[QUOTE
If a patient reported an allergy to a drug, and doctor gave the drug, he would be just about strictly liable. Maybe, if he had specific information that would cause doubt to the patient he would not be liable. Maybe. (It would have to be way good information.)
Frankly, anyone who is claiming the doctor can decide will lose a lawsuit. Period. Study more. If the fact the person is "allergic" was not in the records, is something else. Sheesh. This is easy. I am uncertain of the other side of the argument.
If a guy says he is allergic to the alien emanations from the bed pan, those who still give him a bed pan (Because that is the way things are done.) better hope he is not damaged from those emanations.[/QUOTE]
Well in the real world, doctors and nurses give stuff all the time where the patient claims allergies. The clinicians ask for the specific reactions. You itch, you get nauseated? Those aren't real allergies. The nurse will question. The doc and nurse will mutter over it, and will give the drug.
True allergies are unusual. Sue me, us. You will never win.
Yes, if the OP patient was allergic to XXX, identified as such on all medical records, and then got XXX and went into anaphylactic shock, then yes he wins a malpractice suit - deservedly so. That has never happened in my knowledge.
I've dealt with a few medmal attorneys in my time (not as a defendent). Most of them are pretty smart, but a surprising number of them know nothing about what happens in hospitals. If medmal is your life's work, why not spend a few weeks volunteering in the local ER?
