Andrew M. Brown
ab@macfar.com a
partner in the law firm of Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen
and Andrew S. Bolin
ASB@macfar.com , an associate with the firm, achieved an
important defense verdict in a week-long medical malpractice
case in Tampa, Florida. The wrongful death medical
malpractice case involved a woman who died as the result of
a bleed, which was caused by the deployment of a stent in
her renal artery.
FULL STORY:
http://www.imakenews.com/dri/e_article000255112.cfm?x=a2PB9DH,a1ntdqnN
| |
|
|
The
Voice May 5-11, 2004 |
|
VOLUME
3 ISSUE 18 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
And The Defense Wins
Plaintiff was the husband, individually, and
as guardian of two minor sons who sued the
treating nephrologist for failing to act in
a timely manner and respond to the bleed.
The case hinged on whether the nephrologist
was aware of a critical hemoglobin and
hematocrit value that had been ordered stat
in the early morning hours on the day of
death. The ICU nurse, who had taken over
that morning, failed to chart the record for
a five-hour period and "could not remember"
if she communicated the critical lab values
to the doctor “but assumed she must have“
told the doctor, based on the fact that he
had given orders after the time that the lab
results were available on the floor.
Plaintiff relied on that testimony and
argued that the doctor must have been aware
of the lab value, and further argued that if
the doctor was not aware of the lab values,
he should have personally called the lab to
get the results and he should have checked
on the patient earlier in the day. The
doctor's defense was that the lab values
were never communicated to him, which was
the nurse’s duty, and because he was not
told the lab values, he assumed that either
they were not available or that there was no
significant change in the patient's
hemoglobin and hematocrit. When the doctor
made rounds at 1:30 p.m., the patient was
already beginning to crash.
Settlement of an undisclosed amount was made
by the hospital and the nurse on the Friday
afternoon prior to trial. Plaintiff asked
for $7 million from the jury— $6.5 million
in pain and suffering and $500,000 in
economic loss of support and services.
Throughout the case, plaintiff never made a
demand that was within the defendant’s
policy limits. In a boost for the defense,
plaintiff's expert nephrologist admitted
that the nurses are the doctors’ eyes and
ears and that doctors are entitled to rely
on their past experience in getting
information from ICU nurses. Another plus
came when plaintiff's economist admitted to
an error of more than $115,000.00 that
neither she nor plaintiff's counsel caught,
prior to cross-exam at trial. The jury
deliberated for two hours before returning
the verdict in favor of the nephrologist.
Congratulations, defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|