Wayne J. Guglielmo, MA

A Georgia doctor was cleared in June of having failed to diagnose and treat a child whose acute pancreatitis developed life-threatening complications, according to a report posted on the website of Courtroom View Network.

In 2018, the parents of the then 9-year-old child brought him to Wellstar Paulding Hospital in Hiram, Ga., because of his severe abdominal pain and distention, among other symptoms. Following their examination, medical personnel at the hospital suspected the child’s symptoms were the result of severe constipation.

That evening, he was transferred to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, where a pediatric gastroenterologist oversaw his care. (Neither the Atlanta hospital nor Wellstar Paulding were defendants in the subsequent lawsuit.)

Late the following day, the child went into hypovolemic shock, a condition that interrupted the blood supply to his body. Admitted to the pediatric ICU, he was diagnosed with a dangerous complication of acute pancreatitis, necrotizing pancreatitis.

Further complications of his original disease led to a 4-month hospital stay, multiple surgeries, and other interventions. To this point, his medical expenses totaled more than $2.5 million.

His parents then sued the pediatric gastroenterologist who had overseen their child’s care. At issue during the 4-day trial was whether the doctor had properly monitored and treated his patient before his hypovolemic shock set in.

Their attorney sketched the “timeline” of the child’s decline, including his rapid heart rate and repeated vomiting. Given these symptoms, he argued, the standard of care required that steps be taken – including the proper tests and other interventions – to prevent the child’s acute pancreatitis from progressing even further.

“We are not asking you to say, ‘Should [the doctor] have immediately diagnosed pancreatitis,’ “ the attorney told the jury. “But the totality here requires you to think, ‘This might be more than just a backed-up kid.’ ”

The defense pushed back strenuously, however. It argued that the pediatric gastroenterologist had acted appropriately given the prevailing consensus, namely that the child was suffering from extreme constipation. Doctors at Wellstar Paulding, the first hospital where he was seen, suspected this diagnosis – and so, based on his exam and the child’s “non-specific” symptoms, did their client, the pediatric gastroenterologist, who saw him subsequently. “The only clinicians who actually laid hands on [the child] all thought constipation,” the attorney said during his closing argument.

The jury agreed, finding that the pediatric gastroenterologist had acted appropriately, based on the available evidence. Following the jury verdict, the defense attorney noted: Absent the “classic” symptoms of pancreatitis, the jury saw that his client “was working with a reasonable diagnosis until [the child’s] clinical picture deteriorated.”
 

ED doctors can reduce system errors, study says

Emergency physicians are often blamed for system errors beyond their control, asserts a study in the June issue of Emergency Medicine News.

The study – conducted by Tom Belanger, MD, an emergency physician in Texas and chair-elect of the American College of Emergency Physicians Workforce Section – sought to understand to what extent doctors themselves were aware of systemic problems affecting their job. Dr. Belanger surveyed 99 doctors who were asked to comment on a series of ED–related adverse outcomes.

To mitigate response bias, he randomly manipulated the degree to which system error was a perceived factor in each of the adverse cases. In other words, in some cases, the system was represented as a major factor leading to error, while, in other cases, its role was diminished.

Dr. Belanger also divided his doctor/respondents into two groups: The first was asked about his or her personal experience with systemic issues before being presented with the adverse cases; the second group was queried about this experience after being presented with the cases.

The result confirmed Dr. Belanger’s suspicions: Physicians in the first group – that is, those asked about “system factors” before reading about the cases – “were 1.7 times more likely ... to attribute the adverse outcomes in the cases to system factors. (Other significant variables – including whether their shift was busy – also contributed to doctors’ perceptions of adverse outcomes.)

Concluded Dr. Belanger: Since doctors “can identify factors that increase their chances of making mistakes,” system designers should take heed and make efforts to reduce “the probability of error.” If they drag their heels or continue to point to individual doctor error, “they should be held medically and legally liable.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Georgia doctor was cleared in June of having failed to diagnose and treat a child whose acute pancreatitis developed life-threatening complications, according to a report posted on the website of Courtroom View Network.

In 2018, the parents of the then 9-year-old child brought him to Wellstar Paulding Hospital in Hiram, Ga., because of his severe abdominal pain and distention, among other symptoms. Following their examination, medical personnel at the hospital suspected the child’s symptoms were the result of severe constipation.

That evening, he was transferred to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, where a pediatric gastroenterologist oversaw his care. (Neither the Atlanta hospital nor Wellstar Paulding were defendants in the subsequent lawsuit.)

Late the following day, the child went into hypovolemic shock, a condition that interrupted the blood supply to his body. Admitted to the pediatric ICU, he was diagnosed with a dangerous complication of acute pancreatitis, necrotizing pancreatitis.

Further complications of his original disease led to a 4-month hospital stay, multiple surgeries, and other interventions. To this point, his medical expenses totaled more than $2.5 million.

His parents then sued the pediatric gastroenterologist who had overseen their child’s care. At issue during the 4-day trial was whether the doctor had properly monitored and treated his patient before his hypovolemic shock set in.

Their attorney sketched the “timeline” of the child’s decline, including his rapid heart rate and repeated vomiting. Given these symptoms, he argued, the standard of care required that steps be taken – including the proper tests and other interventions – to prevent the child’s acute pancreatitis from progressing even further.

“We are not asking you to say, ‘Should [the doctor] have immediately diagnosed pancreatitis,’ “ the attorney told the jury. “But the totality here requires you to think, ‘This might be more than just a backed-up kid.’ ”

The defense pushed back strenuously, however. It argued that the pediatric gastroenterologist had acted appropriately given the prevailing consensus, namely that the child was suffering from extreme constipation. Doctors at Wellstar Paulding, the first hospital where he was seen, suspected this diagnosis – and so, based on his exam and the child’s “non-specific” symptoms, did their client, the pediatric gastroenterologist, who saw him subsequently. “The only clinicians who actually laid hands on [the child] all thought constipation,” the attorney said during his closing argument.

The jury agreed, finding that the pediatric gastroenterologist had acted appropriately, based on the available evidence. Following the jury verdict, the defense attorney noted: Absent the “classic” symptoms of pancreatitis, the jury saw that his client “was working with a reasonable diagnosis until [the child’s] clinical picture deteriorated.”
 

ED doctors can reduce system errors, study says

Emergency physicians are often blamed for system errors beyond their control, asserts a study in the June issue of Emergency Medicine News.

The study – conducted by Tom Belanger, MD, an emergency physician in Texas and chair-elect of the American College of Emergency Physicians Workforce Section – sought to understand to what extent doctors themselves were aware of systemic problems affecting their job. Dr. Belanger surveyed 99 doctors who were asked to comment on a series of ED–related adverse outcomes.

To mitigate response bias, he randomly manipulated the degree to which system error was a perceived factor in each of the adverse cases. In other words, in some cases, the system was represented as a major factor leading to error, while, in other cases, its role was diminished.

Dr. Belanger also divided his doctor/respondents into two groups: The first was asked about his or her personal experience with systemic issues before being presented with the adverse cases; the second group was queried about this experience after being presented with the cases.

The result confirmed Dr. Belanger’s suspicions: Physicians in the first group – that is, those asked about “system factors” before reading about the cases – “were 1.7 times more likely ... to attribute the adverse outcomes in the cases to system factors. (Other significant variables – including whether their shift was busy – also contributed to doctors’ perceptions of adverse outcomes.)

Concluded Dr. Belanger: Since doctors “can identify factors that increase their chances of making mistakes,” system designers should take heed and make efforts to reduce “the probability of error.” If they drag their heels or continue to point to individual doctor error, “they should be held medically and legally liable.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Georgia doctor was cleared in June of having failed to diagnose and treat a child whose acute pancreatitis developed life-threatening complications, according to a report posted on the website of Courtroom View Network.

In 2018, the parents of the then 9-year-old child brought him to Wellstar Paulding Hospital in Hiram, Ga., because of his severe abdominal pain and distention, among other symptoms. Following their examination, medical personnel at the hospital suspected the child’s symptoms were the result of severe constipation.

That evening, he was transferred to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, where a pediatric gastroenterologist oversaw his care. (Neither the Atlanta hospital nor Wellstar Paulding were defendants in the subsequent lawsuit.)

Late the following day, the child went into hypovolemic shock, a condition that interrupted the blood supply to his body. Admitted to the pediatric ICU, he was diagnosed with a dangerous complication of acute pancreatitis, necrotizing pancreatitis.

Further complications of his original disease led to a 4-month hospital stay, multiple surgeries, and other interventions. To this point, his medical expenses totaled more than $2.5 million.

His parents then sued the pediatric gastroenterologist who had overseen their child’s care. At issue during the 4-day trial was whether the doctor had properly monitored and treated his patient before his hypovolemic shock set in.

Their attorney sketched the “timeline” of the child’s decline, including his rapid heart rate and repeated vomiting. Given these symptoms, he argued, the standard of care required that steps be taken – including the proper tests and other interventions – to prevent the child’s acute pancreatitis from progressing even further.

“We are not asking you to say, ‘Should [the doctor] have immediately diagnosed pancreatitis,’ “ the attorney told the jury. “But the totality here requires you to think, ‘This might be more than just a backed-up kid.’ ”

The defense pushed back strenuously, however. It argued that the pediatric gastroenterologist had acted appropriately given the prevailing consensus, namely that the child was suffering from extreme constipation. Doctors at Wellstar Paulding, the first hospital where he was seen, suspected this diagnosis – and so, based on his exam and the child’s “non-specific” symptoms, did their client, the pediatric gastroenterologist, who saw him subsequently. “The only clinicians who actually laid hands on [the child] all thought constipation,” the attorney said during his closing argument.

The jury agreed, finding that the pediatric gastroenterologist had acted appropriately, based on the available evidence. Following the jury verdict, the defense attorney noted: Absent the “classic” symptoms of pancreatitis, the jury saw that his client “was working with a reasonable diagnosis until [the child’s] clinical picture deteriorated.”
 

ED doctors can reduce system errors, study says

Emergency physicians are often blamed for system errors beyond their control, asserts a study in the June issue of Emergency Medicine News.

The study – conducted by Tom Belanger, MD, an emergency physician in Texas and chair-elect of the American College of Emergency Physicians Workforce Section – sought to understand to what extent doctors themselves were aware of systemic problems affecting their job. Dr. Belanger surveyed 99 doctors who were asked to comment on a series of ED–related adverse outcomes.

To mitigate response bias, he randomly manipulated the degree to which system error was a perceived factor in each of the adverse cases. In other words, in some cases, the system was represented as a major factor leading to error, while, in other cases, its role was diminished.

Dr. Belanger also divided his doctor/respondents into two groups: The first was asked about his or her personal experience with systemic issues before being presented with the adverse cases; the second group was queried about this experience after being presented with the cases.

The result confirmed Dr. Belanger’s suspicions: Physicians in the first group – that is, those asked about “system factors” before reading about the cases – “were 1.7 times more likely ... to attribute the adverse outcomes in the cases to system factors. (Other significant variables – including whether their shift was busy – also contributed to doctors’ perceptions of adverse outcomes.)

Concluded Dr. Belanger: Since doctors “can identify factors that increase their chances of making mistakes,” system designers should take heed and make efforts to reduce “the probability of error.” If they drag their heels or continue to point to individual doctor error, “they should be held medically and legally liable.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A health system serving three Midwest states must pay millions to the parents of a now 10-year-old boy whose meningitis was misdiagnosed at birth, according to a report in the Star Tribune, among other news outlets.

The story of the jury verdict begins in 2013, when the boy, Johnny Galligan, was just 8 days old.

Alarmed by the newborn’s crying, lack of appetite, and fever, his parents, Alina and Steve Galligan, brought him to Essentia-Health-Ashland Clinic, located in Memorial Medical Center, Ashland, Wisc. There, the baby was seen by Andrew D. Snider, MD, a family physician. Dr. Snider noted the baby’s extreme fussiness and irritability and was concerned that he was being overfed. Without ordering additional tests, the family physician sent the baby home but arranged for the Galligans to be visited by a county nurse the following day.

Her visit raised concerns, as court documents make clear. She contacted Dr. Snider’s office and explained that the baby needed to be seen immediately. After writing a script for reflux and constipation, Dr. Snider arranged for the baby to be taken to his office later that day.

Events proceeded rapidly from this point.

Following an x-ray, Johnny appeared lethargic and in respiratory distress. He was then taken down the hall to Memorial’s emergency department, where doctors suspected a critical bowel obstruction. Arrangements were made for him to be transported by helicopter to Essentia Health, Duluth, Minn. There, doctors saw that Johnny was acidotic and in respiratory failure. Once again, he was rerouted, this time to Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis, where physicians finally arrived at a definitive diagnosis: meningitis.

In 2020, the Galligans filed a medical malpractice claim against several parties, including Dr. Snider, Duluth Clinic (doing business as Essentia Health and Essentia Health–Ashland Clinic), and Memorial Hospital. In their suit, Johnny’s parents alleged that the collective failure to diagnose their son’s severe infection led directly to his permanent brain damage.

But a Bayfield County, Wisconsin, jury didn’t quite see things that way. After deliberating, it dismissed the claim against Dr. Snider and the other named defendants and found the staff of Duluth Clinic to be solely responsible for injuries to Johnny Galligan.

Duluth must pay $19 million to the Galligan family, of which the largest amount ($7,500,00) is to be directed to Johnny’s “future medical expenses and care needs.”

These expenses and costs are likely to be significant. Currently, at 10 years of age, Johnny can’t walk and is confined to a wheelchair. He has serious neurologic problems and is almost completely deaf and blind.

“He’s doing fairly well, which I attribute to his family providing care for him,” says the attorney who represented the Galligans. “They care for him 24/7. They take him swimming and on four-wheeler rides. He’s not bedridden. He has the best possible quality of life he could have, in my opinion.”

In a statement following the verdict, Essentia Health said that, while it felt “compassion for the family,” it stood by the care it had provided in 2013: “We are exploring our options regarding next steps and remain committed to delivering high-quality care to the patients and communities we are privileged to serve.”
 

ED physician found not liable for embolism, jury finds

A Missouri doctor accused of incorrectly treating a woman’s embolism has been found not liable for her death, reports a story in Missouri Lawyers Media.

The woman went to her local hospital’s ED complaining of pain and swelling in her leg. At the ED, an emergency physician examined her and discovered an extensive, visible thrombosis. No other symptoms were noted.

In the past, such a finding would have prompted immediate hospital admission. But the standard of care has evolved. Now, many doctors first prescribe enoxaparin sodium (Lovenox), an anticoagulant used to treat deep-vein thrombosis. This was the option chosen by the Missouri emergency physician to treat his patient. After administering a first dose of the drug, he wrote a script for additional doses; consulted with his patient’s primary care physician; and arranged for the patient to be seen by him, the ED physician, the following day.

At the drugstore, though, the woman became ill, and an emergency medical services crew was alerted. Despite its quick response, the woman died en route to the hospital. No autopsy was later performed, and it was generally presumed that she had died of a pulmonary embolism.

Following the woman’s death, her family sued the emergency physician, alleging that his failure to admit the woman to the hospital most likely delayed treatment that could have saved her life.

The defense pushed back, arguing that the ED physician had followed the standard of care. “Even if she [had] come into the ER with full-blown [pulmonary embolism],” says the attorney representing the emergency physician, “the first thing you do is give Lovenox. It is just one of those rare circumstances where you can do everything right, but the patient can still die.”

The trial jury agreed. After deliberating for more than an hour, it found that the emergency physician was not responsible for the patient’s death.

At press time, there was no word on whether the plaintiffs planned to appeal.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A health system serving three Midwest states must pay millions to the parents of a now 10-year-old boy whose meningitis was misdiagnosed at birth, according to a report in the Star Tribune, among other news outlets.

The story of the jury verdict begins in 2013, when the boy, Johnny Galligan, was just 8 days old.

