Other Useful
Information |
In July, 1995, the plaintiffs
decedent was a 72 year old man in excellent health who
fell down a flight of stairs in his home. He was taken by
ambulance on a back board in full cervical spine
precautions to a Massachusetts hospital where he
presented in the emergency department with a large scalp
abrasion and complaints of neck pain and weakness and
tingling in his hands. He was seen initially by one of
the defendant physicians who was "moonlighting"
in the emergency department. The other defendant
physician in the emergency room was a full-time staff
physician, board certified in emergency medicine. Shortly
after the plaintiffs arrival, the first physician
removed the cervical collar and refused to order x-rays
to rule out cervical spine injuries. Two of the nurses in
the emergency department requested cervical spine x-rays
but the first defendant declined stating he had
"cleared the patient clinically." One of the
nurses then asked the second defendant physician to order
x-rays. That physician spoke with the first physician,
but refused to intervene or supersede in the care of the
patient. Thus no x-rays were taken. Approximately 90
minutes after the plaintiffs arrival, and after his
hand weakness and tingling had worsened, the moonlighting
defendant, with the second defendant standing by and
watching, lifted the plaintiff off the stretcher to a
seated position in order to examine the patients
cervical range of motion. When his torso was lifted to
approximately 45 degrees, the plaintiffs head
flopped over, he screamed in pain and he cried out
"the bones are breaking in my neck." The
defendants immediately laid the plaintiff down and
replaced the cervical collar. Within minutes, plaintiff
lost all sensation in his legs, abdomen and eventually up
to his shoulder blades. An emergency MRI demonstrated
compression of the spinal cord at C4-C5. The plaintiff
underwent emergency spinal fusion that day, but,
nevertheless, was rendered quadriplegic. He survived for
18 months as a ventilator dependent quadriplegic in a
Boston area spinal cord hospital before his death from
complications related to repeated aspiration pneumonia.
The nurse who cared for the plaintiff testified in her
deposition that at the end of her shift, she exclaimed to
the nursing staff "Weve just broken
somebodys neck. We just paralyzed
him
[defendant number 1] sat him up, but [defendant
number 2] would not intervene." That nurse carefully
recorded all of the events of that morning in the
patients chart and she also kept personal notes of
all of her conversations with the defendants. Those notes
were obtained through discovery.
The third defendant physician was the Chairman of the
emergency department who was not present but had hired
the two defendant physicians. The fourth defendant was
the emergency medicine group for whom all of the
defendant physicians worked. Following the
plaintiffs death from complications related to
quadriplegia, plaintiff amended the complaint to add
claims wrongful death against all defendants.
The liability of the moonlighting defendant was
clearly established. He admitted in his deposition that
lifting the patient off the stretcher was a mistake that
probably caused the plaintiffs quadriplegia. Three
months after his deposition, plaintiffs demanded payment
of this defendants $1 million policy limits,
without a release, pursuant to Thaler v. The American
Insurance Company. The defendants insurance
carrier, agreed to pay the policy limits without a
release. However, defendant vehemently objected to the
payment without a release. Defendants counsel then
filed for an injunction to prevent the insurer from
paying without a release. The trial court Judge denied
defendants request for relief. Defendant then filed
an interlocutory appeal to a Single Justice, which after
hearing, was denied. Two weeks later, the insurer paid
the policy limits and the first defendant remained in the
case.
The liability of the remaining defendants was strongly
contested. Plaintiffs contended that the second defendant
physician, had a duty to intervene in the medical care of
the plaintiff by ordering the restoration of cervical
precautions and the ordering of cervical x-rays. The
defendant physician claimed that he did not have the
authority to intervene in the patients care.
However, following the sitting up incident, he sprung
into action and took over handling the case without
asking for permission to do so. The defendants
trial expert was expected to testify that the second
physician never established a physician-patient
relationship with the plaintiff, but that he delivered
care after the sitting-up incident as a "good samaritan." That expert was also expected to testify
that nurse who kept notes had the responsibility to
intervene and was in the best position to do so.
Plaintiffs expected to demonstrate the second
defendants consciousness of liability with evidence
of his failure to chart any of his examination findings
or orders and by his post-incident suggestion to the
nurse that she "did not have to chart
everything."
The liability of the defendant department chairman was
based upon his negligent hiring of the moonlighting
defendant and upon his negligent supervision and
management of the emergency department. Plaintiffs
obtained the physicians hospital credential files which
indicated that in the three years prior to July, 1995,
the first defendant had worked in 13 different medical
positions, was licensed to practice medicine in 9 states
and had, according to several physician practitioner
questionnaires a "history of serious interpersonal
problems". Despite this background, the defendant
spoke with no references and failed to investigate these
previous interpersonal problems. Finally, defendant
failed to establish a clear policy in the emergency
department that the board certified emergency physician
could supersede and intervene in the care of a patient by
a non-board certified emergency physician in the event of
any disagreement regarding care and treatment.
Coincidentally, the defendant promulgated this policy
three days after the incident in this case.
The liability of defendant medical group was based
upon its vicarious liability for the negligence and gross
negligence of its employees. The only issue relative to
the group was whether the first defendant was an
independent contractor or an employee. Plaintiff was
prepared to present evidence that despite its efforts to
distance itself from the first defendant, the group
exercised the requisite control over him to make him its
employee, and it responsible for his egregious conduct.
Following a full day mediation with Peter
Contuzzi,
the parties settled the remaining claims for
$1,030,000.00. This included cash contributions from the
primary defendant physician as well as from the uninsured
group practice.
Choosing a Massachusetts
Medical Malpractice Attorney
Medical malpractice cases are complex and
difficult, and often take a long time to resolve. It is important to choose a malpractice
lawyer
carefully. Our
Choosing a Lawyer page answers many questions you may have about
choosing an experienced Massachusetts medical malpractice attorney for your case.
Medical Malpractice
Practice Areas
Find out more about the kinds of medical malpractice cases which the
lawyers at our firm handle on our page on
Personal Injury
Caused by Medical
Malpractice.
If you feel you have a
medical malpractice case, it is vital that you act immediately to protect
your rights, as Massachusetts has strict statutes of limitations for medical
malpractice cases. Please call us at 617-723-7676, or toll free at 1-800-379-1244,
or use our contact form. |