As a physician today, there's constantly
worry about a potential medical malpractice litigation. Occasionally these
medical malpractice suits are not warranted and some are just plain crazy
because the harm came from the actions of the patient.
Medscape lately summarized a case against a cardiologist who lost a medical malpractice lawsuit because the family said he did not advise the patient not to take part in tasks that were stressful. The patient went to the cardiologist complaining of pain radiating into his arm. The cardiologists, noting the high risk of cardiovascular disease, ordered a nuclear stress test. Before the evaluation was done, the patient died of a coronary while engaging in a threesome with another man and a woman. Because there was no documentation that the man was warned by the cardiologist against stressful tasks, the jury found the doctor was 60% responsible for his death and that the patient was 40% responsible. The family was awarded $3 million, which was $2 million over the cardiologist's malpractice insurance.
An even more unusual case saw a man who was admitted to the ER complaining the effects of having inserted a bottle up his rectum. The attending physician gave the patient two alternatives: to have the bottle either manually or surgically removed. The patient decided to have the bottle manually removed. Sadly the removal did not go well and testing revealed signs of a colonic perforation. The bottle was then removed surgically. The review board of California then severely sanctioned the ER doctor for gross negligence.
Certainly the cardiologist in the first case could have documented his advice and had the patient sign to make sure he understood. The ER doctor could have run the tests first before trying to pull the bottle sparing the patient a good deal of pain and herself a lot of professional damage. Both cases were a consequence of patients behaving poorly, the court and the review board found the doctors in question liable.
Medscape lately summarized a case against a cardiologist who lost a medical malpractice lawsuit because the family said he did not advise the patient not to take part in tasks that were stressful. The patient went to the cardiologist complaining of pain radiating into his arm. The cardiologists, noting the high risk of cardiovascular disease, ordered a nuclear stress test. Before the evaluation was done, the patient died of a coronary while engaging in a threesome with another man and a woman. Because there was no documentation that the man was warned by the cardiologist against stressful tasks, the jury found the doctor was 60% responsible for his death and that the patient was 40% responsible. The family was awarded $3 million, which was $2 million over the cardiologist's malpractice insurance.
An even more unusual case saw a man who was admitted to the ER complaining the effects of having inserted a bottle up his rectum. The attending physician gave the patient two alternatives: to have the bottle either manually or surgically removed. The patient decided to have the bottle manually removed. Sadly the removal did not go well and testing revealed signs of a colonic perforation. The bottle was then removed surgically. The review board of California then severely sanctioned the ER doctor for gross negligence.
Certainly the cardiologist in the first case could have documented his advice and had the patient sign to make sure he understood. The ER doctor could have run the tests first before trying to pull the bottle sparing the patient a good deal of pain and herself a lot of professional damage. Both cases were a consequence of patients behaving poorly, the court and the review board found the doctors in question liable.
Tell us what you think? Contact us today.
No comments:
Post a Comment