Alarmed by the newborn’s crying, lack of appetite, and fever, his parents, Alina and Steve Galligan, brought him to Essentia-Health-Ashland Clinic, located in Memorial Medical Center, Ashland, Wisc. There, the baby was seen by Andrew D. Snider, MD, a family physician. Dr. Snider noted the baby’s extreme fussiness and irritability and was concerned that he was being overfed. Without ordering additional tests, the family physician sent the baby home but arranged for the Galligans to be visited by a county nurse the following day.

Her visit raised concerns, as court documents make clear. She contacted Dr. Snider’s office and explained that the baby needed to be seen immediately. After writing a script for reflux and constipation, Dr. Snider arranged for the baby to be taken to his office later that day.

Events proceeded rapidly from this point.

Following an x-ray, Johnny appeared lethargic and in respiratory distress. He was then taken down the hall to Memorial’s emergency department, where doctors suspected a critical bowel obstruction. Arrangements were made for him to be transported by helicopter to Essentia Health, Duluth, Minn. There, doctors saw that Johnny was acidotic and in respiratory failure. Once again, he was rerouted, this time to Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis, where physicians finally arrived at a definitive diagnosis: meningitis.

In 2020, the Galligans filed a medical malpractice claim against several parties, including Dr. Snider, Duluth Clinic (doing business as Essentia Health and Essentia Health–Ashland Clinic), and Memorial Hospital. In their suit, Johnny’s parents alleged that the collective failure to diagnose their son’s severe infection led directly to his permanent brain damage.

But a Bayfield County, Wisconsin, jury didn’t quite see things that way. After deliberating, it dismissed the claim against Dr. Snider and the other named defendants and found the staff of Duluth Clinic to be solely responsible for injuries to Johnny Galligan.

Duluth must pay $19 million to the Galligan family, of which the largest amount ($7,500,00) is to be directed to Johnny’s “future medical expenses and care needs.”

These expenses and costs are likely to be significant. Currently, at 10 years of age, Johnny can’t walk and is confined to a wheelchair. He has serious neurologic problems and is almost completely deaf and blind.

“He’s doing fairly well, which I attribute to his family providing care for him,” says the attorney who represented the Galligans. “They care for him 24/7. They take him swimming and on four-wheeler rides. He’s not bedridden. He has the best possible quality of life he could have, in my opinion.”

In a statement following the verdict, Essentia Health said that, while it felt “compassion for the family,” it stood by the care it had provided in 2013: “We are exploring our options regarding next steps and remain committed to delivering high-quality care to the patients and communities we are privileged to serve.”
 

ED physician found not liable for embolism, jury finds

A Missouri doctor accused of incorrectly treating a woman’s embolism has been found not liable for her death, reports a story in Missouri Lawyers Media.

The woman went to her local hospital’s ED complaining of pain and swelling in her leg. At the ED, an emergency physician examined her and discovered an extensive, visible thrombosis. No other symptoms were noted.

In the past, such a finding would have prompted immediate hospital admission. But the standard of care has evolved. Now, many doctors first prescribe enoxaparin sodium (Lovenox), an anticoagulant used to treat deep-vein thrombosis. This was the option chosen by the Missouri emergency physician to treat his patient. After administering a first dose of the drug, he wrote a script for additional doses; consulted with his patient’s primary care physician; and arranged for the patient to be seen by him, the ED physician, the following day.

At the drugstore, though, the woman became ill, and an emergency medical services crew was alerted. Despite its quick response, the woman died en route to the hospital. No autopsy was later performed, and it was generally presumed that she had died of a pulmonary embolism.

Following the woman’s death, her family sued the emergency physician, alleging that his failure to admit the woman to the hospital most likely delayed treatment that could have saved her life.

The defense pushed back, arguing that the ED physician had followed the standard of care. “Even if she [had] come into the ER with full-blown [pulmonary embolism],” says the attorney representing the emergency physician, “the first thing you do is give Lovenox. It is just one of those rare circumstances where you can do everything right, but the patient can still die.”

The trial jury agreed. After deliberating for more than an hour, it found that the emergency physician was not responsible for the patient’s death.

At press time, there was no word on whether the plaintiffs planned to appeal.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A health system serving three Midwest states must pay millions to the parents of a now 10-year-old boy whose meningitis was misdiagnosed at birth, according to a report in the Star Tribune, among other news outlets.

The story of the jury verdict begins in 2013, when the boy, Johnny Galligan, was just 8 days old.

Alarmed by the newborn’s crying, lack of appetite, and fever, his parents, Alina and Steve Galligan, brought him to Essentia-Health-Ashland Clinic, located in Memorial Medical Center, Ashland, Wisc. There, the baby was seen by Andrew D. Snider, MD, a family physician. Dr. Snider noted the baby’s extreme fussiness and irritability and was concerned that he was being overfed. Without ordering additional tests, the family physician sent the baby home but arranged for the Galligans to be visited by a county nurse the following day.

Her visit raised concerns, as court documents make clear. She contacted Dr. Snider’s office and explained that the baby needed to be seen immediately. After writing a script for reflux and constipation, Dr. Snider arranged for the baby to be taken to his office later that day.

Events proceeded rapidly from this point.

Following an x-ray, Johnny appeared lethargic and in respiratory distress. He was then taken down the hall to Memorial’s emergency department, where doctors suspected a critical bowel obstruction. Arrangements were made for him to be transported by helicopter to Essentia Health, Duluth, Minn. There, doctors saw that Johnny was acidotic and in respiratory failure. Once again, he was rerouted, this time to Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis, where physicians finally arrived at a definitive diagnosis: meningitis.

In 2020, the Galligans filed a medical malpractice claim against several parties, including Dr. Snider, Duluth Clinic (doing business as Essentia Health and Essentia Health–Ashland Clinic), and Memorial Hospital. In their suit, Johnny’s parents alleged that the collective failure to diagnose their son’s severe infection led directly to his permanent brain damage.

But a Bayfield County, Wisconsin, jury didn’t quite see things that way. After deliberating, it dismissed the claim against Dr. Snider and the other named defendants and found the staff of Duluth Clinic to be solely responsible for injuries to Johnny Galligan.

Duluth must pay $19 million to the Galligan family, of which the largest amount ($7,500,00) is to be directed to Johnny’s “future medical expenses and care needs.”

These expenses and costs are likely to be significant. Currently, at 10 years of age, Johnny can’t walk and is confined to a wheelchair. He has serious neurologic problems and is almost completely deaf and blind.

“He’s doing fairly well, which I attribute to his family providing care for him,” says the attorney who represented the Galligans. “They care for him 24/7. They take him swimming and on four-wheeler rides. He’s not bedridden. He has the best possible quality of life he could have, in my opinion.”

In a statement following the verdict, Essentia Health said that, while it felt “compassion for the family,” it stood by the care it had provided in 2013: “We are exploring our options regarding next steps and remain committed to delivering high-quality care to the patients and communities we are privileged to serve.”
 

ED physician found not liable for embolism, jury finds

A Missouri doctor accused of incorrectly treating a woman’s embolism has been found not liable for her death, reports a story in Missouri Lawyers Media.

The woman went to her local hospital’s ED complaining of pain and swelling in her leg. At the ED, an emergency physician examined her and discovered an extensive, visible thrombosis. No other symptoms were noted.

In the past, such a finding would have prompted immediate hospital admission. But the standard of care has evolved. Now, many doctors first prescribe enoxaparin sodium (Lovenox), an anticoagulant used to treat deep-vein thrombosis. This was the option chosen by the Missouri emergency physician to treat his patient. After administering a first dose of the drug, he wrote a script for additional doses; consulted with his patient’s primary care physician; and arranged for the patient to be seen by him, the ED physician, the following day.

At the drugstore, though, the woman became ill, and an emergency medical services crew was alerted. Despite its quick response, the woman died en route to the hospital. No autopsy was later performed, and it was generally presumed that she had died of a pulmonary embolism.

Following the woman’s death, her family sued the emergency physician, alleging that his failure to admit the woman to the hospital most likely delayed treatment that could have saved her life.

The defense pushed back, arguing that the ED physician had followed the standard of care. “Even if she [had] come into the ER with full-blown [pulmonary embolism],” says the attorney representing the emergency physician, “the first thing you do is give Lovenox. It is just one of those rare circumstances where you can do everything right, but the patient can still die.”

The trial jury agreed. After deliberating for more than an hour, it found that the emergency physician was not responsible for the patient’s death.

At press time, there was no word on whether the plaintiffs planned to appeal.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Massachusetts hospital must pay $20 million to a man who lost his left leg after a blood clot was misdiagnosed as sciatica, according to a story posted on boston.com, the news site of The Boston Globe.

On March 7, 2015, Steven Luppold, at the time a construction worker, went to the emergency department at Lowell General Hospital, in Lowell, Mass. He had a long history of sciatica. The pain often radiated down his left leg. This time, though, his discomfort in his left foot felt different.

At the ED, Mr. Luppold was initially examined by two nurses, who wrote in the patient’s chart that his foot was turning purple and felt cool to the touch. He was next examined by a physician assistant, Charles Loucraft, who made a diagnosis of worsening sciatica and sent the patient home. Court records suggest Mr. Loucraft made this diagnosis without having read the patient’s chart.

Six days later, Mr. Luppold returned to the ED with severe pain – a 9 on a scale of 10, as he reported at the time. Again, he was seen by two nurses, one of whom had examined him the previous week. He was then examined by Carlos Flores, a nurse practitioner, who reiterated the PA’s initial diagnosis of sciatica. Once more, Mr. Luppold was sent home.

Four days later, on March 17, Mr. Luppold placed a call to his primary care physician (PCP), who worked at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, in Burlington, Mass., about 18 miles south of Lowell.

The PCP administered an ultrasound and diagnosed the patient as having a deep-vein thrombosis and an arterial thrombosis in his left leg. Mr. Luppold was taken immediately to the Lahey Hospital ED. A vascular surgeon ordered a CT scan, which indicated that the tissue in the patient’s left leg was necrotic. The following day, with few options open to them, surgeons amputated the patient’s left leg above the knee.

At some point after the surgery, Mr. Luppold filed a medical malpractice suit that named the PA, NP, and their physician-group employer, Merrimack Valley Emergency Associates, in Lowell. Also named in the suit were the three ED nurses who had examined him.

“Honestly, the reason this happened was because the communication ... in the emergency department between the nurses and providers was nonexistent,” says Robert M. Higgins, a partner at Lubin & Meyer, in Boston, who represented the plaintiff. Had providers ordered “a simple ultrasound” during either of Mr. Luppold’s visits to the ED, Mr. Higgins added, his leg could have been saved.

The jury agreed. It awarded Mr. Luppold $10 million for pain and suffering and another $10 million in compensatory damages.

At press time, there was no word on whether the defendants planned to appeal.
 

Doctors at risk for providing trans care to minors

Arkansas doctors who “perform a gender transition procedure” for persons younger than 18 years could be in legal jeopardy for well beyond the date of treatment, reports a story in the Arkansas Advocate, among other news sites.

That prospect is the result of a bill signed into law in March by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Under the law, slated to take effect this summer, a doctor who provides gender-affirming care to a minor can be sued for a period of up to 15 years after that patient turns 18. (Under current state law, plaintiffs must file a med-mal claim within 2 years of an injury.)

A federal judge is considering whether to strike down a similar measure that was signed into law by Gov. Sanders’s predecessor, Asa Hutchinson, in 2021. That statute prohibits doctors from providing or from referring a minor to someone who would provide gender-affirming hormone or puberty blockers. (Minors in the state do not qualify for gender-related surgery.)

Opponents of such care are hopeful that the 2021 statute will survive judicial review. Even if it doesn’t, though, they believe the new med-mal law will have a similar effect: to dissuade Arkansas doctors from treating minors seeking gender-related treatment.

It’s possible that the new law could itself be subject to a court review. But at least one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Gary Stubblefield, a Republican member of the Arkansas senate, is cautiously optimistic: “I know what we did was what we thought was best for our children.”

Opponents argue, though, that the new law will end up harming children who identify as transgender.

“You might not understand what it means to be gay or trans or a member of the LGBTQ community,” explained House Minority Leader Tippi McCullough during debate over the bill in the GOP-led chamber. “I get that, but I’m standing here as the only member of that community in the entire General Assembly, a caucus of one, telling you ... [the bill] denies trans kids the most affirming care they may ever receive in their lives, and that’s cruel.”
 

Appeals court slashes jury award

A Pennsylvania doctor who faced paying a $2.7 million award has had it cut nearly in half by a three-judge Superior Court panel, as a story in the Claims Journal reports.

The underlying case stems from a suit brought by the estate of a man who died in 2018. At the time of his death, he had been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and liver cancer. The suit by the family estate was initially centered on the doctor’s alleged negligence in treating the man’s prostate cancer. At some point during the 2021 trial, though, the suit was amended to include a second claim – an allegation that the doctor had also been negligent in treating the patient’s liver cancer, which had been belatedly diagnosed. The doctor’s medical practice was also a named defendant in the suit.

On March 2, 2022, a jury sided with the plaintiffs, awarding them compensatory damages of $1.5 million for the prostate cancer claim and $1.2 million for the liver cancer claim.

The doctor and other defendants appealed, arguing two essential points: first, the liver cancer claim amounted to a new cause of action, one for which they had not been given adequate notice.

Second, and more significantly, plaintiff action relating to this second claim had only begun in earnest on July 6, 2021, when an expert report was first filed with the court. But this filing was nearly a full year beyond the state’s 2-year statute of limitations, which, given the patient’s death in 2018, was at the very limit, said defendants. For these reasons, they argued, the appeals court should forthwith order a new trial.

That court, however, ended up walking a middle road. Although the court found that the liver claim was “time-barred,” since it had exceeded the 2-year statute of limitations, the court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

Instead, the court cut $1.2 million from the portion of the jury award that applied to the liver cancer claim but left intact the $1.5 million that related to the cause of action regarding prostate cancer.

It was a Solomonic decision that undoubtedly displeased both sides equally.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Massachusetts hospital must pay $20 million to a man who lost his left leg after a blood clot was misdiagnosed as sciatica, according to a story posted on boston.com, the news site of The Boston Globe.

On March 7, 2015, Steven Luppold, at the time a construction worker, went to the emergency department at Lowell General Hospital, in Lowell, Mass. He had a long history of sciatica. The pain often radiated down his left leg. This time, though, his discomfort in his left foot felt different.

At the ED, Mr. Luppold was initially examined by two nurses, who wrote in the patient’s chart that his foot was turning purple and felt cool to the touch. He was next examined by a physician assistant, Charles Loucraft, who made a diagnosis of worsening sciatica and sent the patient home. Court records suggest Mr. Loucraft made this diagnosis without having read the patient’s chart.

Six days later, Mr. Luppold returned to the ED with severe pain – a 9 on a scale of 10, as he reported at the time. Again, he was seen by two nurses, one of whom had examined him the previous week. He was then examined by Carlos Flores, a nurse practitioner, who reiterated the PA’s initial diagnosis of sciatica. Once more, Mr. Luppold was sent home.

Four days later, on March 17, Mr. Luppold placed a call to his primary care physician (PCP), who worked at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, in Burlington, Mass., about 18 miles south of Lowell.

The PCP administered an ultrasound and diagnosed the patient as having a deep-vein thrombosis and an arterial thrombosis in his left leg. Mr. Luppold was taken immediately to the Lahey Hospital ED. A vascular surgeon ordered a CT scan, which indicated that the tissue in the patient’s left leg was necrotic. The following day, with few options open to them, surgeons amputated the patient’s left leg above the knee.

At some point after the surgery, Mr. Luppold filed a medical malpractice suit that named the PA, NP, and their physician-group employer, Merrimack Valley Emergency Associates, in Lowell. Also named in the suit were the three ED nurses who had examined him.

“Honestly, the reason this happened was because the communication ... in the emergency department between the nurses and providers was nonexistent,” says Robert M. Higgins, a partner at Lubin & Meyer, in Boston, who represented the plaintiff. Had providers ordered “a simple ultrasound” during either of Mr. Luppold’s visits to the ED, Mr. Higgins added, his leg could have been saved.

