Does this qualify for malpractice? should I get a Lawyer

Electriktec · #1 11-04-2008, 12:59 AM

I live in CA, And my daughter (5 years old) Recently broke her arm after falling out of a lawn chair. We took her to the emergency room where they gave her a IV, some pain meds, and a sedative. While she was out from the sedative they tried to reset the bones in her arm twice and after 2 sets of Xrays, and 2 casts, the doctor was not happy with the way the bones were set in the cast. He decided to keep her overnight so that the next day (monday) she could have surgery. On Monday after we asked the nurse what time she was going to have surgery a number of times, around 1PM the nurse said that she was not going to need surgery after all. they released her, and a week later they had her come back in for Xrays at the specialist. He said that One of the bones was overlapping, but because she is so young that in time it would heal to the point you would not be able to tell. A week later we go back for another set of Xrays, and this time it appears that the bones have moved. The specialist then suggests that they do surgery to correct the misalighnment of her bones. 3-4 days later we have the surgery done,under general anestisia, where they now had to break the bones in order to set them in the correct alignment, and add 2pins, and surgically remove some bone that had started to form?. It has been 2 more weeks since then, and this week they are going to hopefully put her in a short arm cast ( she has been in a long arm cast for 4 weeks now). So my question is, since they did not do the surgery the first time she was in the hospital, and she had to have everything related to surgery done twice.. IV, All the tape for that, not eating for 12 hours. the tension of not knowing what is going to happen (remember she is 5). the prolonged length of time in the long arm cast, My additional time off of work to do everything twice.. the addtional bills related to 2 hospital stays ( I do have a PPO insurance for part of this )... Does this qualify for malpractice? It really upsets me that they knew that the bones were not right, and still tried to take the cheap way out on there part, rather then doing it right the first time.. I guess since it wasnt their daughter they dont care if she undergoes all the stress twice huh? any suggestions are appreciated !!..

lealea1005 · #2 11-04-2008, 07:08 AM

They were not taking the easy way out. They chose to try the least invasive way to set the bone(s). A lot of it has to do with your daughter's age, which bone(s) was fractured, and the location of that fracture.

ecmst12 · #3 11-04-2008, 07:33 AM

Trying to avoid surgery is a preferred method of treatment in almost all cases. The end result will be the same - her arm will be fine. No damages, no case, and I also don't see any negligence.

Ozark_Sophist · #4 11-04-2008, 08:48 AM

I agree with ecmst and lealea.

It must be difficult to see you child suffer so much, but I've personally seen examples where it has taken longer than what you described. Be fortunate your child will recover. At her age, in a couple of months, she will have completely recovered from both the phyisical and emotional truama. It will take longer for you to recover.

Medmal cases are expensive. Not only do the lawyers get paid their fees, you would probably end up paying more to your own medical experts than you/your PPO will pay for your daughter's doctors. The orthopedic expert gets paid to evaluate all the records. Then the orthopedic expert gets paid to give a deposition (plus your lawyer, the court reporter, the videographer, etc.). Then if there is a trial, the expert gets paid for that time as well.

It is highly unlikely a lawyer will take your case on contigency if they will even take it all. All the expenses of your case plus a sizable retainer would need to be paid by you without hardly any chance of seeing any return.

lya · #5 11-04-2008, 04:58 PM

In pediatric patients, the preferred method is to set the bones, cast the extremity, and reevaluate at intervals (depending on the age of the child and the expected rate of growth during the healing process).

The treatment provided and the maner in which it was provided was exactly as it should have been.

Electriktec · #6 11-05-2008, 12:03 AM

Thank you so much for all your answers. I am glad that everyone here has been able to shed some light on this for me. I am actually happy to hear that this is normal procedure for doctors, and now I understand why they did not do it this way the first time. I am not the type of person to sue anyone, and I am glad that I do not need to wonder if this was the time I should have... Thanks everybody !

pennybright · #7 11-05-2008, 12:54 AM

I'm glad that you have got very nice advice from every one. I'm a bit late reading your post. I have been in the same situation as you. But my doctor was more communicative. He explained to me the reason if every decision he made, including why he didn't do surgery right away. I hope your daughter get well soon.