintiff, a
retired college administrator, had been treated by the
defendant, a general dentist, for 30 years. During
this time she had regular dental appointments with the
defendant. The plaintiff began experiencing loose,
shifting teeth and bleeding gums as early as 1970 and
had continued discussions with the defendant regarding
these problems. In October of 1999 the defendant
recommended a partial plate for the plaintiff’s loose
and shifting teeth. The plaintiff sought a second
opinion from another dentist who advised her that she
had severe and progressive periodontal disease. The
action alleged that the defendant failed to properly
and timely perform appropriate diagnostic and
treatment procedures for the plaintiff’s periodontal
disease or to refer her to specialists who could treat
her periodontal disease. The case settled after the
exchange of discovery and prior to depositions.
Medical Malpractice - The plaintiff,
a 62 year old woman, was admitted to the hospital for
laparoscopic removal of her gall bladder to be
performed by the defendant, a general surgeon. During
the procedure, the surgeon misidentified the
plaintiff’s anatomy and cut her common bile duct. The
defendant realized what had happened and repaired the
common bile duct. After surgery, the plaintiff was
taken to the ICU unit where she remained for four
days. She was discharged from the hospital on day
seven. After the operation, the plaintiff suffered
from night sweats, chills, and loss of appetite. She
was referred to a surgeon at the University of
Virginia who determined that she had developed an
abnormal narrowing of her common bile duct as a result
of the injury during surgery. A stinting procedure was
performed in July of 1998 and, for the most part, the
plaintiff’s symptoms have subsided. The plaintiff’s
expert testified that the defendant was negligent in
misidentifying the plaintiff’s anatomy. Each of the
defense experts testified that an injury to the common
bile duct can occur without the presence of
negligence. The case was settled prior to trial.
Medical Malpractice / Wrongful Death - The plaintiff, a 63 year old man, had an annual
physical performed by his family doctor. The man was
found to have elevated PSA (prostate specific antigen)
of 5.82 and the family doctor referred him to a
urology practice for follow-up. The urologist
conducted an exam and referred him back to his family
doctor with the request that the family doctor repeat
the PSA test within four months and send him back to
the urology practice if his PSA remained elevated. The
man saw his family doctor several times in the next
four years for a variety of medical problems. Although
he acknowledged receiving the urologist’s
recommendation, the family doctor never repeated the
PSA test. The urologist, also aware of the man's
elevated PSA, treated him for two years for kidney
stones and erectile dysfunction but never repeated the
PSA test. In April of 2000 the man was seen by his
family doctor and urologist for complaints of acute
pain in his lower back and side. An abdominal CT scan
showed significant enlargement of the lymph nodes in
the abdomen, enlargement of the prostate, and a mass
surrounding the prostate. A PSA test revealed his PSA
had elevated to 41. A subsequent bone scan showed that
the man had cancer that had metastasized throughout
his pelvis, spine, and ribs. He was treated with
radiation and chemotherapy and was given less a year
to live. The family doctor and urologists were the
defendants in this case. The family doctor’s expert
asserted that it was the urologist’s responsibility to
follow the plaintiff’s elevated PSA. Additionally, the
defense argued that the plaintiff himself was also
negligent for failing to specifically request a repeat
PSA test be performed by his family doctor. The
urologist’s defense expert testified that the family
doctor should have performed a follow-up PSA test as
directed by the initial note from the urologist. The
medical oncologist for the defense testified that
plaintiff’s cancer was so aggressive and fast growing
that earlier diagnosis and treatment would not have
altered his prognosis and life expectancy. The
plaintiff’s experts refuted each of these defense
contentions and the case was settled two days prior to
trial.
|