The jury agreed. It awarded Mr. Luppold $10 million for pain and suffering and another $10 million in compensatory damages.

At press time, there was no word on whether the defendants planned to appeal.
 

Doctors at risk for providing trans care to minors

Arkansas doctors who “perform a gender transition procedure” for persons younger than 18 years could be in legal jeopardy for well beyond the date of treatment, reports a story in the Arkansas Advocate, among other news sites.

That prospect is the result of a bill signed into law in March by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Under the law, slated to take effect this summer, a doctor who provides gender-affirming care to a minor can be sued for a period of up to 15 years after that patient turns 18. (Under current state law, plaintiffs must file a med-mal claim within 2 years of an injury.)

A federal judge is considering whether to strike down a similar measure that was signed into law by Gov. Sanders’s predecessor, Asa Hutchinson, in 2021. That statute prohibits doctors from providing or from referring a minor to someone who would provide gender-affirming hormone or puberty blockers. (Minors in the state do not qualify for gender-related surgery.)

Opponents of such care are hopeful that the 2021 statute will survive judicial review. Even if it doesn’t, though, they believe the new med-mal law will have a similar effect: to dissuade Arkansas doctors from treating minors seeking gender-related treatment.

It’s possible that the new law could itself be subject to a court review. But at least one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Gary Stubblefield, a Republican member of the Arkansas senate, is cautiously optimistic: “I know what we did was what we thought was best for our children.”

Opponents argue, though, that the new law will end up harming children who identify as transgender.

“You might not understand what it means to be gay or trans or a member of the LGBTQ community,” explained House Minority Leader Tippi McCullough during debate over the bill in the GOP-led chamber. “I get that, but I’m standing here as the only member of that community in the entire General Assembly, a caucus of one, telling you ... [the bill] denies trans kids the most affirming care they may ever receive in their lives, and that’s cruel.”
 

Appeals court slashes jury award

A Pennsylvania doctor who faced paying a $2.7 million award has had it cut nearly in half by a three-judge Superior Court panel, as a story in the Claims Journal reports.

The underlying case stems from a suit brought by the estate of a man who died in 2018. At the time of his death, he had been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and liver cancer. The suit by the family estate was initially centered on the doctor’s alleged negligence in treating the man’s prostate cancer. At some point during the 2021 trial, though, the suit was amended to include a second claim – an allegation that the doctor had also been negligent in treating the patient’s liver cancer, which had been belatedly diagnosed. The doctor’s medical practice was also a named defendant in the suit.

On March 2, 2022, a jury sided with the plaintiffs, awarding them compensatory damages of $1.5 million for the prostate cancer claim and $1.2 million for the liver cancer claim.

The doctor and other defendants appealed, arguing two essential points: first, the liver cancer claim amounted to a new cause of action, one for which they had not been given adequate notice.

Second, and more significantly, plaintiff action relating to this second claim had only begun in earnest on July 6, 2021, when an expert report was first filed with the court. But this filing was nearly a full year beyond the state’s 2-year statute of limitations, which, given the patient’s death in 2018, was at the very limit, said defendants. For these reasons, they argued, the appeals court should forthwith order a new trial.

That court, however, ended up walking a middle road. Although the court found that the liver claim was “time-barred,” since it had exceeded the 2-year statute of limitations, the court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

Instead, the court cut $1.2 million from the portion of the jury award that applied to the liver cancer claim but left intact the $1.5 million that related to the cause of action regarding prostate cancer.

It was a Solomonic decision that undoubtedly displeased both sides equally.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Massachusetts hospital must pay $20 million to a man who lost his left leg after a blood clot was misdiagnosed as sciatica, according to a story posted on boston.com, the news site of The Boston Globe.

On March 7, 2015, Steven Luppold, at the time a construction worker, went to the emergency department at Lowell General Hospital, in Lowell, Mass. He had a long history of sciatica. The pain often radiated down his left leg. This time, though, his discomfort in his left foot felt different.

At the ED, Mr. Luppold was initially examined by two nurses, who wrote in the patient’s chart that his foot was turning purple and felt cool to the touch. He was next examined by a physician assistant, Charles Loucraft, who made a diagnosis of worsening sciatica and sent the patient home. Court records suggest Mr. Loucraft made this diagnosis without having read the patient’s chart.

Six days later, Mr. Luppold returned to the ED with severe pain – a 9 on a scale of 10, as he reported at the time. Again, he was seen by two nurses, one of whom had examined him the previous week. He was then examined by Carlos Flores, a nurse practitioner, who reiterated the PA’s initial diagnosis of sciatica. Once more, Mr. Luppold was sent home.

Four days later, on March 17, Mr. Luppold placed a call to his primary care physician (PCP), who worked at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, in Burlington, Mass., about 18 miles south of Lowell.

The PCP administered an ultrasound and diagnosed the patient as having a deep-vein thrombosis and an arterial thrombosis in his left leg. Mr. Luppold was taken immediately to the Lahey Hospital ED. A vascular surgeon ordered a CT scan, which indicated that the tissue in the patient’s left leg was necrotic. The following day, with few options open to them, surgeons amputated the patient’s left leg above the knee.

At some point after the surgery, Mr. Luppold filed a medical malpractice suit that named the PA, NP, and their physician-group employer, Merrimack Valley Emergency Associates, in Lowell. Also named in the suit were the three ED nurses who had examined him.

“Honestly, the reason this happened was because the communication ... in the emergency department between the nurses and providers was nonexistent,” says Robert M. Higgins, a partner at Lubin & Meyer, in Boston, who represented the plaintiff. Had providers ordered “a simple ultrasound” during either of Mr. Luppold’s visits to the ED, Mr. Higgins added, his leg could have been saved.

The jury agreed. It awarded Mr. Luppold $10 million for pain and suffering and another $10 million in compensatory damages.

At press time, there was no word on whether the defendants planned to appeal.
 

Doctors at risk for providing trans care to minors

Arkansas doctors who “perform a gender transition procedure” for persons younger than 18 years could be in legal jeopardy for well beyond the date of treatment, reports a story in the Arkansas Advocate, among other news sites.

That prospect is the result of a bill signed into law in March by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Under the law, slated to take effect this summer, a doctor who provides gender-affirming care to a minor can be sued for a period of up to 15 years after that patient turns 18. (Under current state law, plaintiffs must file a med-mal claim within 2 years of an injury.)

A federal judge is considering whether to strike down a similar measure that was signed into law by Gov. Sanders’s predecessor, Asa Hutchinson, in 2021. That statute prohibits doctors from providing or from referring a minor to someone who would provide gender-affirming hormone or puberty blockers. (Minors in the state do not qualify for gender-related surgery.)

Opponents of such care are hopeful that the 2021 statute will survive judicial review. Even if it doesn’t, though, they believe the new med-mal law will have a similar effect: to dissuade Arkansas doctors from treating minors seeking gender-related treatment.

It’s possible that the new law could itself be subject to a court review. But at least one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Gary Stubblefield, a Republican member of the Arkansas senate, is cautiously optimistic: “I know what we did was what we thought was best for our children.”

Opponents argue, though, that the new law will end up harming children who identify as transgender.

“You might not understand what it means to be gay or trans or a member of the LGBTQ community,” explained House Minority Leader Tippi McCullough during debate over the bill in the GOP-led chamber. “I get that, but I’m standing here as the only member of that community in the entire General Assembly, a caucus of one, telling you ... [the bill] denies trans kids the most affirming care they may ever receive in their lives, and that’s cruel.”
 

Appeals court slashes jury award

A Pennsylvania doctor who faced paying a $2.7 million award has had it cut nearly in half by a three-judge Superior Court panel, as a story in the Claims Journal reports.

The underlying case stems from a suit brought by the estate of a man who died in 2018. At the time of his death, he had been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and liver cancer. The suit by the family estate was initially centered on the doctor’s alleged negligence in treating the man’s prostate cancer. At some point during the 2021 trial, though, the suit was amended to include a second claim – an allegation that the doctor had also been negligent in treating the patient’s liver cancer, which had been belatedly diagnosed. The doctor’s medical practice was also a named defendant in the suit.

On March 2, 2022, a jury sided with the plaintiffs, awarding them compensatory damages of $1.5 million for the prostate cancer claim and $1.2 million for the liver cancer claim.

The doctor and other defendants appealed, arguing two essential points: first, the liver cancer claim amounted to a new cause of action, one for which they had not been given adequate notice.

Second, and more significantly, plaintiff action relating to this second claim had only begun in earnest on July 6, 2021, when an expert report was first filed with the court. But this filing was nearly a full year beyond the state’s 2-year statute of limitations, which, given the patient’s death in 2018, was at the very limit, said defendants. For these reasons, they argued, the appeals court should forthwith order a new trial.

That court, however, ended up walking a middle road. Although the court found that the liver claim was “time-barred,” since it had exceeded the 2-year statute of limitations, the court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

Instead, the court cut $1.2 million from the portion of the jury award that applied to the liver cancer claim but left intact the $1.5 million that related to the cause of action regarding prostate cancer.

It was a Solomonic decision that undoubtedly displeased both sides equally.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A doctor and one of Idaho’s premier emergency medicine groups must pay millions of dollars to a stroke patient and his wife in what is being called the second-largest medical malpractice award in the state’s history, according to a report in the Idaho Capital Sun.

The suit, which took nearly 5 years after filing to wend its way through the courts, stems from an incident that took place in the early morning of March 29, 2016. An Ada County resident peered into the family bathroom and discovered that her husband, Carl B. Stiefel, lay on the floor confused and vomiting and complaining of a severe headache. Recently, the man had experienced several of these same symptoms, plus sinus congestion, dizziness, and tinnitus.

As Mr. Stiefel’s confusion worsened, his wife called for an ambulance, which arrived at the local hospital emergency department (ED) at 4:12 AM. Within approximately 11 minutes, the patient was examined by a doctor and later underwent a cranial CT scan, which a second doctor said showed “no intracranial process.”

Mr. Stiefel’s condition improved somewhat, although his dizziness persisted, leaving him still unable to walk. At this point, his primary ED doctor admitted him to the hospital for “benign positional vertigo.” The doctor also joined colleagues in suggesting that the patient might well be a candidate for an MRI, just in case his condition failed to improve over the next few hours.

But the transfer from the ED to the main hospital reportedly took at least 3 hours, during which time Mr. Stiefel’s condition deteriorated. Once admitted, he was observed by a healthcare provider — the news report doesn’t indicate precisely who — to be “delirious without meaningful interaction.” At least 4 hours would pass before the patient was seen by still another doctor, as the plaintiffs later claimed.

The patient remained disoriented and restless as the day unfolded. The MRI contemplated earlier was finally ordered, but the scan wasn’t available for several hours, according to nursing notes cited by the plaintiffs in their lawsuit.

Finally, the scan was administered at about 5:50 PM, almost 12 hours since Mr. Stiefel had first arrived at the ED. It showed that he had a torn artery in his neck and was experiencing a stroke. This was, clearly, a very different diagnosis from the one that his admitting doctor had entered into his notes.

A surgeon operated to repair the arterial tear, but the patient’s condition continued to worsen. Over the next 3 weeks, Mr. Stiefel went from the hospital to a local rehab facility, and back to the hospital with bacterial meningitis. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with “an irreparable brain injury,” which ultimately left him disabled and unable to work.

At this point, he and his wife sued a broad range of defendants — a radiology group, individual healthcare providers employed by the hospital, the primary ED physician, and that doctor’s emergency medicine group. In the nearly 5 intervening years, each of the named defendants settled, except the ED doctor and the emergency medicine group.

The two remaining defendants vigorously contested the claims against them, denying “any and all allegations of responsibility and liability” and contending that the patient’s injuries resulted from unforeseen complications rather than the care that had been administered.

The Ada County jury disagreed, however. It found that the primary ED doctor — and by extension the group to which the doctor belonged — did in fact negligently and recklessly fail to meet the proper standard of care, leading directly to the patient’s life-altering injuries.

For this failure, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $13.5 million, well over the state’s current inflation-adjusted cap of $400,000. (To date, Idaho’s largest med-mal award is nearly $30 million, handed down more than 20 years ago.)

At press time, there was no word of an appeal. 
 

Man sues dentist, ends up changing state medical malpractice law

In a surprise move, the Connecticut Supreme Court in mid-February reversed its own precedent regarding a 2005 law requiring certain pre-litigation steps be taken before state residents are permitted to file a medical malpractice claim, as a story in the Claims Journal reports.

In its 2011 review of that earlier law — passed to ensure that complainants had a reasonable basis for their claims — the high court went the legislature one better. It held that state courts had no “personal jurisdiction” in adjudicating malpractice claims in the absence of required supporting documents — specifically, a proper certificate and opinion letter from “a similar healthcare provider.”

For the past 12 years, this meant that any suit lacking the proper documents could not only be halted but dismissed with prejudice, meaning that such a case couldn’t be refiled.

That interpretation of the law was eventually challenged, however, by a Connecticut man who sued his dentist. Filed in 2018, the suit alleged that, during a root canal, the dentist had failed to properly diagnose and treat his patient’s dental abscess, which ultimately required surgery.

Complying with what he regarded as state law, the man attached a letter of opinion to his complaint, which testified to the merits of his claim. But, in a twist with significant consequences, the letter was written by an endodontist, not a general dentist. In response, the dentist’s attorneys submitted a motion to dismiss to the trial court, arguing that the plaintiff had breached the “similar provider” provision and that therefore the opinion letter was defective and the entire suit should be dismissed.

The trial court agreed — and the Connecticut Appellate Court went on to affirm the lower-court ruling. The case might have ended there, but the plaintiff appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which agreed to review the appellate court finding. 

In a 6-0 decision, the high court looked back on its 2011 interpretation of the med-mal statute, which in the intervening years had given rise to “a body of case law.” The problem with that body of law, the justices argued, was that it had “imposed substantially greater burdens on plaintiffs than the legislature intended” — and it did so “by allowing potentially curable, technical, pre-litigation defects to defeat otherwise meritorious malpractice actions, sometimes after several years of litigation.”

In short, said the justices, there was nothing in the original statute that required a court to dismiss a suit once it found a letter of opinion to be deficient. This was a “curable” defect, one that shouldn’t be allowed to derail an otherwise meritorious claim.

As for the case that prompted the high court’s latest review — that is, the Connecticut man’s suit against his dentist — the justices found that the appellate court had also erred when it tossed out the endodontist’s opinion letter. Technically, the dentist might not have been an endodontist, said the justices, but he had in fact practiced in the field during the course of a long career, so close enough.

The justices kicked the case back to the trial court, with instructions that it deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
 

Stakeholders divided over new awards cap

Last month, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law that limits the amount of noneconomic damages a successful med-mal plaintiff can collect, explains a story posted on Radio Iowa, among other news sites.

Under the new law, the limit for suits involving hospitals is capped at $2 million — while those involving all other healthcare providers are capped at $1 million. Beginning in 2028, those caps will be adjusted annually for inflation by 2.1%.

“When mistakes happen, Iowans deserve compensation, but arbitrary multimillion-dollar awards do more than that,” said Gov. Reynolds. “They act as a tax on all Iowans by raising the cost of care. They drive medical clinics out of business and medical students out of state.”

The CEO of Knoxville Hospital and Clinics — a well-known regional provider — agreed, saying that the new law helped to make Iowa “a more attractive place to practice medicine.”

But most Democrats in the GOP-controlled legislature — and 16 Republicans — voted against the legislation. For her part, House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst said there was absolutely no evidence that states with caps fared any better with medical workforce shortages than states without caps.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A doctor and one of Idaho’s premier emergency medicine groups must pay millions of dollars to a stroke patient and his wife in what is being called the second-largest medical malpractice award in the state’s history, according to a report in the Idaho Capital Sun.

