Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy

[ecmst12]

When a malpractice suit is filed, the plaintiff will name EVERY healthcare provider that had ANY kind of contact with the patient, no matter how small. Not because the lawyer actually believes that all of them directly or even indirectly caused or contributed to the actual act of malpractice, but simply because it is practical to cast the biggest net you can, in hopes of catching the most fish. Most of those named will have their lawyers file motions to remove them from the suit long before trial (if there even is a trial) because they had no direct involvement with the malpractice. Don't think that just because someone is being named, that actually means there is a valid legal reason for including them - there doesn't have to be. The philosophy is, "Sue 'em all and let the judge sort it out." It's a strategy, only.

I hope you get what you are looking for from your lawsuit.

 

[LAWMED]

First, Squiaho90, glad you are doing well physically and thank you for updating us....it helps us learn.

Second, while there is some validity from another's post stating that attorneys cast a wide net to get money from whoever they can regardless of really thinking they have liability....it apples to a small minority of sheister, unethical, crappy lawyers. Naming a number of defendants is at times necessary to get to the truth while the particular defendant at first seems 'possibly' involved. This allows discovery, depositions and the sorting out of the facts and truth and gets people to talk who normally would 'stay out of it'. One MUST have a high index of suspicion and knowledge of how the real world of the hospital works while reading a medical record and often must read between the lines to find who did what and when. Thus, just about anyone who was in the room that night and responsible for your care, prescribed and/or administered and medication that night, responding to your emergency should be named if the lawyer is doing his job and you want the truth. Defendants can and should be dropped and/or turned into witnesses once confidence in the truth and where liability lie is attained.

Third, Squish you are not imagining things with your characterization of some of the 'experts' who respond on this board give 'advice' which regularly attacks the poster, his/her motives, his/her intelligence and lack of gratitude towards providers and then discourage or negate the ability to file legal action (without real basis). My view of the purpose for which people seek help here is to obtain accurate, unbiased opinions of their medical care (which may include pros and cons of the same issue) and a basic explanation of what must be present to meet the legal definition of malpractice...always with the caveat of consulting with an attorney. Many are vulnerable and desperate and are the last people who need ridicule and abuse from anyone.

Fourth, many who provide advice on this board genuinely attempt to help without being rude, condescending, judgmental, and authoritative without credentials or experience to do so, and do a great job in may opinion.....others have no business giving advice at all, also in my opinion. I and others do our best to be honest, courteous and accurate...just the way human beings should be all day long by common decency.

 

[lya]

I believe there is a defense called "the empty chair" and by not naming all potential defendants, the door is opened to an aspect of this defense.

 

[LAWMED]

I

Just added info: A Pharmacist fills the prescriptions written by the Physician. Period. S/he does not know the patient's diagnosis or particulars of the patient's medical record. They would be responsible for questioning a med that may have an interaction with other meds on record, but that's about it.

A totally false statement. Pharmacists are found liable all the time for not questioning a prescription for a dangerous, potentially lethal (like this one) or unusual dose of a medication and then filling it for patient use. It is, in fact, one of the significant requirements of their profession and rather well known. The diagnosis and medical history are immediately available to a hospital pharmacist and are consulted all of the time while dispensing the meds.

I will also maintain that you are lucky to be alive, and that is due to the immediate actions of your Nurse that night.

If a personal opinion which is not meant to address actual legal or professional responsibility, then you obviously have every right to it.

legally an indefensible and baseless position without seeing the medical record and obtaining witness testimony...starting with the nurse. Without really having the stomach to rehash it, 'finding' the patient means nothing...the response, minute by minute, to having found him makes her a star or a failure...and only the record and testimony reveals that. As far as luck...he is lucky to be alive after being massively overdosed with narcotics by his health care providers. unfortunately, medical malpractice is not about who only put the events into action but the failures of all ass the event progressed...if the janitor found the patient he would be a witness, not a defendant because it is not his job to then resuscitate the patient properly.

 

[ecmst12]

I wasn't implying that the 'wide net' is a shady technique. It does make sense to name anyone who MAY have been involved and let the judge/jury decide who is actually liable. But thinking that a pharmacist could be held legally at fault for correctly dispensing a prescription that was given to him when the doseage was not uncommon or obviously incorrect/toxic shows that OP is a little misguided. The pharm was named because he WAS in the chain of providers who got the meds to him, which (allegedly) led to the adverse event, and of course he should be named. But his defense to liability is that he performed his job within the standard of care by dispensing the medication ordered by the pharmacist.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that just because a person has a valid and (probably) supportable defense, means they shouldn't be named. By all means, make them present their defense and let the impartial judge or jury decide if it's valid. But it's a gross oversimplification to state that he's being named 'because he should have known better then to dispense that amount of medication'. He was named because he was involved in your care.

