Medical Malpractice? Can I sue?

What is the name of your state? Kansas


My mother had heart surgery about 3 years ago for a heart infection, everyday since she has taken pills to keep any bacteria and/or infection from coming back. Also, her blood would thicken quite often causing blood clots which can lead to stroke or brain damage, so my mother would go in regularly for check ups.

About 9 months ago, my mom lost vision in half of one of her eyes, which is a symptom of a stroke, and a serious predecessor to having a stroke. When my mom confronted her doctor about it, he shrugged it off and said "its ok".

3 months later, she had a stroke. She was in the hospital for two weeks straight in serious condition. The blood clot was lodged in her brain causing brain damage. To this day she suffers from partial brain damage which includes memory loss. When we first took her to the hospital for the stroke, the doctors there were shocked that she was not on a drug called Plavix, which is used to thin the blood out so that clots do not occur, thus greatly reducing the risk of having a stroke. The doctors at this hospital said her blood was way too thick, and put her on the drug.

What this brings to question is how, over the course of 3 years, did her doctor overlook this problem? Obviously her blood had thickened and clotted, how did her doctor fail to catch these in her check ups? Also, partial loss of vision is an early sign of an approaching stroke, and yet he shrugged this off as well.

I firmly believe that if this doctor had not overlooked these serious and OBVIOUS issues, and had put her on the drug Plavix which she should've been on from the start, then this never would've happened and my mother would be able to at least recall childhood memories which she now has no recollection of, and would at least be able to go back to work. Her brain is permanently damaged from the stroke, and she is partially physically challenged in her left side. You can imagine the amount of anguish this has inflicted on her and our family, and I cannot imagine how such a thing could've come to pass.

Also, she is on Medicaid and all of her hospital bills/visits are being paid for in full, but prior to the stroke incident, my mom was laid off of her job, and lost her insurance. She was without for two months, meanwhile still doing regular check ups with her doctor.

Now, my mom needs to go back in to the doctor for a diagnosis and to receive another prescription for the drug that's keeping her alive. Even though they're being paid now as we speak, they're refusing my mother any service whatsoever until the two months are paid for, this includes writing her a prescription for the drug she needs immediately to keep her blood thin and to prevent another potentially fatal stroke.

This smells strongly of medical malpractice and negligence, but I'm not greatly educated in this matter, and would like to ask anyone and everyone who knows anything about this to respond with information.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond with answers, it's greatly appreciated.

- Josh

Originally posted by the_prophet
What is the name of your state? Kansas


My mother had heart surgery about 3 years ago for a heart infection, everyday since she has taken pills to keep any bacteria and/or infection from coming back. Also, her blood would thicken quite often causing blood clots which can lead to stroke or brain damage, so my mother would go in regularly for check ups.

About 9 months ago, my mom lost vision in half of one of her eyes, which is a symptom of a stroke, and a serious predecessor to having a stroke. When my mom confronted her doctor about it, he shrugged it off and said "its ok".

3 months later, she had a stroke. She was in the hospital for two weeks straight in serious condition. The blood clot was lodged in her brain causing brain damage. To this day she suffers from partial brain damage which includes memory loss. When we first took her to the hospital for the stroke, the doctors there were shocked that she was not on a drug called Plavix, which is used to thin the blood out so that clots do not occur, thus greatly reducing the risk of having a stroke. The doctors at this hospital said her blood was way too thick, and put her on the drug.

What this brings to question is how, over the course of 3 years, did her doctor overlook this problem? Obviously her blood had thickened and clotted, how did her doctor fail to catch these in her check ups? Also, partial loss of vision is an early sign of an approaching stroke, and yet he shrugged this off as well.

I firmly believe that if this doctor had not overlooked these serious and OBVIOUS issues, and had put her on the drug Plavix which she should've been on from the start, then this never would've happened and my mother would be able to at least recall childhood memories which she now has no recollection of, and would at least be able to go back to work. Her brain is permanently damaged from the stroke, and she is partially physically challenged in her left side. You can imagine the amount of anguish this has inflicted on her and our family, and I cannot imagine how such a thing could've come to pass.

Also, she is on Medicaid and all of her hospital bills/visits are being paid for in full, but prior to the stroke incident, my mom was laid off of her job, and lost her insurance. She was without for two months, meanwhile still doing regular check ups with her doctor.

Now, my mom needs to go back in to the doctor for a diagnosis and to receive another prescription for the drug that's keeping her alive. Even though they're being paid now as we speak, they're refusing my mother any service whatsoever until the two months are paid for, this includes writing her a prescription for the drug she needs immediately to keep her blood thin and to prevent another potentially fatal stroke.

This smells strongly of medical malpractice and negligence, but I'm not greatly educated in this matter, and would like to ask anyone and everyone who knows anything about this to respond with information.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond with answers, it's greatly appreciated.