The suit, which took nearly 5 years after filing to wend its way through the courts, stems from an incident that took place in the early morning of March 29, 2016. An Ada County resident peered into the family bathroom and discovered that her husband, Carl B. Stiefel, lay on the floor confused and vomiting and complaining of a severe headache. Recently, the man had experienced several of these same symptoms, plus sinus congestion, dizziness, and tinnitus.

As Mr. Stiefel’s confusion worsened, his wife called for an ambulance, which arrived at the local hospital emergency department (ED) at 4:12 AM. Within approximately 11 minutes, the patient was examined by a doctor and later underwent a cranial CT scan, which a second doctor said showed “no intracranial process.”

Mr. Stiefel’s condition improved somewhat, although his dizziness persisted, leaving him still unable to walk. At this point, his primary ED doctor admitted him to the hospital for “benign positional vertigo.” The doctor also joined colleagues in suggesting that the patient might well be a candidate for an MRI, just in case his condition failed to improve over the next few hours.

But the transfer from the ED to the main hospital reportedly took at least 3 hours, during which time Mr. Stiefel’s condition deteriorated. Once admitted, he was observed by a healthcare provider — the news report doesn’t indicate precisely who — to be “delirious without meaningful interaction.” At least 4 hours would pass before the patient was seen by still another doctor, as the plaintiffs later claimed.

The patient remained disoriented and restless as the day unfolded. The MRI contemplated earlier was finally ordered, but the scan wasn’t available for several hours, according to nursing notes cited by the plaintiffs in their lawsuit.

Finally, the scan was administered at about 5:50 PM, almost 12 hours since Mr. Stiefel had first arrived at the ED. It showed that he had a torn artery in his neck and was experiencing a stroke. This was, clearly, a very different diagnosis from the one that his admitting doctor had entered into his notes.

A surgeon operated to repair the arterial tear, but the patient’s condition continued to worsen. Over the next 3 weeks, Mr. Stiefel went from the hospital to a local rehab facility, and back to the hospital with bacterial meningitis. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with “an irreparable brain injury,” which ultimately left him disabled and unable to work.

At this point, he and his wife sued a broad range of defendants — a radiology group, individual healthcare providers employed by the hospital, the primary ED physician, and that doctor’s emergency medicine group. In the nearly 5 intervening years, each of the named defendants settled, except the ED doctor and the emergency medicine group.

The two remaining defendants vigorously contested the claims against them, denying “any and all allegations of responsibility and liability” and contending that the patient’s injuries resulted from unforeseen complications rather than the care that had been administered.

The Ada County jury disagreed, however. It found that the primary ED doctor — and by extension the group to which the doctor belonged — did in fact negligently and recklessly fail to meet the proper standard of care, leading directly to the patient’s life-altering injuries.

For this failure, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $13.5 million, well over the state’s current inflation-adjusted cap of $400,000. (To date, Idaho’s largest med-mal award is nearly $30 million, handed down more than 20 years ago.)

At press time, there was no word of an appeal. 
 

Man sues dentist, ends up changing state medical malpractice law

In a surprise move, the Connecticut Supreme Court in mid-February reversed its own precedent regarding a 2005 law requiring certain pre-litigation steps be taken before state residents are permitted to file a medical malpractice claim, as a story in the Claims Journal reports.

In its 2011 review of that earlier law — passed to ensure that complainants had a reasonable basis for their claims — the high court went the legislature one better. It held that state courts had no “personal jurisdiction” in adjudicating malpractice claims in the absence of required supporting documents — specifically, a proper certificate and opinion letter from “a similar healthcare provider.”

For the past 12 years, this meant that any suit lacking the proper documents could not only be halted but dismissed with prejudice, meaning that such a case couldn’t be refiled.

That interpretation of the law was eventually challenged, however, by a Connecticut man who sued his dentist. Filed in 2018, the suit alleged that, during a root canal, the dentist had failed to properly diagnose and treat his patient’s dental abscess, which ultimately required surgery.

Complying with what he regarded as state law, the man attached a letter of opinion to his complaint, which testified to the merits of his claim. But, in a twist with significant consequences, the letter was written by an endodontist, not a general dentist. In response, the dentist’s attorneys submitted a motion to dismiss to the trial court, arguing that the plaintiff had breached the “similar provider” provision and that therefore the opinion letter was defective and the entire suit should be dismissed.

The trial court agreed — and the Connecticut Appellate Court went on to affirm the lower-court ruling. The case might have ended there, but the plaintiff appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which agreed to review the appellate court finding. 

In a 6-0 decision, the high court looked back on its 2011 interpretation of the med-mal statute, which in the intervening years had given rise to “a body of case law.” The problem with that body of law, the justices argued, was that it had “imposed substantially greater burdens on plaintiffs than the legislature intended” — and it did so “by allowing potentially curable, technical, pre-litigation defects to defeat otherwise meritorious malpractice actions, sometimes after several years of litigation.”

In short, said the justices, there was nothing in the original statute that required a court to dismiss a suit once it found a letter of opinion to be deficient. This was a “curable” defect, one that shouldn’t be allowed to derail an otherwise meritorious claim.

As for the case that prompted the high court’s latest review — that is, the Connecticut man’s suit against his dentist — the justices found that the appellate court had also erred when it tossed out the endodontist’s opinion letter. Technically, the dentist might not have been an endodontist, said the justices, but he had in fact practiced in the field during the course of a long career, so close enough.

The justices kicked the case back to the trial court, with instructions that it deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
 

Stakeholders divided over new awards cap

Last month, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law that limits the amount of noneconomic damages a successful med-mal plaintiff can collect, explains a story posted on Radio Iowa, among other news sites.

Under the new law, the limit for suits involving hospitals is capped at $2 million — while those involving all other healthcare providers are capped at $1 million. Beginning in 2028, those caps will be adjusted annually for inflation by 2.1%.

“When mistakes happen, Iowans deserve compensation, but arbitrary multimillion-dollar awards do more than that,” said Gov. Reynolds. “They act as a tax on all Iowans by raising the cost of care. They drive medical clinics out of business and medical students out of state.”

The CEO of Knoxville Hospital and Clinics — a well-known regional provider — agreed, saying that the new law helped to make Iowa “a more attractive place to practice medicine.”

But most Democrats in the GOP-controlled legislature — and 16 Republicans — voted against the legislation. For her part, House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst said there was absolutely no evidence that states with caps fared any better with medical workforce shortages than states without caps.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A doctor and one of Idaho’s premier emergency medicine groups must pay millions of dollars to a stroke patient and his wife in what is being called the second-largest medical malpractice award in the state’s history, according to a report in the Idaho Capital Sun.

The suit, which took nearly 5 years after filing to wend its way through the courts, stems from an incident that took place in the early morning of March 29, 2016. An Ada County resident peered into the family bathroom and discovered that her husband, Carl B. Stiefel, lay on the floor confused and vomiting and complaining of a severe headache. Recently, the man had experienced several of these same symptoms, plus sinus congestion, dizziness, and tinnitus.

As Mr. Stiefel’s confusion worsened, his wife called for an ambulance, which arrived at the local hospital emergency department (ED) at 4:12 AM. Within approximately 11 minutes, the patient was examined by a doctor and later underwent a cranial CT scan, which a second doctor said showed “no intracranial process.”

Mr. Stiefel’s condition improved somewhat, although his dizziness persisted, leaving him still unable to walk. At this point, his primary ED doctor admitted him to the hospital for “benign positional vertigo.” The doctor also joined colleagues in suggesting that the patient might well be a candidate for an MRI, just in case his condition failed to improve over the next few hours.

But the transfer from the ED to the main hospital reportedly took at least 3 hours, during which time Mr. Stiefel’s condition deteriorated. Once admitted, he was observed by a healthcare provider — the news report doesn’t indicate precisely who — to be “delirious without meaningful interaction.” At least 4 hours would pass before the patient was seen by still another doctor, as the plaintiffs later claimed.

The patient remained disoriented and restless as the day unfolded. The MRI contemplated earlier was finally ordered, but the scan wasn’t available for several hours, according to nursing notes cited by the plaintiffs in their lawsuit.

Finally, the scan was administered at about 5:50 PM, almost 12 hours since Mr. Stiefel had first arrived at the ED. It showed that he had a torn artery in his neck and was experiencing a stroke. This was, clearly, a very different diagnosis from the one that his admitting doctor had entered into his notes.

A surgeon operated to repair the arterial tear, but the patient’s condition continued to worsen. Over the next 3 weeks, Mr. Stiefel went from the hospital to a local rehab facility, and back to the hospital with bacterial meningitis. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with “an irreparable brain injury,” which ultimately left him disabled and unable to work.

At this point, he and his wife sued a broad range of defendants — a radiology group, individual healthcare providers employed by the hospital, the primary ED physician, and that doctor’s emergency medicine group. In the nearly 5 intervening years, each of the named defendants settled, except the ED doctor and the emergency medicine group.

The two remaining defendants vigorously contested the claims against them, denying “any and all allegations of responsibility and liability” and contending that the patient’s injuries resulted from unforeseen complications rather than the care that had been administered.

The Ada County jury disagreed, however. It found that the primary ED doctor — and by extension the group to which the doctor belonged — did in fact negligently and recklessly fail to meet the proper standard of care, leading directly to the patient’s life-altering injuries.

For this failure, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $13.5 million, well over the state’s current inflation-adjusted cap of $400,000. (To date, Idaho’s largest med-mal award is nearly $30 million, handed down more than 20 years ago.)

At press time, there was no word of an appeal. 
 

Man sues dentist, ends up changing state medical malpractice law

In a surprise move, the Connecticut Supreme Court in mid-February reversed its own precedent regarding a 2005 law requiring certain pre-litigation steps be taken before state residents are permitted to file a medical malpractice claim, as a story in the Claims Journal reports.

In its 2011 review of that earlier law — passed to ensure that complainants had a reasonable basis for their claims — the high court went the legislature one better. It held that state courts had no “personal jurisdiction” in adjudicating malpractice claims in the absence of required supporting documents — specifically, a proper certificate and opinion letter from “a similar healthcare provider.”

For the past 12 years, this meant that any suit lacking the proper documents could not only be halted but dismissed with prejudice, meaning that such a case couldn’t be refiled.

That interpretation of the law was eventually challenged, however, by a Connecticut man who sued his dentist. Filed in 2018, the suit alleged that, during a root canal, the dentist had failed to properly diagnose and treat his patient’s dental abscess, which ultimately required surgery.

Complying with what he regarded as state law, the man attached a letter of opinion to his complaint, which testified to the merits of his claim. But, in a twist with significant consequences, the letter was written by an endodontist, not a general dentist. In response, the dentist’s attorneys submitted a motion to dismiss to the trial court, arguing that the plaintiff had breached the “similar provider” provision and that therefore the opinion letter was defective and the entire suit should be dismissed.

The trial court agreed — and the Connecticut Appellate Court went on to affirm the lower-court ruling. The case might have ended there, but the plaintiff appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which agreed to review the appellate court finding. 

In a 6-0 decision, the high court looked back on its 2011 interpretation of the med-mal statute, which in the intervening years had given rise to “a body of case law.” The problem with that body of law, the justices argued, was that it had “imposed substantially greater burdens on plaintiffs than the legislature intended” — and it did so “by allowing potentially curable, technical, pre-litigation defects to defeat otherwise meritorious malpractice actions, sometimes after several years of litigation.”

In short, said the justices, there was nothing in the original statute that required a court to dismiss a suit once it found a letter of opinion to be deficient. This was a “curable” defect, one that shouldn’t be allowed to derail an otherwise meritorious claim.

As for the case that prompted the high court’s latest review — that is, the Connecticut man’s suit against his dentist — the justices found that the appellate court had also erred when it tossed out the endodontist’s opinion letter. Technically, the dentist might not have been an endodontist, said the justices, but he had in fact practiced in the field during the course of a long career, so close enough.

The justices kicked the case back to the trial court, with instructions that it deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
 

Stakeholders divided over new awards cap

Last month, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law that limits the amount of noneconomic damages a successful med-mal plaintiff can collect, explains a story posted on Radio Iowa, among other news sites.

Under the new law, the limit for suits involving hospitals is capped at $2 million — while those involving all other healthcare providers are capped at $1 million. Beginning in 2028, those caps will be adjusted annually for inflation by 2.1%.

“When mistakes happen, Iowans deserve compensation, but arbitrary multimillion-dollar awards do more than that,” said Gov. Reynolds. “They act as a tax on all Iowans by raising the cost of care. They drive medical clinics out of business and medical students out of state.”

The CEO of Knoxville Hospital and Clinics — a well-known regional provider — agreed, saying that the new law helped to make Iowa “a more attractive place to practice medicine.”

But most Democrats in the GOP-controlled legislature — and 16 Republicans — voted against the legislation. For her part, House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst said there was absolutely no evidence that states with caps fared any better with medical workforce shortages than states without caps.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

On-call specialist incurred a clear ‘duty of care,’ court rules

An Illinois doctor who consulted with a patient’s treating physician but never actually saw the patient himself can’t escape a medical malpractice claim, a state appeals court ruled late in January.

The appeals decision is the result of a case involving the late Dennis Blagden.

On July 26, 2017, Mr. Blagden arrived at the Graham Hospital ED, in Canton, Ill., complaining of neck pain and an insect bite that had resulted in a swollen elbow. His ED doctor, Matthew McMillin, MD, who worked for Coleman Medical Associates, ordered tests and prescribed an anti-inflammatory pain medication and a muscle relaxant.

Dr. McMillin consulted via telephone with Kenneth Krock, MD, an internal medicine specialist and pediatrician, who was on call that day and who enjoyed admitting privileges at Graham. (Krock was also an employee of Coleman Medical Associates, which provided clinical staffing for the hospital.)

Dr. Krock had final admitting authority in this instance. Court records show that Dr. McMillin and he agreed that the patient could be discharged from the ED, despite Krock’s differential diagnosis indicating a possible infection.

Three days later, now with “hypercapnic respiratory failure, sepsis, and an altered mental state,” Mr. Blagden was again seen at the Graham Hospital ED. Mr. Blagden underwent intubation by Dr. McMillin, his original ED doctor, and was airlifted to Methodist Medical Center, in Peoria, 30 miles away. There, an MRI showed that he’d developed a spinal epidural abscess. On Aug. 7, 2017, a little over a week after his admission to Methodist, Mr. Blagden died from complications of his infection.

In January 2019, Mr. Blagden’s wife, Judy, filed a suit against Dr. McMillin, his practice, and Graham Hospital, which is a part of Graham Health System. Her suit alleged medical negligence in the death of her husband.

About 6 months later, Mr.s Blagden amended her original complaint, adding a second count of medical negligence against Dr. Krock; his practice and employer, Coleman Medical Associates; and Graham Hospital. In her amended complaint, Mrs. Blagden alleged that although Krock hadn’t actually seen her husband Dennis, his consultation with Dr. McMillin was sufficient to establish a doctor-patient relationship and thus a legal duty of care. That duty, Mrs. Blagden further alleged, was breached when Dr. Krock failed both to rule out her husband’s “infectious process” and to admit him for proper follow-up monitoring.

In July 2021, after the case had been transferred from Peoria County to Fulton County, Dr. Krock cried foul. In a motion to the court for summary judgment – that is, a ruling prior to an actual trial – he and his practice put forth the following argument: As a mere on-call consultant that day in 2017, he had neither seen the patient nor established a relationship with him, thereby precluding his legal duty of care.

The trial court judge agreed and granted both Dr. Krock and Dr. Coleman the summary judgment they had sought.

Mrs. Blagden then appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, which is located in Springfield.

In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel reversed the lower court’s ruling. Taking direct aim at Dr. Krock’s earlier motion, Justice Eugene Doherty, who wrote the panel’s opinion, said that state law had long established that “the special relationship giving rise to a duty of care may exist even in the absence of any meeting between the physician and the patient where the physician performs specific services for the benefit of the patient.”

