<p>
Both sides are going to get experts and duke it out about that. It will cost a fortune.</p>
<p>I can completely see Jahi’s family believing that their child was the victim of malpractice, and having cultural experiences that lead them to this belief. They may be completely correct. (I’m not so clear that either side will spend great amounts of money if the possible claim is only $250K; why would an insurance company pay for a huge defense costing more than that?)</p>
<p>But no matter how much they believe that she was the victim of malpractice, what they’ve done since she died is mind-boggling. I am so very sorry for the medical staff who’ve had to care for this body.</p>
<p>A decision to operate could be malpractice. I doubt it would be malpractice in this case, but it could be. I read somewhere that there was a familial problem with blood clotting in Jahi’s family. I have no idea whether that is true, but suppose it was? And suppose the surgeon should have asked about it but didn’t? Or should have tested for it, but didn’t? We can imagine cases where the operation shouldn’t have been performed on Jahi, even though it is successfully performed on other children. </p>
<p>None of us know enough to know whether there was malpractice. Television commentators and others who say that the bad outcome means malpractice are idiots. Bad outcomes can happen because of bad luck and nothing more. Your major health complication in pregnancy was bad luck.</p>
<p>Wow, I wonder if Jahi had the same bleeding disorder my husband and kids have! Whenever any of them has surgery, the doctor takes a lot of precautions before she or he operates. That actually annoys my husband, because before he was diagnosed, he had a life-threatening injury, plus major surgery, and excessive bleeding was not an issue in either case.</p>
<p>I don’t have a lot of experience with this – but in 1998 my 82 year old uncle had a fatal stroke. I was the geographically closest relative to the hospital (and declared next of kin by the hospital staff who asked if I knew his health history and recent surgeries. Since I was able to ID all the surgical scars, with dates, I was the next of kin!). I had been very close to my uncle and was able to say without hesitation that he wanted no extraordinary measures in this situation.</p>
<p>He was unconscious (and I believe I was told he was brain-dead) when I arrived (alone) at the ICU about 3 hours after the stroke and the doctors were very kind to me – but clearly delivered the message that at some point I was going to have to make the decision to turn off the machines. They would have given me time to round up his other nieces and nephews scattered across New England – but nature took its course more quickly than that and his heart stopped about 45 minutes after I got to the hospital.</p>
<p>I am astounded that case discussed on this thread has gone on so long.</p>
<p>Unless a punitive damage is not thrown out on summary judgment, I can’t imagine the hospital will litigate this claim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whoa! Too many negatives for me to be able to parse that sentence.</p>
<p>I think this is the intended meaning: If punitive damages are thrown out on summary judgement and the hospital is therefore facing a $250K maximum settlement, they will settle. If punitive damages are not thrown out, and the hospital is therefore facing an unlimitedly large settlement, they will litigate.</p>
<p>Is that right, cartera?</p>
<p>I’m wondering if there might be some other tort claim they will bring for the hospital’s behavior after the declaration of death–something other than (or rather, in addition to) malpractice. Does the state have a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, for example?</p>
<p>Are there any legal reasons that they would not want an autopsy? My apologies, but they left the hospital with a deceased body and btw the uncle video-taped the extraction. In shock here.</p>
<p><a href=“http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=9382967[/url]”>http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=9382967</a></p>
<p>Is it intentional infliction of emotional distress to tell the parents of a dead child that she is dead? Is a jury going to buy that? Even a sympathetic jury?</p>
<p>
The hospital might pay a couple of hundred grand additional to avoid finding out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They might not want to open that can of worms. Every day, staffers at a children’s hospital are in the sad position of telling parents their child has died. It makes a difference how that news is delivered, but do we want to say it’s malpractice to deliver the news badly-- or, perhaps in this case, to deliver it at all?</p>
<p>Does anyone know if the cap is total or per defendant?</p>
<p>Hasn’t their attorney alleged civil rights violations, privacy rights violations, freedom of religious violations, etc.? Doesn’t the big money come from getting one or more of these issues into federal court?</p>
<p>Are there video cameras in the ICU?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that is not wrong.</p>
<p>^^^ LOL, cartera.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Per Defendant </p>
<p>With regard to tacking on other intentional torts to boost the payout, I would imagine the court is not too keen on those efforts to circumvent the med mal cap.</p>
<p>Flossy,I have been in 2 different ICU’s with my parents (cardiac ICU and regular ICU). I don’t recall cameras. But it has been a few years so maybe that has changed .But I hope not. I would think that would really be an invasion of a family’s privacy. I think I remember seeing parents taped in the hospital if there was suspicion of abuse or Munchausen, etc. but I would imagine a court order was necessary for that?</p>
<p>Thanks, Sevmom. Just thinking about this too much. So many questions and no good answers possible and no good ending ever. Sigh.</p>