Medical Malpractice

Georgia Appeals Court Chides Trial Judge for Siding with Physician in Malpractice Case

April 14, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Medical malpractice occurs when a physician fails to observe a commonly accepted “standard of care” and that failure is the “proximate cause” of a subsequent injury sustained by the patient. The question of causation is normally decided by a jury. If a plaintiff fails to provide any evidence of either element–breach of standard of care or causation–a judge will not allow a malpractice case to go to the jury. However, judges must also be careful not to cavalierly dismiss cases, as a recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals illustrates.

Moore v. Singh

Rosemary Moore was a diabetic who died in 2010 from renal disease. In December 2008, Moore fell in her home and injured her knee. The emergency department at Henry Medical Center diagnosed her with a knee sprain. Moore could not stand or walk, but she was released.

Florida Supreme Court Sides With Malpractice Victims Over Insurance Companies

March 17, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Insurance companies have pressured a number of states to impose limits on “non-economic” damages a plaintiff may recover in a medical malpractice or wrongful death lawsuit. Non-economic damages include losses to individuals, such as pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of one’s ability to enjoy life. The insurance industry claims such damage awards lead to higher malpractice insurance premiums for doctors and can ultimately drive practitioners out of the marketplace.

But, limits on non-economic damages are ultimately unfair to victims of medical malpractice. A number of state courts have recognized this and struck down legislative efforts to cap damages. For example, in 2010 the Georgia Supreme Court held limits on non-economic damages violated a victim’s right to trial by jury, as the caps indiscriminately overruled a jury’s findings of fact. And on March 13 of this year, the Florida Supreme Court declared that a state’s limits on non-economic damages violated the equal protection provision of the Florida Constitution.

McCall v. United States

Georgia Supreme Court Says ER Malpractice Case Can Go to Trial

March 3, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Under Georgia law, a hospital emergency room is not liable for medical malpractice unless there is “clear and convincing evidence that the physician or health care provider’s actions showed gross negligence.” The Georgia Supreme Court recently opined on the scope of what may constitute “gross negligence.” The justices, concurring with an earlier decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, found a trial judge was too quick to grant summary judgment to a physician who claimed immunity under the law.

Abdel-Samed v. Dailey

The plaintiff in this case sought treatment at the emergency room of a hospital in Griffin. He had severely injured his hand in a paint sprayer accident. Upon arrival in the ER, a physicians’ assistant examined the plaintiff and said he would require emergency surgery. It was after midnight, however, and the hospital did not have a hand surgeon on-call. The assistant told the plaintiff he would have to wait until morning for the surgery.

Georgia Appeals Court Reinstates “Ordinary” Negliegence Lawsuit Against Hospital

January 17, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Ordinary negligence and medical malpractice are not the same thing under Georgia law. A key difference between the two is the requirements for filing a lawsuit. In a malpractice case, the plaintiff must attach an affidavit “of an expert competent to testify” as to at least one specific negligent act by a licensed health care professional. Failure to include such an expert affidavit may lead a judge to dismiss the complaint.

The expert affidavit requirement is designed to prevent frivolous malpractice lawsuits. The affidavit provides a basis for calling into question a physician’s exercise of “professional judgment and skill.” The law presumes a jury composed of non-expert laypersons cannot render a fair judgment without expert guidance. But such expertise is not necessary when the alleged injury is caused by something more routine, like a clerical or administrative error.

For that reason, no affidavit is required when filing a complaint for ordinary negligence. Distinguishing between ordinary negligence and medical malpractice can be tricky. Even trial judges sometimes get it wrong, as a recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals explained.

Georgia Supreme Court Dismisses Malpractice Lawsuit Against ER Supervisor

December 7, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Is an emergency room supervisor responsible for the malpractice of medical staff under his supervision? The Georgia Supreme Court recently looked at such a case and answered “no.” The justices unanimously reversed a Court of Appeals decision that would have allowed a woman to pursue a professional negligence case against a physician she claimed was partly responsible for her mother’s death.

Herrington v. Gaulden

In October 2008, 64-year-old Deloris Gaulden was admitted to Liberty Regional Medical Center in Hinesville. Gaulden had fainted while attending church and complained of tightness in her chest. Despite these symptoms, emergency department personnel did not perform certain routine procedures–i.e., giving Gaulden aspiring or running an EKG–until about an hour after her admittance. Approximately 90 minutes after her arrival, Gaulden suffered cardiac and respiratory arrest and died.

Hospital Avoids Medical Malpractice Lawsuit By Posting Hallway Notice

September 20, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

When you go to a hospital for treatment, is the hospital liable if something goes wrong? Not necessarily. Many of the physicians who work at a hospital are not employees, but rather “independent contractors” with medical privileges. Georgia law allows hospitals to escape liability for the medical malpractice of these independent contractor physicians if certain conditions are met.

A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals helps illustrate the problem. The victim in this case had a “previous cardiac history” and was admitted to Emory-Adventist Hospital on New Year’s Eve of 2005. He complained of “chest pain, shortness of breath, and urinary difficulties.” The attending physician in the emergency department treated him. Two days later, however, the victim died of a heart attack.

Two years later, the victim’s widow sued the hospital, the attending physician and several other parties. The hospital argued it was not a proper party to the lawsuit because the attending physician was an independent contractor, not a hospital employee. In fact, the attending physician worked for Cobb Medical Associates, LLC.