As Justice Doherty explained, Dr. Krock’s status that day as both the on-call doctor and the one with final admitting authority undermined his argument for summary judgment. Also undermining it, Justice Doherty added, was the fact that the conversation between the two doctors that day in 2017 was a formal exchange “contemplated by hospital bylaws.”

“While public policy should encourage informal consultations between physicians,” the justice continued, “it must not ignore actual physician involvement in decisions that directly affect a patient’s care.”

Following the Fourth District decision, the suit against Dr. McMillin, Dr. Krock, and the other defendants has now been tossed back to the trial court for further proceedings. At press time, no trial date had been set.
 

Will this proposed damages cap help retain more physicians?

Fear of a doctor shortage, triggered in part by a recent history of large payouts, has prompted Iowa lawmakers to push for new state caps on medical malpractice awards, as a story in the Des Moines Register reports.

Currently, Iowa caps most noneconomic damages – including those for pain and suffering – at $250,000, which is among the lowest such caps in the nation.

Under existing Iowa law, however, the limit doesn’t apply in extraordinary cases – that is, those involving “substantial or permanent loss of body function, substantial disfigurement, or death.” It also isn’t applicable in cases in which a jury decides that a defendant acted with intentional malice.

Lawmakers and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds would like to change this.

Under a Senate bill that has now passed out of committee and is awaiting debate on the Senate floor, even plaintiffs involved in extreme cases would receive no more than $1 million to compensate for their pain, suffering, or emotional distress. (The bill also includes a 2.1% annual hike to compensate for inflation. A similar bill, which adds “loss of pregnancy” to the list of extreme cases, has advanced to the House floor.)

Supporters say the proposed cap would help to limit mega awards. In Johnson County in March 2022, for instance, a jury awarded $97.4 million to the parents of a young boy who sustained severe brain injuries during his delivery, causing the clinic that had been involved in the case to file for bankruptcy. This award was nearly three times the total payouts ($35 million) in the entire state of Iowa in all of 2021, a year in which there were 192 closed claims, including at least a dozen that resulted in payouts of $1 million or more.

Supporters also think the proposed cap will mitigate what they see as a looming doctor shortage, especially among ob.gyns. in eastern Iowa. “I just cannot overstate how much this is affecting our workforce, and that turns into effects for the women and the children, the babies, in our state,” Shannon Leveridge, MD, an obstetrician in Davenport said. “In order to keep these women and their babies safe, we need doctors.”

But critics of the bill, including some lawmakers and the trial bar, say it overreaches, even in the case of the $97.4 million award.

“They don’t want to talk about the actual damages that are caused by medical negligence,” explained a spokesman for the trial lawyers. “So, you don’t hear about the fact that, of the $50 million of economic damages ... most of that is going to go to the 24/7 care for this child for the rest of his life.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On-call specialist incurred a clear ‘duty of care,’ court rules

An Illinois doctor who consulted with a patient’s treating physician but never actually saw the patient himself can’t escape a medical malpractice claim, a state appeals court ruled late in January.

The appeals decision is the result of a case involving the late Dennis Blagden.

On July 26, 2017, Mr. Blagden arrived at the Graham Hospital ED, in Canton, Ill., complaining of neck pain and an insect bite that had resulted in a swollen elbow. His ED doctor, Matthew McMillin, MD, who worked for Coleman Medical Associates, ordered tests and prescribed an anti-inflammatory pain medication and a muscle relaxant.

Dr. McMillin consulted via telephone with Kenneth Krock, MD, an internal medicine specialist and pediatrician, who was on call that day and who enjoyed admitting privileges at Graham. (Krock was also an employee of Coleman Medical Associates, which provided clinical staffing for the hospital.)

Dr. Krock had final admitting authority in this instance. Court records show that Dr. McMillin and he agreed that the patient could be discharged from the ED, despite Krock’s differential diagnosis indicating a possible infection.

Three days later, now with “hypercapnic respiratory failure, sepsis, and an altered mental state,” Mr. Blagden was again seen at the Graham Hospital ED. Mr. Blagden underwent intubation by Dr. McMillin, his original ED doctor, and was airlifted to Methodist Medical Center, in Peoria, 30 miles away. There, an MRI showed that he’d developed a spinal epidural abscess. On Aug. 7, 2017, a little over a week after his admission to Methodist, Mr. Blagden died from complications of his infection.

In January 2019, Mr. Blagden’s wife, Judy, filed a suit against Dr. McMillin, his practice, and Graham Hospital, which is a part of Graham Health System. Her suit alleged medical negligence in the death of her husband.

About 6 months later, Mr.s Blagden amended her original complaint, adding a second count of medical negligence against Dr. Krock; his practice and employer, Coleman Medical Associates; and Graham Hospital. In her amended complaint, Mrs. Blagden alleged that although Krock hadn’t actually seen her husband Dennis, his consultation with Dr. McMillin was sufficient to establish a doctor-patient relationship and thus a legal duty of care. That duty, Mrs. Blagden further alleged, was breached when Dr. Krock failed both to rule out her husband’s “infectious process” and to admit him for proper follow-up monitoring.

In July 2021, after the case had been transferred from Peoria County to Fulton County, Dr. Krock cried foul. In a motion to the court for summary judgment – that is, a ruling prior to an actual trial – he and his practice put forth the following argument: As a mere on-call consultant that day in 2017, he had neither seen the patient nor established a relationship with him, thereby precluding his legal duty of care.

The trial court judge agreed and granted both Dr. Krock and Dr. Coleman the summary judgment they had sought.

Mrs. Blagden then appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, which is located in Springfield.

In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel reversed the lower court’s ruling. Taking direct aim at Dr. Krock’s earlier motion, Justice Eugene Doherty, who wrote the panel’s opinion, said that state law had long established that “the special relationship giving rise to a duty of care may exist even in the absence of any meeting between the physician and the patient where the physician performs specific services for the benefit of the patient.”

As Justice Doherty explained, Dr. Krock’s status that day as both the on-call doctor and the one with final admitting authority undermined his argument for summary judgment. Also undermining it, Justice Doherty added, was the fact that the conversation between the two doctors that day in 2017 was a formal exchange “contemplated by hospital bylaws.”

“While public policy should encourage informal consultations between physicians,” the justice continued, “it must not ignore actual physician involvement in decisions that directly affect a patient’s care.”

Following the Fourth District decision, the suit against Dr. McMillin, Dr. Krock, and the other defendants has now been tossed back to the trial court for further proceedings. At press time, no trial date had been set.
 

Will this proposed damages cap help retain more physicians?

Fear of a doctor shortage, triggered in part by a recent history of large payouts, has prompted Iowa lawmakers to push for new state caps on medical malpractice awards, as a story in the Des Moines Register reports.

Currently, Iowa caps most noneconomic damages – including those for pain and suffering – at $250,000, which is among the lowest such caps in the nation.

Under existing Iowa law, however, the limit doesn’t apply in extraordinary cases – that is, those involving “substantial or permanent loss of body function, substantial disfigurement, or death.” It also isn’t applicable in cases in which a jury decides that a defendant acted with intentional malice.

Lawmakers and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds would like to change this.

Under a Senate bill that has now passed out of committee and is awaiting debate on the Senate floor, even plaintiffs involved in extreme cases would receive no more than $1 million to compensate for their pain, suffering, or emotional distress. (The bill also includes a 2.1% annual hike to compensate for inflation. A similar bill, which adds “loss of pregnancy” to the list of extreme cases, has advanced to the House floor.)

Supporters say the proposed cap would help to limit mega awards. In Johnson County in March 2022, for instance, a jury awarded $97.4 million to the parents of a young boy who sustained severe brain injuries during his delivery, causing the clinic that had been involved in the case to file for bankruptcy. This award was nearly three times the total payouts ($35 million) in the entire state of Iowa in all of 2021, a year in which there were 192 closed claims, including at least a dozen that resulted in payouts of $1 million or more.

Supporters also think the proposed cap will mitigate what they see as a looming doctor shortage, especially among ob.gyns. in eastern Iowa. “I just cannot overstate how much this is affecting our workforce, and that turns into effects for the women and the children, the babies, in our state,” Shannon Leveridge, MD, an obstetrician in Davenport said. “In order to keep these women and their babies safe, we need doctors.”

But critics of the bill, including some lawmakers and the trial bar, say it overreaches, even in the case of the $97.4 million award.

“They don’t want to talk about the actual damages that are caused by medical negligence,” explained a spokesman for the trial lawyers. “So, you don’t hear about the fact that, of the $50 million of economic damages ... most of that is going to go to the 24/7 care for this child for the rest of his life.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On-call specialist incurred a clear ‘duty of care,’ court rules

An Illinois doctor who consulted with a patient’s treating physician but never actually saw the patient himself can’t escape a medical malpractice claim, a state appeals court ruled late in January.

The appeals decision is the result of a case involving the late Dennis Blagden.

On July 26, 2017, Mr. Blagden arrived at the Graham Hospital ED, in Canton, Ill., complaining of neck pain and an insect bite that had resulted in a swollen elbow. His ED doctor, Matthew McMillin, MD, who worked for Coleman Medical Associates, ordered tests and prescribed an anti-inflammatory pain medication and a muscle relaxant.

Dr. McMillin consulted via telephone with Kenneth Krock, MD, an internal medicine specialist and pediatrician, who was on call that day and who enjoyed admitting privileges at Graham. (Krock was also an employee of Coleman Medical Associates, which provided clinical staffing for the hospital.)

Dr. Krock had final admitting authority in this instance. Court records show that Dr. McMillin and he agreed that the patient could be discharged from the ED, despite Krock’s differential diagnosis indicating a possible infection.

Three days later, now with “hypercapnic respiratory failure, sepsis, and an altered mental state,” Mr. Blagden was again seen at the Graham Hospital ED. Mr. Blagden underwent intubation by Dr. McMillin, his original ED doctor, and was airlifted to Methodist Medical Center, in Peoria, 30 miles away. There, an MRI showed that he’d developed a spinal epidural abscess. On Aug. 7, 2017, a little over a week after his admission to Methodist, Mr. Blagden died from complications of his infection.

In January 2019, Mr. Blagden’s wife, Judy, filed a suit against Dr. McMillin, his practice, and Graham Hospital, which is a part of Graham Health System. Her suit alleged medical negligence in the death of her husband.

About 6 months later, Mr.s Blagden amended her original complaint, adding a second count of medical negligence against Dr. Krock; his practice and employer, Coleman Medical Associates; and Graham Hospital. In her amended complaint, Mrs. Blagden alleged that although Krock hadn’t actually seen her husband Dennis, his consultation with Dr. McMillin was sufficient to establish a doctor-patient relationship and thus a legal duty of care. That duty, Mrs. Blagden further alleged, was breached when Dr. Krock failed both to rule out her husband’s “infectious process” and to admit him for proper follow-up monitoring.

In July 2021, after the case had been transferred from Peoria County to Fulton County, Dr. Krock cried foul. In a motion to the court for summary judgment – that is, a ruling prior to an actual trial – he and his practice put forth the following argument: As a mere on-call consultant that day in 2017, he had neither seen the patient nor established a relationship with him, thereby precluding his legal duty of care.

The trial court judge agreed and granted both Dr. Krock and Dr. Coleman the summary judgment they had sought.

Mrs. Blagden then appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, which is located in Springfield.

In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel reversed the lower court’s ruling. Taking direct aim at Dr. Krock’s earlier motion, Justice Eugene Doherty, who wrote the panel’s opinion, said that state law had long established that “the special relationship giving rise to a duty of care may exist even in the absence of any meeting between the physician and the patient where the physician performs specific services for the benefit of the patient.”

As Justice Doherty explained, Dr. Krock’s status that day as both the on-call doctor and the one with final admitting authority undermined his argument for summary judgment. Also undermining it, Justice Doherty added, was the fact that the conversation between the two doctors that day in 2017 was a formal exchange “contemplated by hospital bylaws.”

“While public policy should encourage informal consultations between physicians,” the justice continued, “it must not ignore actual physician involvement in decisions that directly affect a patient’s care.”

Following the Fourth District decision, the suit against Dr. McMillin, Dr. Krock, and the other defendants has now been tossed back to the trial court for further proceedings. At press time, no trial date had been set.
 

Will this proposed damages cap help retain more physicians?

Fear of a doctor shortage, triggered in part by a recent history of large payouts, has prompted Iowa lawmakers to push for new state caps on medical malpractice awards, as a story in the Des Moines Register reports.

Currently, Iowa caps most noneconomic damages – including those for pain and suffering – at $250,000, which is among the lowest such caps in the nation.

Under existing Iowa law, however, the limit doesn’t apply in extraordinary cases – that is, those involving “substantial or permanent loss of body function, substantial disfigurement, or death.” It also isn’t applicable in cases in which a jury decides that a defendant acted with intentional malice.

Lawmakers and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds would like to change this.

Under a Senate bill that has now passed out of committee and is awaiting debate on the Senate floor, even plaintiffs involved in extreme cases would receive no more than $1 million to compensate for their pain, suffering, or emotional distress. (The bill also includes a 2.1% annual hike to compensate for inflation. A similar bill, which adds “loss of pregnancy” to the list of extreme cases, has advanced to the House floor.)

Supporters say the proposed cap would help to limit mega awards. In Johnson County in March 2022, for instance, a jury awarded $97.4 million to the parents of a young boy who sustained severe brain injuries during his delivery, causing the clinic that had been involved in the case to file for bankruptcy. This award was nearly three times the total payouts ($35 million) in the entire state of Iowa in all of 2021, a year in which there were 192 closed claims, including at least a dozen that resulted in payouts of $1 million or more.

Supporters also think the proposed cap will mitigate what they see as a looming doctor shortage, especially among ob.gyns. in eastern Iowa. “I just cannot overstate how much this is affecting our workforce, and that turns into effects for the women and the children, the babies, in our state,” Shannon Leveridge, MD, an obstetrician in Davenport said. “In order to keep these women and their babies safe, we need doctors.”

But critics of the bill, including some lawmakers and the trial bar, say it overreaches, even in the case of the $97.4 million award.

“They don’t want to talk about the actual damages that are caused by medical negligence,” explained a spokesman for the trial lawyers. “So, you don’t hear about the fact that, of the $50 million of economic damages ... most of that is going to go to the 24/7 care for this child for the rest of his life.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delay in treatment will cost hospital millions

A Texas hospital must pay a multimillion-dollar judgment for failing to treat a woman’s spinal injury in time to prevent paralysis, according to a report on WFAA.com, among other news sites.

On March 21, 2019, Judy “Jessie” Adams, then part of a singing-songwriting duo with her husband, Richard, went to Premier Interventional Pain Management, in Flower Mound, Tex., prior to the couple’s drive to Ohio for a funeral. At Premier, Jesse received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) that she hoped would ease her back pain during the long drive.

Instead, the injection ended up increasing her pain.

“He [the pain physician] gave me the shot, but I couldn’t feel my legs. They were tingling, but I couldn’t feel them,” Mrs. Adams explained. “The pain was so bad in my back.” In their suit, Adams and her husband alleged that the doctor had probably “nicked a blood vessel during the ESI procedure, causing Jessie to hemorrhage.” (The couple’s suit against the doctor was settled prior to trial.)

Mrs. Adams remained under observation at the pain facility for about 1½ hours, at which point she was taken by ambulance to nearby Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. There, in the emergency department, staff ordered a “STAT MRI” in preparation for an emergency laminectomy.

For reasons that remain murky, the MRI wasn’t performed for 1 hour and 37 minutes. The emergency laminectomy itself wasn’t started until more than 5 hours after Adams had been admitted to the ED. This was a direct violation of hospital protocol, which required that emergency surgeries be performed within 1 hour of admittance in the first available surgical suite. (At trial, Mrs. Adams’s attorneys from Lyons & Simmons offered evidence that a suite became available 49 minutes after Adams had arrived at the ED.)