- Josh

You have made some statements that are hard to understand, for instance, "half her vision in one of her eyes". What you are saying is that you feel her treating physician should have picked up the thickening of her blood. If he had no signs to go by, and if your mother had not specifically asked him to check her bleeding times, he probably would not have thought about that. The blood test for clotting is not ordinarily done as part of a doctor's routine examination in his office. It is done prior to surgery in the hospital. Perhaps he should have received some of her hospital records, but if she had been admitted by the heart surgeon, chances are the regular doctor would not have got this clotting information.
Your mother is left with a stroke that could have been prevented if all tests for the blood problems had been run. Maybe not.
Strokes do result from blood clots, and often these cause permanent damage.
One of your complaints is this doctor whom you now distrust is billing for services provided while your mother had no insurance. If you and your mother are unhappy with this doctor, don't pay him. But do not go back to him when she has insurance or Medicaid. Is she still seeing this doctor? Get another. You do not have to pay anybody for unsatisfactory work.
I do not think you have a malpractice case an attorney can win. But ask one. Maybe I'm wrong.

[ellencee]

the_prophet
The loss of half of vision in each eye is directly related to and caused by a stroke on the opposite side of the brain. The left side of the brain provides vision in the right side of each eye; the right side of the brain provides vision in the left side of each eye. Therefore, at the time that your mother lost half of her vision in each eye, she had already suffered a stroke.

I see no area of malpractice in the description of events as you provided. Your mother had and has a disease/condition of the circulatory system, which includes the heart and the blood and vessels. It would be impossible for any medication to reverse the condition or prevent the effects of the condition. Even with an agent to thin the blood, your mother was and is at high risk of having a stroke or multiple strokes.

In order to have a meritorious claim of medmal, there must be an area of negligence that produced significant damages that would not have occurred without the negligent act, and the professional should have known, or knew, that such an act would result in significant damages. It would take a thorough review of your mother's medical records to determine if such an act occurred. It is a bit far-fetched to simply say that one medication could have prevented your mother's suffering from known, serious effects of her condition/disease.

You may wish to consult with an attorney regarding whether or not your mother owes the physician for those two months of services. You will find that she does owe the physician's charges and that the physician has every right to refuse to see your mother or to continue prescribing medications without having your mother currently under his care/services if you, or she, refuse to pay for the services already provided.

Medicaid can pay benefits retroactively. I suggest that you submit the bills to the Medicaid provider and ask for retroactive benefits for these two months.

Surely with all of the medical conditions that your mother has, there is more than one physician who is treating her. I strongly encourage you to keep your mother under the continuing care of one of her physicians.

I believe that some counseling on your mother's condition and needs is needed to improve your understanding of her health needs and realistic expectations for her future needs and mental/physical status.

Aging parents and aging parents with serious health issues are difficult burdens for most all caregivers. It is challenging and emotionally draining to watch our once strong and capable parents become less capable and more needy. You have my sympathy and my empathy.

Best wishes,
EC

[vrzirn]

I might add that macular degeneration can also cause sudden vision loss as described.

[ellencee]

vrzirn--your answer raised a question in my mind of my own understanding of the post. I read it again and realized I misread the vision loss as half in each eye instead of half vision loss in one eye. So, strike the part of my response that says half vision loss in each eye is stroke related and change that to may be a TIA or impending stroke or macular degeneration.

AUUGGHH!! I do so hate to make stupid errors!
EC

Thank you for your responses, everyone.

And yes, ellencee, it was partial loss of vision in only one of her eyes, which when researched showed that it was a sign of an impending stroke. Her doctor said that nothing was wrong when confronted about it.

Another thing I forgot to mention is that after her first release from the hospital when she had surgery (and a stroke), the doctor had a specific list of medication for my mother to be on, one of which was Plavix to keep the blood from clotting.

A few months later, she moved to Kansas (previously in Texas), and began seeing this current doctor. The doctor in Texas forwarded her medical history, as well as the drugs she had my mom on, and for some reason - to the doctor's discretion - he chose to take my mother off all of those drugs, including Plavix, and put her on a new list. Her blood was always thin and fine when she was on the previous list of medication, and it wasn't too long after she was put on this new list that she had the other stroke that caused damage. When taken to the hospital, the doctors there seemed amazed and curious as to why my mother wasn't taking Plavix, they said that's what she should've been on.

It's what she was on before we switched to this doctor. He changed the medication and he overlooked a serious and obvious sign of an impending stroke, and yet did nothing, and said nothing of a possible stroke.

I'm sorry, I just can't shake the feeling that this doctor didn't do his job, he overlooked an obvious sign (we did research and it is an obvious sign), and changed her medication and took her off the medication that was keeping her blood thin.

Any new comments/questions/ideas?

Thanks alot guys..

[ellencee]

the_prophet
I don't feel comfortable speculating on the difference in treatment. The medical records should include rationale or justification for modifying treatment. Physicians treat diseases and conditions differently. One method may have been satisfactory to one physician and the same method may have been rejected by another physician.

I still say that a blood thinning agent alone may not have been sufficient to prevent further complications. The primary condition, the 'heart infection' is a condition that can lead to significant problems such as your mother has suffered and can do so in the presence of the best and most appropriate care, even three years after the initial infection and surgery.

EC