<p>sonssecty: It’s not hypocritical of me at all to listen to a lawyer who says that lawyers spin things, or a doctor who says that sometimes doctors miss things through no particular fault of their own, and especially in this case with the initial presentation of the patient.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, we live in a world of probability, and as a result even some things that should seem straightforward and deterministic, become not that way at all. Sometimes things happen that almost never will, and sometimes because of that, people die. That’s the way the world works.</p>
<p>Anyone who doesn’t think lawyers (especially plaintiffs’ lawyers) spin thinks has not been living on this planet.
I defended a case where the plaintiff claimed that my company’s wet/dry shop vacuum caused him hearing loss! (of course he was a hunter AND worked right near the LAX airport…) We went to trial for TWO WEEKS before we got a jury verdict in our favor. The little vacuum sat there in the courtroom looking like ET, but to hear the plaintiff’s lawyer you would have thought it was the most evil device ever foisted off on our society.</p>
<p>I defended a medical malpractice case in which the patient died of a massive abdominal infection following surgery which didn’t affect the abdomen. Plaintiffs claimed the patient had a particular injury, which they said was caused by a nurse, that led to the infection. We tried the case for more than a week, with at least 3 experts on plaintiffs’ side saying that the type of alleged injury could cause the infection. It took the jury 1 1/2 hours to come back with a defense verdict. Why? Because the autopsy proved that the patient didn’t have that injury! Cause of the infection? Unknown, but most likely it was caused by weakening of her systems due to the original illness.</p>
<p>MOWC, I wonder why the other attorney even took the case, if it was a contingency case. How could one prove that a vaccum caused the hearing loss and not noise from elsewhere in society (concerts, horns, general noise pollution)? Perhaps the guy had a disease that caused his hearing loss, or it was a function of aging? I know a person who lost her hearing from an auto-immune disease (at least this is one medical theory). Guess that lawyer was a good actor, but it sounded like he was not so smart to take on this case, unless his client was being paid $300/hour (somehow I doubt it).</p>
<p>Chedva, also, isn’t infection a discussed risk of surgery in the first place. From what I know, many cases are lost by such plaintiffs, bc of informed consent, and knowing inherent risks of procedures.</p>
<p>northeastmom- They take the cases because a lot of companies will settle for some amount rather than incur the costs of trial. We would not. They had an expert who said the machine was too loud (all sorts of tests, etc). We had one who said it wasn’t. Juries in many locations are very pro-plaintiff and don’t care if a corporation has to pay. This was just one of many silly cases our company defended. Many were quite tragic- we had a case where a father was working on his garage door, disengaged the torsion spring and dropped the door on his three year old, killing her. We were sued as the manufacturer of the door. After a great deal of expense, we were dismissed on summary judgement. I’m sure sonssecty would say that since the child was dead, our company must have been negligent!</p>
<p>On a side note, whatever happened to the efforts to pass ‘Malpractice tort reforms’?</p>
<p>Why isn’t our system trying to put in place some ceilings to superfluous lawsuits? Why are no checks and balances in place to rein in the sanctimonious-than-thou
lawyers?</p>
<p>All this medical talk has me completely spooked. D just called saying she had a blood test at the university health service because for a while now she’s been feeling very tired (despite getting good sleep), running a slight fever, suffering shortness of breath “oh, and I have a stye on my eye!” Probably it’s nothing serious. Maybe it’s a thyroid thing. Maybe its mono (though she had it as a child and we were told you’re not “supposed” to get it more than once.) We should know something next week. But as a mom, I of course am worried - now - about the worst-possible scenario, including a tragic case such as this one. Big sigh.</p>
<p>Am I missing something? These are classic meningitis symptoms in a person in the classic demographic where meningitis is expected. Even if this young woman wanted to go home–don’t we have procedures by which we can hold people in a medical institution if they are are jeopardizing their own lives by their decisions? Is a young person who is delerious with fever the best person to make a medical choice? I think important things were done badly here. Granted that doctors are over-worked and over-stressed. No question about that–maybe MD’s don’t have the ability to hold people for medical reasons–if not, maybe they should.</p>
<p>Bethie,
It is next to impossible to hold someone in a hospital if they don’t want to stay. They can pretty much sign out AMA (against medical advice) if they want to. Of course, none of us really know the circumstances in this case. If someone leaves AMA, there should be extensive documentation in the chart.</p>
<p>Yeah, bethie, there is absolutely no way to hold a person from leaving, except I suppose a legal argument that they are no longer capable of making decisions for themselves and having a court appoint a legal guardian-type figure.</p>
<p>MOWC, interesting. I know that many small companies settle because it is strictly a business decision. I am surprised that insurance companies would too. They have in house counsel, don’t they? H is an attorney too, BTW. The case about the 3 y/o dying is just tragic. BTW, if insurance companies and businesses did not settle, I guess less lawyers would take on frivolous cases. It is too easy to try for a big payday for a few hours of work.</p>
<p>I’ve worked on psych units–people can be held. But there was a brother here who was not delirious with fever and if they’d said, “her life may be at risk if she leaves.”, he (the brother) probably could have convinced her (the sister) to stay in the hospital. Again, I’m not throwing stones, but maybe someone can learn something from this.</p>
Yes, northeastmom, infection is a risk, but not in an area that’s not touched during the surgery. The patient had brain surgery and this was an abdominal infection, which wasn’t disclosed as a risk because it had nothing to do with the surgery.</p>
<p>bethievt, psychiatric units are different than emergency rooms, and the laws for psychiatric admits (72 hour holds or 10 day involuntary) generally don’t apply to non-psychiatric situations. I used to represent hospitals and was the “lawyer on call” who had to wake up judges at 2 in the morning to prove that a person was incompetent to make decisions and order that medical treatment be given. It is an extremely rare situation, and again usually invoked only with someone who was clearly incompetent. Doesn’t necessarily sound like this girl fit the bill.</p>
<p>I’ve learned a lot, actually. I plan on telling both of my kids that if they are in the hospital and the doctors suggest, or even hint, that it would be wise to stay for further evaluation, they should definitely stay. Insurance–we’ll deal with that later. </p>
<p>Hospitals are not fun places, and can be lonely, scary and uncomfortable. I can see why a teen would leave,thinking she could get just as good care at home.</p>
<p>This doesn’t have a lot to do with this case, though, because we don’t know what happened. She may have developed the deadly bacterial strain after she left. We don’t even know if they recommended that she stay, because the records haven’t been released. </p>
<p>Katliamom- good luck to you and your daughter. If she has her cell with her, she can keep you posted frequently, I hope, about her condition and about anything that the blood tests show. Make sure she knows to go in again if she seems to be getting worse instead of better. I assume she has already seen a doctor?</p>
<p>I’ve worked on psych units–people can be held. </p>
<p>Although I think this is all WAY besides the point ( doctors having the right to judge someones ability to make choices regarding their medical care is a pretty big topic); </p>
<p>Laws vary by state, but in California, to hold so,eone on psychiatric wards, you have to demonstrate IMMINENT danger to self and other. As a physician you may have to argue why you think the person is likely to kill themselves in the very near future. Poor judgment does not count. And that’s for just 72 hours. They don’t even have to accept medication during that 72 hours. None of this is the same as saying someone can’t refuse medical treatment.</p>
<p>A.S.A.P. - “I’ve learned a lot, actually. I plan on telling both of my kids that if they are in the hospital and the doctors suggest, or even hint, that it would be wise to stay for further evaluation, they should definitely stay. Insurance–we’ll deal with that later.”</p>
<p>Finally, somebody has listened and understood. Thank you, A.S.A.P.!</p>