During the wait, Mrs. Adams continued to experience excruciating pain. “I kept screaming: ‘Help me,’ ” she recalled. At trial, her attorneys argued that the hospital’s delay in addressing her spinal emergency led directly to her current paralysis, which keeps her confined to a wheelchair and renders her incontinent.

The hospital disagreed. In court, it maintained that Mrs. Adams was already paralyzed when she arrived at the ED and that there was no delay in care.

The jury saw things differently, however. Siding with the plaintiffs, it awarded Mrs. Adams and her husband $10.1 million, including $500,000 for Mr. Adams’s loss of future earnings and $1 million for his “loss of consortium” with his wife.

Their music career now effectively over, Mr. Adams spends most of his time taking care of Mrs. Adams.

“Music was our lifeblood for so many years, and he can’t do it anymore,” Mrs. Adams said. “He goes upstairs to play his guitar and write, and suddenly I need him to come and cath me. I just feel like I’m going to wake up from this bad dream, but it’s the same routine.”
 

Two doctors are absolved in woman’s sudden death

In a 3-2 decision in December 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations in wrongful-death cases applies even in cases in which plaintiffs fail to identify the cause of death in a timely manner, as a report in the Claims Journal indicates.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by Linda Reibenstein on behalf of her mother, Mary Ann Whitman, who died in late April 2010 from a ruptured aortic aneurysm.

On April 12, 2010, Ms. Whitman visited Patrick D. Conaboy, MD, a Scranton family physician, complaining of a persistent cough, fever, and lower-back pain. Following an initial examination, Dr. Conaboy ordered an aortic duplex ultrasound scan and a CT scan of the patient’s abdomen.

The ultrasound was performed by radiologist Charles Barax, MD, who reviewed both scans. He identified a “poorly visualized aortic aneurysm.” At this point, Dr. Conaboy referred Ms. Whitman to a vascular surgeon. But before this visit could take place, Whitman’s aneurysm ruptured, killing her. This was listed as the medical cause of death on the patient’s death certificate.

In April 2011, Ms. Reibenstein filed a claim against Dr. Barax, alleging that he had failed to gauge the severity of her mother’s condition. Ms. Reibenstein’s attorney wasn’t able to question Dr. Barax on the record until well after the state’s 2-year statute of limitations had elapsed. When he did testify, Dr. Barax explained that the scans’ image quality prevented him from determining whether Whitman’s aneurysm was rupturing or simply bleeding. Despite this, he insisted that he had warned Dr. Conaboy of the potential for Ms. Whitman’s aneurysm to rupture.

In March 2016, nearly 6 years after her mother’s death, Ms. Reibenstein filed a new lawsuit, this one against Dr. Conaboy, whom she alleged had failed to properly treat her mother’s condition. Dr. Conaboy, in turn, asked the court for summary judgment – that is, a judgment in his favor without a full trial – arguing that the state’s window for filing a wrongful-death claim had long since closed. For their part, Ms. Reibenstein and her attorney argued that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations didn’t start until the plaintiff had discovered the cause of her mother’s death.

Initially refusing to dismiss the case, a lower court reconsidered Dr. Conaboy’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Ms. Reibenstein had failed to present any evidence of “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment.” In other words, in the absence of any willful attempt on the part of the defendant to hide the legal cause of death, which includes “acts, omissions, or events having some causative connection with the death,” the statute of limitations remained in effect, and the defendant’s motion was thereby granted.

Continuing the legal seesaw, a state appeals court reversed the lower-court ruling. Noting that the Pennsylvania malpractice statute was ambiguous, the court argued that it should be interpreted in a way that protects plaintiffs who seek “fair compensation” but encounter willfully erected obstacles in pursuit of their claim.

Dr. Conaboy then took his case to the state’s highest court. In its majority decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court staked out a narrow definition of cause of death – one based on the death certificate – and ruled that only willful fraud in that document would constitute the necessary condition for halting the claim’s clock. Furthermore, the high court said, when lawmakers adopted the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act in 2002, they did so with no guarantee “that all of the information necessary to sustain a claim will be gathered in the limitations period.”

Similarly, the court ruled, “at some point the clock must run out, lest health care providers remain subject to liability exposure indefinitely, with the prospect of a trial marred by the death or diminished memory of material witnesses or the loss of critical evidence.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delay in treatment will cost hospital millions

A Texas hospital must pay a multimillion-dollar judgment for failing to treat a woman’s spinal injury in time to prevent paralysis, according to a report on WFAA.com, among other news sites.

On March 21, 2019, Judy “Jessie” Adams, then part of a singing-songwriting duo with her husband, Richard, went to Premier Interventional Pain Management, in Flower Mound, Tex., prior to the couple’s drive to Ohio for a funeral. At Premier, Jesse received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) that she hoped would ease her back pain during the long drive.

Instead, the injection ended up increasing her pain.

“He [the pain physician] gave me the shot, but I couldn’t feel my legs. They were tingling, but I couldn’t feel them,” Mrs. Adams explained. “The pain was so bad in my back.” In their suit, Adams and her husband alleged that the doctor had probably “nicked a blood vessel during the ESI procedure, causing Jessie to hemorrhage.” (The couple’s suit against the doctor was settled prior to trial.)

Mrs. Adams remained under observation at the pain facility for about 1½ hours, at which point she was taken by ambulance to nearby Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. There, in the emergency department, staff ordered a “STAT MRI” in preparation for an emergency laminectomy.

For reasons that remain murky, the MRI wasn’t performed for 1 hour and 37 minutes. The emergency laminectomy itself wasn’t started until more than 5 hours after Adams had been admitted to the ED. This was a direct violation of hospital protocol, which required that emergency surgeries be performed within 1 hour of admittance in the first available surgical suite. (At trial, Mrs. Adams’s attorneys from Lyons & Simmons offered evidence that a suite became available 49 minutes after Adams had arrived at the ED.)

During the wait, Mrs. Adams continued to experience excruciating pain. “I kept screaming: ‘Help me,’ ” she recalled. At trial, her attorneys argued that the hospital’s delay in addressing her spinal emergency led directly to her current paralysis, which keeps her confined to a wheelchair and renders her incontinent.

The hospital disagreed. In court, it maintained that Mrs. Adams was already paralyzed when she arrived at the ED and that there was no delay in care.

The jury saw things differently, however. Siding with the plaintiffs, it awarded Mrs. Adams and her husband $10.1 million, including $500,000 for Mr. Adams’s loss of future earnings and $1 million for his “loss of consortium” with his wife.

Their music career now effectively over, Mr. Adams spends most of his time taking care of Mrs. Adams.

“Music was our lifeblood for so many years, and he can’t do it anymore,” Mrs. Adams said. “He goes upstairs to play his guitar and write, and suddenly I need him to come and cath me. I just feel like I’m going to wake up from this bad dream, but it’s the same routine.”
 

Two doctors are absolved in woman’s sudden death

In a 3-2 decision in December 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations in wrongful-death cases applies even in cases in which plaintiffs fail to identify the cause of death in a timely manner, as a report in the Claims Journal indicates.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by Linda Reibenstein on behalf of her mother, Mary Ann Whitman, who died in late April 2010 from a ruptured aortic aneurysm.

On April 12, 2010, Ms. Whitman visited Patrick D. Conaboy, MD, a Scranton family physician, complaining of a persistent cough, fever, and lower-back pain. Following an initial examination, Dr. Conaboy ordered an aortic duplex ultrasound scan and a CT scan of the patient’s abdomen.

The ultrasound was performed by radiologist Charles Barax, MD, who reviewed both scans. He identified a “poorly visualized aortic aneurysm.” At this point, Dr. Conaboy referred Ms. Whitman to a vascular surgeon. But before this visit could take place, Whitman’s aneurysm ruptured, killing her. This was listed as the medical cause of death on the patient’s death certificate.

In April 2011, Ms. Reibenstein filed a claim against Dr. Barax, alleging that he had failed to gauge the severity of her mother’s condition. Ms. Reibenstein’s attorney wasn’t able to question Dr. Barax on the record until well after the state’s 2-year statute of limitations had elapsed. When he did testify, Dr. Barax explained that the scans’ image quality prevented him from determining whether Whitman’s aneurysm was rupturing or simply bleeding. Despite this, he insisted that he had warned Dr. Conaboy of the potential for Ms. Whitman’s aneurysm to rupture.

In March 2016, nearly 6 years after her mother’s death, Ms. Reibenstein filed a new lawsuit, this one against Dr. Conaboy, whom she alleged had failed to properly treat her mother’s condition. Dr. Conaboy, in turn, asked the court for summary judgment – that is, a judgment in his favor without a full trial – arguing that the state’s window for filing a wrongful-death claim had long since closed. For their part, Ms. Reibenstein and her attorney argued that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations didn’t start until the plaintiff had discovered the cause of her mother’s death.

Initially refusing to dismiss the case, a lower court reconsidered Dr. Conaboy’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Ms. Reibenstein had failed to present any evidence of “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment.” In other words, in the absence of any willful attempt on the part of the defendant to hide the legal cause of death, which includes “acts, omissions, or events having some causative connection with the death,” the statute of limitations remained in effect, and the defendant’s motion was thereby granted.

Continuing the legal seesaw, a state appeals court reversed the lower-court ruling. Noting that the Pennsylvania malpractice statute was ambiguous, the court argued that it should be interpreted in a way that protects plaintiffs who seek “fair compensation” but encounter willfully erected obstacles in pursuit of their claim.

Dr. Conaboy then took his case to the state’s highest court. In its majority decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court staked out a narrow definition of cause of death – one based on the death certificate – and ruled that only willful fraud in that document would constitute the necessary condition for halting the claim’s clock. Furthermore, the high court said, when lawmakers adopted the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act in 2002, they did so with no guarantee “that all of the information necessary to sustain a claim will be gathered in the limitations period.”

Similarly, the court ruled, “at some point the clock must run out, lest health care providers remain subject to liability exposure indefinitely, with the prospect of a trial marred by the death or diminished memory of material witnesses or the loss of critical evidence.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delay in treatment will cost hospital millions

A Texas hospital must pay a multimillion-dollar judgment for failing to treat a woman’s spinal injury in time to prevent paralysis, according to a report on WFAA.com, among other news sites.

On March 21, 2019, Judy “Jessie” Adams, then part of a singing-songwriting duo with her husband, Richard, went to Premier Interventional Pain Management, in Flower Mound, Tex., prior to the couple’s drive to Ohio for a funeral. At Premier, Jesse received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) that she hoped would ease her back pain during the long drive.

Instead, the injection ended up increasing her pain.

“He [the pain physician] gave me the shot, but I couldn’t feel my legs. They were tingling, but I couldn’t feel them,” Mrs. Adams explained. “The pain was so bad in my back.” In their suit, Adams and her husband alleged that the doctor had probably “nicked a blood vessel during the ESI procedure, causing Jessie to hemorrhage.” (The couple’s suit against the doctor was settled prior to trial.)

Mrs. Adams remained under observation at the pain facility for about 1½ hours, at which point she was taken by ambulance to nearby Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. There, in the emergency department, staff ordered a “STAT MRI” in preparation for an emergency laminectomy.

For reasons that remain murky, the MRI wasn’t performed for 1 hour and 37 minutes. The emergency laminectomy itself wasn’t started until more than 5 hours after Adams had been admitted to the ED. This was a direct violation of hospital protocol, which required that emergency surgeries be performed within 1 hour of admittance in the first available surgical suite. (At trial, Mrs. Adams’s attorneys from Lyons & Simmons offered evidence that a suite became available 49 minutes after Adams had arrived at the ED.)

During the wait, Mrs. Adams continued to experience excruciating pain. “I kept screaming: ‘Help me,’ ” she recalled. At trial, her attorneys argued that the hospital’s delay in addressing her spinal emergency led directly to her current paralysis, which keeps her confined to a wheelchair and renders her incontinent.

The hospital disagreed. In court, it maintained that Mrs. Adams was already paralyzed when she arrived at the ED and that there was no delay in care.

The jury saw things differently, however. Siding with the plaintiffs, it awarded Mrs. Adams and her husband $10.1 million, including $500,000 for Mr. Adams’s loss of future earnings and $1 million for his “loss of consortium” with his wife.

Their music career now effectively over, Mr. Adams spends most of his time taking care of Mrs. Adams.

“Music was our lifeblood for so many years, and he can’t do it anymore,” Mrs. Adams said. “He goes upstairs to play his guitar and write, and suddenly I need him to come and cath me. I just feel like I’m going to wake up from this bad dream, but it’s the same routine.”
 

Two doctors are absolved in woman’s sudden death

In a 3-2 decision in December 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations in wrongful-death cases applies even in cases in which plaintiffs fail to identify the cause of death in a timely manner, as a report in the Claims Journal indicates.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by Linda Reibenstein on behalf of her mother, Mary Ann Whitman, who died in late April 2010 from a ruptured aortic aneurysm.

On April 12, 2010, Ms. Whitman visited Patrick D. Conaboy, MD, a Scranton family physician, complaining of a persistent cough, fever, and lower-back pain. Following an initial examination, Dr. Conaboy ordered an aortic duplex ultrasound scan and a CT scan of the patient’s abdomen.

The ultrasound was performed by radiologist Charles Barax, MD, who reviewed both scans. He identified a “poorly visualized aortic aneurysm.” At this point, Dr. Conaboy referred Ms. Whitman to a vascular surgeon. But before this visit could take place, Whitman’s aneurysm ruptured, killing her. This was listed as the medical cause of death on the patient’s death certificate.

In April 2011, Ms. Reibenstein filed a claim against Dr. Barax, alleging that he had failed to gauge the severity of her mother’s condition. Ms. Reibenstein’s attorney wasn’t able to question Dr. Barax on the record until well after the state’s 2-year statute of limitations had elapsed. When he did testify, Dr. Barax explained that the scans’ image quality prevented him from determining whether Whitman’s aneurysm was rupturing or simply bleeding. Despite this, he insisted that he had warned Dr. Conaboy of the potential for Ms. Whitman’s aneurysm to rupture.

In March 2016, nearly 6 years after her mother’s death, Ms. Reibenstein filed a new lawsuit, this one against Dr. Conaboy, whom she alleged had failed to properly treat her mother’s condition. Dr. Conaboy, in turn, asked the court for summary judgment – that is, a judgment in his favor without a full trial – arguing that the state’s window for filing a wrongful-death claim had long since closed. For their part, Ms. Reibenstein and her attorney argued that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations didn’t start until the plaintiff had discovered the cause of her mother’s death.

Initially refusing to dismiss the case, a lower court reconsidered Dr. Conaboy’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Ms. Reibenstein had failed to present any evidence of “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment.” In other words, in the absence of any willful attempt on the part of the defendant to hide the legal cause of death, which includes “acts, omissions, or events having some causative connection with the death,” the statute of limitations remained in effect, and the defendant’s motion was thereby granted.

Continuing the legal seesaw, a state appeals court reversed the lower-court ruling. Noting that the Pennsylvania malpractice statute was ambiguous, the court argued that it should be interpreted in a way that protects plaintiffs who seek “fair compensation” but encounter willfully erected obstacles in pursuit of their claim.

Dr. Conaboy then took his case to the state’s highest court. In its majority decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court staked out a narrow definition of cause of death – one based on the death certificate – and ruled that only willful fraud in that document would constitute the necessary condition for halting the claim’s clock. Furthermore, the high court said, when lawmakers adopted the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act in 2002, they did so with no guarantee “that all of the information necessary to sustain a claim will be gathered in the limitations period.”

Similarly, the court ruled, “at some point the clock must run out, lest health care providers remain subject to liability exposure indefinitely, with the prospect of a trial marred by the death or diminished memory of material witnesses or the loss of critical evidence.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first in what have come to be known as the “wrong stitches” cases has been settled, a story in The Ledger reports.

