Recent Verdicts and Settlements (Continued from page 43)
dant, without reason or cause, effectuated a forceps delivery, causing severe and per- manent injury to the brain of her son.
Verdict/Settlement: $2.5 million
Plaintiff ’s Counsel: Andrew E. Greenwald (MTLA member), Joseph, Greenwald, and Laake, Greenbelt, MD Michael M. Wilson, M.D., J.D., Washing- ton, DC 20006.
Defense Counsel: Withheld by request ________
Doe v. Roe
(the case is not better identified per the re- quest of Defense Counsel and Defendant’s insurer).
Facts: Plaintiff ’s husband was admitted to a hospital with markedly abnormal blood gas values and substernal chest pain. The emergency room physician recommended that the patient be admitted. Thereafter, the patient came under the care of his two family physicians. During the three day hospitalization, Defendant family physi- cians never ordered a repeat blood gas, Vq or pulmonary function test to determine why the patient remained short of breath,
and to further explain the abnormal blood gas values. Despite the fact that on the day of discharge the nurses noted that the pa- tient, while on supplemental oxygen, remained
short of breath, no additional
studies were ever performed and the patient was discharged. Thereafter, patient was seen by Defen- dant physicians on three separate occasions at their medical office. During these of- fice visits, the patient repeatedly stated that he was tired, felt poorly and/or was short of breath. Despite these complaints, De- fendant physicians failed to perform additional studies, in particular pulmonary function studies and blood gas values. On the third office visit, Defendant physicians diagnosed the patient as suffering from pneumonia, but failed to order any blood cultures or any other similar studies which would determine the type of pneumonia, and more importantly failed to consider the diagnosis of pulmonary emboli in a differ- ential diagnosis. During the depositions of Defendant physicians, in diagnosing the patient as suffering from pneumonia, the Defendants failed to consider that during the office visits and prior hospitalization that the patient showed no signs or symptoms consistent with pneumonia, and remained hypoxic and short of breath during this period.
On the evening following the third of- fice visit, the patient became increasingly
short of breath and his wife took him to the emergency room. Plaintiff’s husband was then admitted to the hospital with a blood oxygen level of 47. Despite this markedly abnormal finding, Defendant physicians failed to order repeat blood gas studies and/or order blood cultures to de- termine the nature and type of pneumonia which was causing the abnormal blood gas values and related symptoms. Furthermore, an x-ray taken at the time of admission demonstrated that Plaintiff’s husband was not suffering from a severe case of pneu- monia which would explain the markedly low blood gas value. Further, during this second hospitalization the Defendant phy- sicians failed to request a cardiac, critical care, infectious disease or similar consult until two hours prior to the patient’s death. On the third and final day of this admis- sion, Defendant physician was called on two occasions and at that time attempted to contact a pulmonary physician. Despite receiving no less than two and possibly as many as three calls from a hospital nurse, Defendant physicians failed to come to the hospital to attend to the patient or contact a consultant in a timely manner.
Allegations of Liability: Plaintiff con- tented that the Defendant’s were negligent during the first admission in failing to order repeat blood gas studies and in fail- ing to consider pulmonary emboli in a differential diagnosis. During the course of the first admission, Defendant physi- cians indicated that they wanted pulmonary function tests to be com- pleted. Despite the fact that these tests had been considered, and in light of the patient’s ongoing shortness of breath, Defendant physicians failed to have these test completed prior to the patient’s dis- charge or during the three office visits. Plaintiff also contended that the care
provided during the three office visits was markedly substandard. Indeed, the office notes reflected a failure to evaluate the patient’s complaints of shortness of breath, including when the symptoms first oc- curred, as well as the duration and severity of the symptoms. Plaintiff also contended that a diagno- sis of pneumonia was inconsistent with the chest x-ray taken, as well as the laboratory reports which showed the patient’s mark- edly abnormal blood gas values. Defendant physicians were not aware that the oxygen saturation levels reported were abnormal and were, in fact, considered by them to be relatively normal. Finally, Plaintiff contended that the pa- tient should have been transferred to the Intensive Care Unit at the time he was ad- mitted during the second hospitalization. Similarly, Pulmonary, Cardiac, Critical Care, or other such similar consultants
44 Trial Reporter Summer 2000
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52