Georgia Woman Granted New Malpractice Trial After Judge Allowed Hearsay Testimony

June 7, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In a personal injury or medical malpractice case, it’s crucial that trial judges only admit relevant evidence from credible witnesses. It’s especially important that witnesses testify as to their personal knowledge of events rather than relate information they heard from other people. This is known as “hearsay,” and while it’s permissible in certain special circumstances, as a general rule it’s not admissible as evidence in Georgia courts.

The improper admission of hearsay testimony recently prompted the Georgia Court of Appeals to grant a woman a new trial in her medical malpractice case against the Atlanta-based Emory Clinic. Her complaint arose from a 2002 surgery performed at the clinic to remove a benign brain tumor. The neurosurgeon allegedly failed to remove all of the cotton fibers from the surgical sponges used during the surgery, This caused inflammation, which was subsequently discovered when the woman sought treatment at a different facility.

The woman sued Emory Clinic. A jury later returned a verdict in favor of the defense. The woman asked the Court of Appeals to set aside the jury verdict on two grounds: First, the trial judge improperly admitted hearsay testimony; and second, the judge failed to dismiss a juror whose niece had ties to several witnesses in the case. The Court of Appeals never addressed the juror issue because it agreed with the woman that there was improper admission of hearsay evidence, which in and of itself justified a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Georgia Ruled a Jury Will Be Allowed to Hear Unusual Medical Malpractice Suit

September 29, 2011 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

The Georgia Supreme Court recently published an opinion in the case of O’Brien v Bruscato, allowing suit to go forward involving a mentally ill Georgia man that brutally killed mother. Vito Bruscato, the father and guardian of Victor Bruscato brought a medical malpractice suit against Victor’s psychiatrist for discontinuing his medication shortly before the homicide of Victor’s mother. Victor, who had a history of violence, crushed his mother’s head with a battery charger and proceeded to stab her 72 times on August 15, 2002 at the family’s Norcross Home. During his interview with police, Victor Bruscato, told them he knew killing his mother was wrong but that “the devil made him do it.”

The suit alleges Dr. O’Brien’s negligence in discontinuing his son’s medication caused him to become psychotic and kill his mother. The two drugs, Zyprexa and Luvox, are powerful prescription that Bruscato was taken off of several weeks before killing his mother. The court records in the case indicate that Victor Bruscato was assigned to Dr. O’Brien in 2001in a community health center in Gwinnett County. Expert witnesses have testified that anti-psychotic drugs he was prescribed were helping him manage his violent tendencies. In May 2002, O’Brien discontinued the medications because he wanted to make sure that Bruscato wasn’t developing a “dangerous syndrome.” After the discontinuation of the medication, Bruscato claims he began having nightmares and the claimed the devil was ordering him to do bad deeds.

The Supreme Court noted in it’s decision that an expert psychiatrist testified “the chemical changes that resulted from withholding medication caused Bruscato to decompensate and experience the return of the most severe symptoms of his medical disorder, including auditory command hallucinations, agitation, and hostility. The expert concluded that O’Brien’s treatment manifested gross negligence and a disregard of the consequences of leaving a historically violent and potentially psychotic patient unmedicated.”

Are Physician’s Assistants More Likely To Commit Medical Malpractice than Doctors?

August 26, 2011 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

A new study published by the Journal of the American Academy of Physicians Assistants finds that a majority of emergency room doctors do not believe the Physician Assistant’s (PA’s) are not more likely to commit malpractice. The study questioned 1000 members of the American College of Emergency Physicians in 2004 and then again five years later. 72% of doctors disagreed or strongly disagreed that PA’s were more likely to commit malpractice and the number dropped to 68% in 2009. The study also stated that doctors believe increased utilization of PA’s in emergency rooms may improve patient communication, decrease wait times, increase patient satisfaction, and therefore decrease malpractice risk.

Doctors in the study said they felt the most important factors in decreasing the risk of malpractice with PA’s was increased clinical experience, completion of post-graduate residency programs, and appropriate supervision by physician.

As a Georgia Medical Malpractice Attorney I can only hope this study is accurate as both PA’s and nurse practitioners are being used more and more frequently in most areas of health care, and I have seen the horrific consequences that can result from medical malpractice. Over 225,000 people die each year due to medical malpractice, with nearly half of those being in the emergency room, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. In fact, medical malpractice is the third leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease and cancer.

Product Liability Update; Many Stunned by U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling On Generic Drugs

June 27, 2011 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In a 5-4 decision on Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers of generic pharmaceutical drugs could not be sued under state law over allegations that they failed to provide adequate label warnings about potential side effects. This ruling should be of a great concern to anyone who uses generic pharmaceuticals.

In the original lawsuit, Gladys Mensing, alleged that taking a generic form of metoclopramide, a common drug used to treat heartburn, gave her a severe neurological movement disorder. None of the generic manufacturers and distributors of metoclopramide made any effort to include warnings on the label for metoclopramide. Manufacturers of the generic metoclopramide, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, UDL Labratories, and Actavis Inc. argued that federal law barred such a suit becausethe drug is approved by the FDA, (federal law requires generic drugs only to have the same labels as their brand name equivalents). They argued that because government regulations only require them to have the same label on metoclopramide as is on its brand name equivalent, Reglan, that they had no duty to include additional warnings for their generic form of metoclopramide.

The majority of the court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion, sided with the pharmaceutical companies. Thomas stated in his opinion that the federal drug regulations applicable to generic drug manufacturers directly conflict with and thus pre-empt state lawsuits. The net effect of this opinion is that it gives generic drug manufacturers zero liability for medication injuries that could have been avoided by an updated warning label.