The former plaintiff in the now-settled suit is Carrie Monk, a Lakeland, Fla., resident who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center several years ago. (The medical center is managed by Lakeland Regional Health Systems.) During that procedure, Ms. Monk claimed, her doctors used permanent rather than absorbable sutures to close her incisions. As a result, over the next 19 months, she experienced abdominal pain and constant bleeding, which in turn affected her personal life as well as her work as a nurse in the intensive care unit. She underwent follow-up surgery to have the permanent sutures removed, but two could not be identified and excised.

In July 2020, Ms. Monk filed a medical malpractice claim against Lakeland Regional Health, its medical center, and the ob-gyns who had performed her surgery. She was among the first of the women who had received the permanent sutures to do so.

On February 28, 2021, The Ledger ran a story on Ms. Monk’s suit. Less than 2 weeks later, Lakeland Regional Health sent letters to patients who had undergone “wrong stitch” surgeries, cautioning of possible postsurgical complications. The company reportedly kept secret how many letters it had sent out.

Since then, at least nine similar suits have been filed against Lakeland Regional Health, bringing the total number of such suits to 12. Four of these suits have been settled, including Ms. Monk’s. Of the remaining eight cases, several are in various pretrial stages.

Under the terms of her settlement, neither Ms. Monk nor her attorney may disclose what financial compensation or other awards she’s received. The attorney, however, referred to the settlement as “amicable.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first in what have come to be known as the “wrong stitches” cases has been settled, a story in The Ledger reports.

The former plaintiff in the now-settled suit is Carrie Monk, a Lakeland, Fla., resident who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center several years ago. (The medical center is managed by Lakeland Regional Health Systems.) During that procedure, Ms. Monk claimed, her doctors used permanent rather than absorbable sutures to close her incisions. As a result, over the next 19 months, she experienced abdominal pain and constant bleeding, which in turn affected her personal life as well as her work as a nurse in the intensive care unit. She underwent follow-up surgery to have the permanent sutures removed, but two could not be identified and excised.

In July 2020, Ms. Monk filed a medical malpractice claim against Lakeland Regional Health, its medical center, and the ob-gyns who had performed her surgery. She was among the first of the women who had received the permanent sutures to do so.

On February 28, 2021, The Ledger ran a story on Ms. Monk’s suit. Less than 2 weeks later, Lakeland Regional Health sent letters to patients who had undergone “wrong stitch” surgeries, cautioning of possible postsurgical complications. The company reportedly kept secret how many letters it had sent out.

Since then, at least nine similar suits have been filed against Lakeland Regional Health, bringing the total number of such suits to 12. Four of these suits have been settled, including Ms. Monk’s. Of the remaining eight cases, several are in various pretrial stages.

Under the terms of her settlement, neither Ms. Monk nor her attorney may disclose what financial compensation or other awards she’s received. The attorney, however, referred to the settlement as “amicable.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first in what have come to be known as the “wrong stitches” cases has been settled, a story in The Ledger reports.

The former plaintiff in the now-settled suit is Carrie Monk, a Lakeland, Fla., resident who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center several years ago. (The medical center is managed by Lakeland Regional Health Systems.) During that procedure, Ms. Monk claimed, her doctors used permanent rather than absorbable sutures to close her incisions. As a result, over the next 19 months, she experienced abdominal pain and constant bleeding, which in turn affected her personal life as well as her work as a nurse in the intensive care unit. She underwent follow-up surgery to have the permanent sutures removed, but two could not be identified and excised.

In July 2020, Ms. Monk filed a medical malpractice claim against Lakeland Regional Health, its medical center, and the ob-gyns who had performed her surgery. She was among the first of the women who had received the permanent sutures to do so.

On February 28, 2021, The Ledger ran a story on Ms. Monk’s suit. Less than 2 weeks later, Lakeland Regional Health sent letters to patients who had undergone “wrong stitch” surgeries, cautioning of possible postsurgical complications. The company reportedly kept secret how many letters it had sent out.

Since then, at least nine similar suits have been filed against Lakeland Regional Health, bringing the total number of such suits to 12. Four of these suits have been settled, including Ms. Monk’s. Of the remaining eight cases, several are in various pretrial stages.

Under the terms of her settlement, neither Ms. Monk nor her attorney may disclose what financial compensation or other awards she’s received. The attorney, however, referred to the settlement as “amicable.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The estate of a renowned surgeon is appealing a multimillion-dollar award levied against it and the hospital system he worked for, according to the New York Post and other news outlets.

In November 2014, New York Giants running back Michael Cox sustained severe lower-body injuries, including a broken leg and a damaged left ankle, after he was tackled in a game against the Seattle Seahawks. At the time, Cox was in the second year of a 4-year, $2.3 million contract with the Giants.

Later, he underwent treatment at New York City’s Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), the oldest orthopedic hospital in the United States, which is consistently ranked among the best. Mr. Cox’s surgeon for the procedure was Dean Lorich, MD, then associate director of HSS’s orthopedic trauma service and chief of the same service at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, also located in New York City.

But here the story takes a grim turn.

Dr. Lorich’s surgery allegedly failed to fully repair Mr. Cox’s left ankle, which led to the player’s early retirement. In May 2016, Mr. Cox sued Dr. Lorich, HSS, and the New York–Presbyterian Healthcare System for unspecified damages. (Mr. Cox’s attorney at the time reportedly claimed that Dr. Lorich hadn’t properly treated the talus bone in the player’s ankle.) Roughly a year and a half later, in December 2017, police found Dr. Lorich unconscious and unresponsive in his Park Avenue apartment, a knife protruding from his torso. The medical examiner later ruled his death a suicide, though there was no indication of why the surgeon took his own life.

The malpractice suit against Dr. Lorich’s estate and the hospitals continued.

Last month, on September 23, a New York County Supreme Court jury reached its decision. It awarded the ex-NFL player $12 million in lost earnings, $15.5 million for future pain and suffering, and $1 million for past pain and suffering.

“The jury spoke with a clear and unambiguous voice that Mr. Cox received inadequate medical care and treatment and was significantly injured as a result,” announced Jordan Merson, Mr. Cox’s attorney. “We are pleased with the jury’s decision.”

But an attorney for the hospital and the Lorich estate has called the jury verdict “inconsistent with the evidence in the case.” The defendants will appeal the verdict, he says.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

The estate of a renowned surgeon is appealing a multimillion-dollar award levied against it and the hospital system he worked for, according to the New York Post and other news outlets.

In November 2014, New York Giants running back Michael Cox sustained severe lower-body injuries, including a broken leg and a damaged left ankle, after he was tackled in a game against the Seattle Seahawks. At the time, Cox was in the second year of a 4-year, $2.3 million contract with the Giants.

Later, he underwent treatment at New York City’s Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), the oldest orthopedic hospital in the United States, which is consistently ranked among the best. Mr. Cox’s surgeon for the procedure was Dean Lorich, MD, then associate director of HSS’s orthopedic trauma service and chief of the same service at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, also located in New York City.

But here the story takes a grim turn.

Dr. Lorich’s surgery allegedly failed to fully repair Mr. Cox’s left ankle, which led to the player’s early retirement. In May 2016, Mr. Cox sued Dr. Lorich, HSS, and the New York–Presbyterian Healthcare System for unspecified damages. (Mr. Cox’s attorney at the time reportedly claimed that Dr. Lorich hadn’t properly treated the talus bone in the player’s ankle.) Roughly a year and a half later, in December 2017, police found Dr. Lorich unconscious and unresponsive in his Park Avenue apartment, a knife protruding from his torso. The medical examiner later ruled his death a suicide, though there was no indication of why the surgeon took his own life.

The malpractice suit against Dr. Lorich’s estate and the hospitals continued.

Last month, on September 23, a New York County Supreme Court jury reached its decision. It awarded the ex-NFL player $12 million in lost earnings, $15.5 million for future pain and suffering, and $1 million for past pain and suffering.

“The jury spoke with a clear and unambiguous voice that Mr. Cox received inadequate medical care and treatment and was significantly injured as a result,” announced Jordan Merson, Mr. Cox’s attorney. “We are pleased with the jury’s decision.”

But an attorney for the hospital and the Lorich estate has called the jury verdict “inconsistent with the evidence in the case.” The defendants will appeal the verdict, he says.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

The estate of a renowned surgeon is appealing a multimillion-dollar award levied against it and the hospital system he worked for, according to the New York Post and other news outlets.

In November 2014, New York Giants running back Michael Cox sustained severe lower-body injuries, including a broken leg and a damaged left ankle, after he was tackled in a game against the Seattle Seahawks. At the time, Cox was in the second year of a 4-year, $2.3 million contract with the Giants.

Later, he underwent treatment at New York City’s Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), the oldest orthopedic hospital in the United States, which is consistently ranked among the best. Mr. Cox’s surgeon for the procedure was Dean Lorich, MD, then associate director of HSS’s orthopedic trauma service and chief of the same service at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, also located in New York City.

But here the story takes a grim turn.

Dr. Lorich’s surgery allegedly failed to fully repair Mr. Cox’s left ankle, which led to the player’s early retirement. In May 2016, Mr. Cox sued Dr. Lorich, HSS, and the New York–Presbyterian Healthcare System for unspecified damages. (Mr. Cox’s attorney at the time reportedly claimed that Dr. Lorich hadn’t properly treated the talus bone in the player’s ankle.) Roughly a year and a half later, in December 2017, police found Dr. Lorich unconscious and unresponsive in his Park Avenue apartment, a knife protruding from his torso. The medical examiner later ruled his death a suicide, though there was no indication of why the surgeon took his own life.

The malpractice suit against Dr. Lorich’s estate and the hospitals continued.

Last month, on September 23, a New York County Supreme Court jury reached its decision. It awarded the ex-NFL player $12 million in lost earnings, $15.5 million for future pain and suffering, and $1 million for past pain and suffering.

“The jury spoke with a clear and unambiguous voice that Mr. Cox received inadequate medical care and treatment and was significantly injured as a result,” announced Jordan Merson, Mr. Cox’s attorney. “We are pleased with the jury’s decision.”

But an attorney for the hospital and the Lorich estate has called the jury verdict “inconsistent with the evidence in the case.” The defendants will appeal the verdict, he says.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

A Kentucky clinic and one of its treating physicians are potentially on the hook for a multimillion-dollar judgment 9 years after a patient suffered serious complications following hernia surgery, reports a story in the Bowling Green Daily News.

On May 31, 2013, Alice Duff went to Graves-Gilbert Clinic, a multispecialty group whose main campus is in Bowling Green, for hernia surgery. Her surgeon for the procedure at a nearby facility was Tage Haase, MD, a member of the clinic.

Originally, Mrs. Duff was expected to remain in the facility for 23 hours following the procedure. But her recovery didn’t proceed as expected, and that initial period was extended by roughly 3 days. During this time, Ms. Duff’s husband, Lloyd, allegedly requested multiple times that doctors order a CT scan for his wife.

Ten days after the procedure, and with Ms. Duff out of the hospital, the Duffs successfully urged their family physician to order a CT scan. It showed large amounts of free air in Alice’s abdomen, a condition that’s known as pneumoperitoneum.

On June 10, 2013, Mrs. Duff underwent a second surgery, during which doctors discovered that she had sustained a perforated bowel during the first procedure. As a result, her bowel contents had spilled into her abdomen, causing an infection that required an extended hospital stay and five additional surgeries. The infection also led to retinal damage that has left her legally blind.

In their claim against Graves-Gilbert and Dr. Haase, the Duffs argued that Dr. Haase and an assistant doctor who was not named in the suit had failed to meet the standard of care. Specifically, argued the Duffs, because bowel perforation is a known complication in hernia surgeries, Dr. Haase was negligent in not diagnosing and treating Ms. Duff’s problem earlier.

For their part, Graves-Gilbert and Dr. Haase maintained that there was no indication before the second surgery that Mrs. Duff was demonstrating symptoms that necessitated a follow-up procedure. Dr. Haase further argued that Mrs. Duff’s bowel perforation was probably caused by the sawblade-like effect of the suture material he had used to close her incision.

The jury didn’t see it this way, however. It awarded approximately $1.3 million to Mrs. Duff for past medical expenses, plus another $12 million for pain and suffering. Her husband, Lloyd, received an additional $8 million in damages.

The attorney representing the clinic and Dr. Haase has vowed to pursue “all available remedies to have the verdict vacated and the case set for a new trial.”
 

Case hinged on proper use of a ‘power morcellator’

A claim for punitive damages has been thrown out against a New Jersey doctor and the hospital he’s affiliated with, in a ruling that could help to clarify the standards for such damages in medical malpractice cases, according to a story first reported on NorthJersey.com.

In October 2014, Howard H. Jones, MD, director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at The Valley Hospital, in Ridgewood, N.J., treated a patient from nearby Nyack, N.Y., for uterine fibroid tumors. As part of that treatment at the hospital, Dr. Jones used a “laparoscopic power morcellator,” which during a myomectomy procedure cuts, or morcellates, fibroid tumors into pieces small enough to be removed through an incision that’s generally 2 cm or fewer.

While use of the device offers doctors an alternative to open surgery and its longer recovery times, it also risks spreading previously undiagnosed cancer cells throughout the abdomen, thereby shortening a patient’s life. Because of this risk, which has given rise to a number of malpractice cases around the country, the Food and Drug Administration issued a draft guidance in the spring of 2022 for the use of power morcellators.

One recommendation is that physicians employ a “compatible” containment system to catch morcellated tissue, including any with cancer cells. Another is that the device be used selectively, which is to say on patients who have a minimal cancer risk and who have been informed of the procedure’s possible side effects beforehand.

Within a month of the procedure, the patient was diagnosed with metastatic leiomyosarcoma and died in September 2015. Following her death, her sister, the executor of her estate, sued both The Valley Hospital and Dr. Jones. In her suit, the sister argued that the defendants knew, or should have known, the risks involved in using a power morcellator because of both an earlier (2014) FDA “safety communication” discouraging the use of the device and the death of another of Dr. Jones’ patients following a similar procedure the year before.

The suit further alleged that, even after the FDA had issued its safety caution, the hospital had used the device on 37 other patients, “without informing them of the [FDA] letter or obtaining their informed consent to use the device.”

In light of these alleged lapses, Mirian Rivera, the patient’s sister, sought both compensatory and punitive damages. Historically, punitive damages have been limited to the small number of med-mal cases where a doctor or hospital has been found to have acted with actual malice or “wanton and willful disregard.”

Both Valley and Dr. Jones strongly disagreed with Ms. Rivera’s claim, arguing that prior to the procedure Dr. Jones had in fact met with the patient several times and had conducted the proper cancer-detecting tests. Moreover, the defendants emphasized, the request for punitive damages in the absence of actual malice or other factors would almost certainly establish a dangerous legal precedent. Several industry groups – including the American Medical Association, the Medical Society of New Jersey, and the New Jersey Hospital Association – agreed and filed friend-of-court briefs in support of Valley Hospital and Dr. Jones.

But two lower courts refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages. That’s when attorneys for Valley and Dr. Jones appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court. (Claims against the device manufacturer, a German company, had already been resolved.)

Ruling unanimously, the high court sided with the defendants: “As a matter of law, the evidence presented, even affording plaintiffs all favorable inferences, does not establish that defendants’ acts or omissions were motivated by actual malice or accompanied by wanton and willful disregard for the patient’s health and safety.”

The court also found that Valley had in fact reviewed hospital policy and drafted a patient-consent form after the release of the 2014 FDA safety communication on power morcellators. (The consent form had not been adopted before the surgery in question, however.)

The suit will now go back to Superior Court in Bergen County, New Jersey; unless a settlement is reached beforehand, the jury will weigh claims of negligence and compensatory damages.

At press time, no trial date had been set.
 

Will med-mal cases get tougher to defend in this state?

Late in August, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed its own longstanding rule that required that medical malpractice cases be filed in the county where the alleged injury occurred, as an Associated Press story on NBCPhiladelphia.com, among other news sites, reports.

