ER malpractice

[C2me]

In texas: my husband went to the emergency room with a foreign object in his eye. A follow up appointment with an ophthalmologist determined that the ER doc used the wrong equipment, gave eye medication that could have blinded him, and (according to the opthamologist) had no right to be tampering with his eyes, as the doc was not a specialist. Should we pursue this?

 

[quincy]

In texas: my husband went to the emergency room with a foreign object in his eye. A follow up appointment with an ophthalmologist determined that the ER doc used the wrong equipment, gave eye medication that could have blinded him, and (according to the opthamologist) had no right to be tampering with his eyes, as the doc was not a specialist. Should we pursue this?

How is your husband's eye now?

 

[justalayman]

In texas: my husband went to the emergency room with a foreign object in his eye. A follow up appointment with an ophthalmologist determined that the ER doc used the wrong equipment, gave eye medication that could have blinded him, and (according to the opthamologist) had no right to be tampering with his eyes, as the doc was not a specialist. Should we pursue this?

Medicine could have blinded him: did it? Are there any adverse effects from the medicine?

Er doc used wrong equipment: was the removal successful? Was there any damage due to using the wrong equipment?


The fact the doctor isn't an opthamologist is irrelevant unless there was damage done because he isn't an opthamologist.

 

[C2me]

His vision is fine now. The ER doc stated that he had removed the foreign object from his eye and that 3more pieces we're in need of removal. When he went to the eye doc, she stated that there was only one piece of metal, which was not removed, and no other pieces. The eye doc suggested my husband pursuer legal however he feels that he's vision survived so no need. I was curious.

 

[quincy]

His vision is fine now. The ER doc stated that he had removed the foreign object from his eye and that 3more pieces we're in need of removal. When he went to the eye doc, she stated that there was only one piece of metal, which was not removed, and no other pieces. The eye doc suggested my husband pursuer legal however he feels that he's vision survived so no need. I was curious.

There does not seem to be reason to pursue any legal action.

The ER doctor removed a piece of metal from your husband's eye and referred your husband to an eye specialist for removal of remaining pieces. The eye specialist found only a single other piece of metal and removed it. Your husband's vision "survived."

I am curious: The ophthalmologist actually advised your husband to pursue legal action against the ER doctor?

 

[Gail in Georgia]

."The eye doc suggested my husband pursuer legal "

This seems highly doubtful.
"
(according to the opthamologist) had no right to be tampering with his eyes, as the doc was not a specialist."

And what would this legal eagle suggest otherwise; that the ER turn your husband away with objects in his eye?

Folks who go to the ER often expect perfect medical care for everything they show up for. Often the purpose of the EMERGENCY room is to address the immediate issue as best as possible and then, if needed, refer the patient to the appropriate specialist for follow up care.

Gail

 

[cbg]

"could" have caused blindness, but didn't.

"shouldn't" have done anything, but didn't cause any damage.

You can't sue for what didn't happen.

 

[C2me]

."The eye doc suggested my husband pursuer legal "

This seems highly doubtful.
"
(according to the opthamologist) had no right to be tampering with his eyes, as the doc was not a specialist."

And what would this legal eagle suggest otherwise; that the ER turn your husband away with objects in his eye?

Folks who go to the ER often expect perfect medical care for everything they show up for. Often the purpose of the EMERGENCY room is to address the immediate issue as best as possible and then, if needed, refer the patient to the appropriate specialist for follow up care.

Gail

"This seems highly doubtful". We'll, I am not a liar, this was stated to us, otherwise I would not subject myself to asking this question on the internet to illiterate trolls.

 

[CTU]

"This seems highly doubtful". We'll, I am not a liar, this was stated to us, otherwise I would not subject myself to asking this question on the internet to illiterate trolls.

If you're going to call someone illiterate you should probably check yourself first.

 

[TheGeekess]

In texas: my husband went to the emergency room with a foreign object in his eye. A follow up appointment with an ophthalmologist determined that the ER doc used the wrong equipment, gave eye medication that could have blinded him, and (according to the opthamologist) had no right to be tampering with his eyes, as the doc was not a specialist. Should we pursue this?

His vision is fine now. The ER doc stated that he had removed the foreign object from his eye and that 3more pieces we're in need of removal. When he went to the eye doc, she stated that there was only one piece of metal, which was not removed, and no other pieces. The eye doc suggested my husband pursuer legal however he feels that he's vision survived so no need. I was curious.

"This seems highly doubtful". We'll, I am not a liar, this was stated to us, otherwise I would not subject myself to asking this question on the internet to illiterate trolls.

Alrighty then.

 

[cbg]

Every licensed doctor took a rotation in Ophthalmology, regardless of their eventual specialty, and emergency room physicians in particular are trained in a number of skills that other specialists are not. The fact that your husband's vision is fine and suffered no damage is in itself proof that he knew enough to take care of the immediate problem.

However, if the ER physician had called the Ophthalmologist to come and remove the first particle, the Ophthalmologist would have made more money. There is not a whisper of doubt in my mind that this is the real source of the Ophthalmologist's issue.

It is a hard fact of law that you cannot sue for something that didn't happen. Your husband has suffered no damages. There is no legal action for you to take.

However, if you would prefer to spend your money looking for a lawyer to take on a case of of professional jealousy, it's your money to spend.

 

[CTU]

Alrighty then.

That's probably the funniest post I've seen in days. Good job )

 

[quincy]

"This seems highly doubtful". We'll, I am not a liar, this was stated to us, otherwise I would not subject myself to asking this question on the internet to illiterate trolls.

It would be highly unusual for a doctor to suggest to a patient that a legal action be taken against another doctor, which is what leads to our questioning of what you heard.

By the way, the typical poster to this forum says "thank you" after receiving responses to their queries. It is a far more polite way to respond when provided with free information and advice than to call those who respond "illiterate trolls."

 

[ecmst12]

It is typical for the ER to call in specialists as needed for certain things which present there. It may not have been appropriate for a general ER doctor to attempt to remove a foreign object from the eye. However, as there is no permanent damage, no legal action can be taken.