More than 2 decades ago, in response to what was then seen as a crisis in the med-mal system, the state legislature overwhelmingly passed MCARE (the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund), which among other things restricted the venue of medical suits. The legislation was signed into law in March 2002 by then-Gov. Mark Schweiker.

The following year, the state’s high court adopted a similar venue rule.

Over the years, doctor and hospital groups have been big supporters of the rule, arguing that any attempt to shift cases back to allegedly more plaintiff-friendly courts in Philadelphia and other cities would likely retrigger a crisis of higher med-mal premiums, doctor flight, and worse health care.

But a 2020 report by Pennsylvania’s nonpartisan Legislative Budget and Finance Committee took issue with these conclusions. It said that, following a national trend, the cost of medical professional liability insurance had fallen in the state since 2007. The report concluded that nothing in the available data supports the “conclusion that changes in the availability, cost, and affordability of medical professional liability insurance are the result of changes in Pennsylvania law.”

A more recent report by the high court’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee reached a similar conclusion, noting that med-mal cases should be subject to the same rules as any other type of civil litigation. A majority of the high court agreed.

Predictably, this decision sits well with patient groups and officials representing trial attorneys in the Keystone State.

“Cases should be heard before 12 jurors that do not have a connection to a hospital or surgical center that is often times the largest employer in the county,” said Kila Baldwin, president of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice. “The new rule levels the playing field and will improve access to justice for all Pennsylvanians.”

Doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers, however, have predicted a “ruinous path” ahead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Kentucky clinic and one of its treating physicians are potentially on the hook for a multimillion-dollar judgment 9 years after a patient suffered serious complications following hernia surgery, reports a story in the Bowling Green Daily News.

On May 31, 2013, Alice Duff went to Graves-Gilbert Clinic, a multispecialty group whose main campus is in Bowling Green, for hernia surgery. Her surgeon for the procedure at a nearby facility was Tage Haase, MD, a member of the clinic.

Originally, Mrs. Duff was expected to remain in the facility for 23 hours following the procedure. But her recovery didn’t proceed as expected, and that initial period was extended by roughly 3 days. During this time, Ms. Duff’s husband, Lloyd, allegedly requested multiple times that doctors order a CT scan for his wife.

Ten days after the procedure, and with Ms. Duff out of the hospital, the Duffs successfully urged their family physician to order a CT scan. It showed large amounts of free air in Alice’s abdomen, a condition that’s known as pneumoperitoneum.

On June 10, 2013, Mrs. Duff underwent a second surgery, during which doctors discovered that she had sustained a perforated bowel during the first procedure. As a result, her bowel contents had spilled into her abdomen, causing an infection that required an extended hospital stay and five additional surgeries. The infection also led to retinal damage that has left her legally blind.

In their claim against Graves-Gilbert and Dr. Haase, the Duffs argued that Dr. Haase and an assistant doctor who was not named in the suit had failed to meet the standard of care. Specifically, argued the Duffs, because bowel perforation is a known complication in hernia surgeries, Dr. Haase was negligent in not diagnosing and treating Ms. Duff’s problem earlier.

For their part, Graves-Gilbert and Dr. Haase maintained that there was no indication before the second surgery that Mrs. Duff was demonstrating symptoms that necessitated a follow-up procedure. Dr. Haase further argued that Mrs. Duff’s bowel perforation was probably caused by the sawblade-like effect of the suture material he had used to close her incision.

The jury didn’t see it this way, however. It awarded approximately $1.3 million to Mrs. Duff for past medical expenses, plus another $12 million for pain and suffering. Her husband, Lloyd, received an additional $8 million in damages.

The attorney representing the clinic and Dr. Haase has vowed to pursue “all available remedies to have the verdict vacated and the case set for a new trial.”
 

Case hinged on proper use of a ‘power morcellator’

A claim for punitive damages has been thrown out against a New Jersey doctor and the hospital he’s affiliated with, in a ruling that could help to clarify the standards for such damages in medical malpractice cases, according to a story first reported on NorthJersey.com.

In October 2014, Howard H. Jones, MD, director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at The Valley Hospital, in Ridgewood, N.J., treated a patient from nearby Nyack, N.Y., for uterine fibroid tumors. As part of that treatment at the hospital, Dr. Jones used a “laparoscopic power morcellator,” which during a myomectomy procedure cuts, or morcellates, fibroid tumors into pieces small enough to be removed through an incision that’s generally 2 cm or fewer.

While use of the device offers doctors an alternative to open surgery and its longer recovery times, it also risks spreading previously undiagnosed cancer cells throughout the abdomen, thereby shortening a patient’s life. Because of this risk, which has given rise to a number of malpractice cases around the country, the Food and Drug Administration issued a draft guidance in the spring of 2022 for the use of power morcellators.

One recommendation is that physicians employ a “compatible” containment system to catch morcellated tissue, including any with cancer cells. Another is that the device be used selectively, which is to say on patients who have a minimal cancer risk and who have been informed of the procedure’s possible side effects beforehand.

Within a month of the procedure, the patient was diagnosed with metastatic leiomyosarcoma and died in September 2015. Following her death, her sister, the executor of her estate, sued both The Valley Hospital and Dr. Jones. In her suit, the sister argued that the defendants knew, or should have known, the risks involved in using a power morcellator because of both an earlier (2014) FDA “safety communication” discouraging the use of the device and the death of another of Dr. Jones’ patients following a similar procedure the year before.

The suit further alleged that, even after the FDA had issued its safety caution, the hospital had used the device on 37 other patients, “without informing them of the [FDA] letter or obtaining their informed consent to use the device.”

In light of these alleged lapses, Mirian Rivera, the patient’s sister, sought both compensatory and punitive damages. Historically, punitive damages have been limited to the small number of med-mal cases where a doctor or hospital has been found to have acted with actual malice or “wanton and willful disregard.”

Both Valley and Dr. Jones strongly disagreed with Ms. Rivera’s claim, arguing that prior to the procedure Dr. Jones had in fact met with the patient several times and had conducted the proper cancer-detecting tests. Moreover, the defendants emphasized, the request for punitive damages in the absence of actual malice or other factors would almost certainly establish a dangerous legal precedent. Several industry groups – including the American Medical Association, the Medical Society of New Jersey, and the New Jersey Hospital Association – agreed and filed friend-of-court briefs in support of Valley Hospital and Dr. Jones.

But two lower courts refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages. That’s when attorneys for Valley and Dr. Jones appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court. (Claims against the device manufacturer, a German company, had already been resolved.)

Ruling unanimously, the high court sided with the defendants: “As a matter of law, the evidence presented, even affording plaintiffs all favorable inferences, does not establish that defendants’ acts or omissions were motivated by actual malice or accompanied by wanton and willful disregard for the patient’s health and safety.”

The court also found that Valley had in fact reviewed hospital policy and drafted a patient-consent form after the release of the 2014 FDA safety communication on power morcellators. (The consent form had not been adopted before the surgery in question, however.)

The suit will now go back to Superior Court in Bergen County, New Jersey; unless a settlement is reached beforehand, the jury will weigh claims of negligence and compensatory damages.

At press time, no trial date had been set.
 

Will med-mal cases get tougher to defend in this state?

Late in August, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed its own longstanding rule that required that medical malpractice cases be filed in the county where the alleged injury occurred, as an Associated Press story on NBCPhiladelphia.com, among other news sites, reports.

More than 2 decades ago, in response to what was then seen as a crisis in the med-mal system, the state legislature overwhelmingly passed MCARE (the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund), which among other things restricted the venue of medical suits. The legislation was signed into law in March 2002 by then-Gov. Mark Schweiker.

The following year, the state’s high court adopted a similar venue rule.

Over the years, doctor and hospital groups have been big supporters of the rule, arguing that any attempt to shift cases back to allegedly more plaintiff-friendly courts in Philadelphia and other cities would likely retrigger a crisis of higher med-mal premiums, doctor flight, and worse health care.

But a 2020 report by Pennsylvania’s nonpartisan Legislative Budget and Finance Committee took issue with these conclusions. It said that, following a national trend, the cost of medical professional liability insurance had fallen in the state since 2007. The report concluded that nothing in the available data supports the “conclusion that changes in the availability, cost, and affordability of medical professional liability insurance are the result of changes in Pennsylvania law.”

A more recent report by the high court’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee reached a similar conclusion, noting that med-mal cases should be subject to the same rules as any other type of civil litigation. A majority of the high court agreed.

Predictably, this decision sits well with patient groups and officials representing trial attorneys in the Keystone State.

“Cases should be heard before 12 jurors that do not have a connection to a hospital or surgical center that is often times the largest employer in the county,” said Kila Baldwin, president of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice. “The new rule levels the playing field and will improve access to justice for all Pennsylvanians.”

Doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers, however, have predicted a “ruinous path” ahead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Kentucky clinic and one of its treating physicians are potentially on the hook for a multimillion-dollar judgment 9 years after a patient suffered serious complications following hernia surgery, reports a story in the Bowling Green Daily News.

On May 31, 2013, Alice Duff went to Graves-Gilbert Clinic, a multispecialty group whose main campus is in Bowling Green, for hernia surgery. Her surgeon for the procedure at a nearby facility was Tage Haase, MD, a member of the clinic.

Originally, Mrs. Duff was expected to remain in the facility for 23 hours following the procedure. But her recovery didn’t proceed as expected, and that initial period was extended by roughly 3 days. During this time, Ms. Duff’s husband, Lloyd, allegedly requested multiple times that doctors order a CT scan for his wife.

Ten days after the procedure, and with Ms. Duff out of the hospital, the Duffs successfully urged their family physician to order a CT scan. It showed large amounts of free air in Alice’s abdomen, a condition that’s known as pneumoperitoneum.

On June 10, 2013, Mrs. Duff underwent a second surgery, during which doctors discovered that she had sustained a perforated bowel during the first procedure. As a result, her bowel contents had spilled into her abdomen, causing an infection that required an extended hospital stay and five additional surgeries. The infection also led to retinal damage that has left her legally blind.

In their claim against Graves-Gilbert and Dr. Haase, the Duffs argued that Dr. Haase and an assistant doctor who was not named in the suit had failed to meet the standard of care. Specifically, argued the Duffs, because bowel perforation is a known complication in hernia surgeries, Dr. Haase was negligent in not diagnosing and treating Ms. Duff’s problem earlier.

For their part, Graves-Gilbert and Dr. Haase maintained that there was no indication before the second surgery that Mrs. Duff was demonstrating symptoms that necessitated a follow-up procedure. Dr. Haase further argued that Mrs. Duff’s bowel perforation was probably caused by the sawblade-like effect of the suture material he had used to close her incision.

The jury didn’t see it this way, however. It awarded approximately $1.3 million to Mrs. Duff for past medical expenses, plus another $12 million for pain and suffering. Her husband, Lloyd, received an additional $8 million in damages.

The attorney representing the clinic and Dr. Haase has vowed to pursue “all available remedies to have the verdict vacated and the case set for a new trial.”
 

Case hinged on proper use of a ‘power morcellator’

A claim for punitive damages has been thrown out against a New Jersey doctor and the hospital he’s affiliated with, in a ruling that could help to clarify the standards for such damages in medical malpractice cases, according to a story first reported on NorthJersey.com.

In October 2014, Howard H. Jones, MD, director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at The Valley Hospital, in Ridgewood, N.J., treated a patient from nearby Nyack, N.Y., for uterine fibroid tumors. As part of that treatment at the hospital, Dr. Jones used a “laparoscopic power morcellator,” which during a myomectomy procedure cuts, or morcellates, fibroid tumors into pieces small enough to be removed through an incision that’s generally 2 cm or fewer.

While use of the device offers doctors an alternative to open surgery and its longer recovery times, it also risks spreading previously undiagnosed cancer cells throughout the abdomen, thereby shortening a patient’s life. Because of this risk, which has given rise to a number of malpractice cases around the country, the Food and Drug Administration issued a draft guidance in the spring of 2022 for the use of power morcellators.

One recommendation is that physicians employ a “compatible” containment system to catch morcellated tissue, including any with cancer cells. Another is that the device be used selectively, which is to say on patients who have a minimal cancer risk and who have been informed of the procedure’s possible side effects beforehand.

Within a month of the procedure, the patient was diagnosed with metastatic leiomyosarcoma and died in September 2015. Following her death, her sister, the executor of her estate, sued both The Valley Hospital and Dr. Jones. In her suit, the sister argued that the defendants knew, or should have known, the risks involved in using a power morcellator because of both an earlier (2014) FDA “safety communication” discouraging the use of the device and the death of another of Dr. Jones’ patients following a similar procedure the year before.

The suit further alleged that, even after the FDA had issued its safety caution, the hospital had used the device on 37 other patients, “without informing them of the [FDA] letter or obtaining their informed consent to use the device.”

In light of these alleged lapses, Mirian Rivera, the patient’s sister, sought both compensatory and punitive damages. Historically, punitive damages have been limited to the small number of med-mal cases where a doctor or hospital has been found to have acted with actual malice or “wanton and willful disregard.”

Both Valley and Dr. Jones strongly disagreed with Ms. Rivera’s claim, arguing that prior to the procedure Dr. Jones had in fact met with the patient several times and had conducted the proper cancer-detecting tests. Moreover, the defendants emphasized, the request for punitive damages in the absence of actual malice or other factors would almost certainly establish a dangerous legal precedent. Several industry groups – including the American Medical Association, the Medical Society of New Jersey, and the New Jersey Hospital Association – agreed and filed friend-of-court briefs in support of Valley Hospital and Dr. Jones.

But two lower courts refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages. That’s when attorneys for Valley and Dr. Jones appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court. (Claims against the device manufacturer, a German company, had already been resolved.)

Ruling unanimously, the high court sided with the defendants: “As a matter of law, the evidence presented, even affording plaintiffs all favorable inferences, does not establish that defendants’ acts or omissions were motivated by actual malice or accompanied by wanton and willful disregard for the patient’s health and safety.”

The court also found that Valley had in fact reviewed hospital policy and drafted a patient-consent form after the release of the 2014 FDA safety communication on power morcellators. (The consent form had not been adopted before the surgery in question, however.)

The suit will now go back to Superior Court in Bergen County, New Jersey; unless a settlement is reached beforehand, the jury will weigh claims of negligence and compensatory damages.

At press time, no trial date had been set.
 

Will med-mal cases get tougher to defend in this state?

Late in August, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed its own longstanding rule that required that medical malpractice cases be filed in the county where the alleged injury occurred, as an Associated Press story on NBCPhiladelphia.com, among other news sites, reports.

More than 2 decades ago, in response to what was then seen as a crisis in the med-mal system, the state legislature overwhelmingly passed MCARE (the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund), which among other things restricted the venue of medical suits. The legislation was signed into law in March 2002 by then-Gov. Mark Schweiker.

The following year, the state’s high court adopted a similar venue rule.

Over the years, doctor and hospital groups have been big supporters of the rule, arguing that any attempt to shift cases back to allegedly more plaintiff-friendly courts in Philadelphia and other cities would likely retrigger a crisis of higher med-mal premiums, doctor flight, and worse health care.

But a 2020 report by Pennsylvania’s nonpartisan Legislative Budget and Finance Committee took issue with these conclusions. It said that, following a national trend, the cost of medical professional liability insurance had fallen in the state since 2007. The report concluded that nothing in the available data supports the “conclusion that changes in the availability, cost, and affordability of medical professional liability insurance are the result of changes in Pennsylvania law.”

A more recent report by the high court’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee reached a similar conclusion, noting that med-mal cases should be subject to the same rules as any other type of civil litigation. A majority of the high court agreed.

Predictably, this decision sits well with patient groups and officials representing trial attorneys in the Keystone State.

“Cases should be heard before 12 jurors that do not have a connection to a hospital or surgical center that is often times the largest employer in the county,” said Kila Baldwin, president of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice. “The new rule levels the playing field and will improve access to justice for all Pennsylvanians.”

Doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers, however, have predicted a “ruinous path” ahead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.