 

[lealea1005]

A totally false statement. Pharmacists are found liable all the time for not questioning a prescription for a dangerous, potentially lethal (like this one) or unusual dose of a medication and then filling it for patient use. It is, in fact, one of the significant requirements of their profession and rather well known. The diagnosis and medical history are immediately available to a hospital pharmacist and are consulted all of the time while dispensing the meds.

I stand corrected and apologize. However, the Pharmacist dispensed a not too unusual dosage of medication, as it was written, in an acute hospital setting. I can certainly understand why no red flags were raised at the time.

If a personal opinion which is not meant to address actual legal or professional responsibility, then you obviously have every right to it.

Yes, it is my personal opinion. Just as it is my opinion that many of the RNs on this board are knowledgable and qualified to offer advice.

As I stated earlier, in post #3 I offered OP advice which included seeking the advice of an attorney. I was not rude, nor condescending, in any way.

I really do not understand your hostility, Lawmed.

 

[squishO90]

You have an attorney who is investigating your claim and proceding with a lawsuit. The outcome of your lawsuit is in the future, years from now.

Ya think? I think it may be sooner than that, but I could be wrong

Somewhere along the journey of this lawsuit, your attitude will change.

How is that?

Since the purpose of your returning to this thread is to insult, harass, and create conflict, perhaps Mary or and another moderator will lock your thread.

I'm sorry, but I think it is YOU who is creating conflict, and harrassing and insulting. I came back to this thread to I'll admit it, gloat a little bit , and to pass along, to those who care, my status

Anyway what is this your asking to have a moderator close or lock this thread? Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. In other words if you don't like or agree with what's posted here, I suggest you don't read it

 

[squishO90]

[/QUOTE]Fourth, many who provide advice on this board genuinely attempt to help without being rude, condescending, judgmental, and authoritative without credentials or experience to do so, and do a great job in may opinion.....others have no business giving advice at all, also in my opinion. I and others do our best to be honest, courteous and accurate...just the way
human beings should be all day long by common decency.[/QUOTE]


LAWMED, I just want to say thank you for all your help in this area, it really and truly has been helpful. And you are honest, curteous and accurate. Thanks again

Squish

 

[ecmst12]

Malpractice claims take an AVERAGE of 5 years to settle, and cost tens of thousands of dollars. That means many of them take longer, and clearly your case is medically complex and the full extent of your damages won't be known for quite some time. I hope your lawyer has given you realistic expectations about how long it will be before you actually see a check - it will be measured in years, not months.

 

[lealea1005]

OP, it would be very helpful if you would bold any posts or comments you make that are within someone else's posting. It pretty confusing to try to figure out who is saying what. Know what i mean? Thanks.

 

[RRevak]

Malpractice claims take an AVERAGE of 5 years to settle, and cost tens of thousands of dollars. That means many of them take longer, and clearly your case is medically complex and the full extent of your damages won't be known for quite some time. I hope your lawyer has given you realistic expectations about how long it will be before you actually see a check - it will be measured in years, not months.

I also hope his lawyer has given him realistic expectations about just how much money he's going to end up with once everyone on "his side" is paid....his attorney included who has agreed to work via the magic contingency fee agreement....

SO Op, just how wealthy do you expect to end up with this one hmmm? I'm betting that you shouldnt get your hopes up too high for that "care for me for the rest of my life" payout.

 

[You Are Guilty]

I also hope his lawyer has given him realistic expectations about just how much money he's going to end up with once everyone on "his side" is paid....his attorney included who has agreed to work via the magic contingency fee agreement....

SO Op, just how wealthy do you expect to end up with this one hmmm? I'm betting that you shouldnt get your hopes up too high for that "care for me for the rest of my life" payout.

"Rhode Island does not place a limit on fees an attorney may recover in a medical malpractice action."

Uhoh

 

[LAWMED]

I wasn't implying that the 'wide net' is a shady technique. It does make sense to name anyone who MAY have been involved and let the judge/jury decide who is actually liable. But thinking that a pharmacist could be held legally at fault for correctly dispensing a prescription that was given to him when the doseage was not uncommon or obviously incorrect/toxic shows that OP is a little misguided. The pharm was named because he WAS in the chain of providers who got the meds to him, which (allegedly) led to the adverse event, and of course he should be named. But his defense to liability is that he performed his job within the standard of care by dispensing the medication ordered by the pharmacist.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that just because a person has a valid and (probably) supportable defense, means they shouldn't be named. By all means, make them present their defense and let the impartial judge or jury decide if it's valid. But it's a gross oversimplification to state that he's being named 'because he should have known better then to dispense that amount of medication'. He was named because he was involved in your care.

I did not know you were referring to a specific named individual....you did nit say so, so i was speaking generally. No did I mean to imply that you advocate anything but naming actual potential defendants, even with potential defenses.

Where we depart is the view of the 80mg dose. It is not a usual does except in a very specific minority of patients, and in the vast majority of patients it is a toxic dose often lethal. It raises eyebrows even when a chronic pain patient (the specific minority) tells a pharmacist, physician or nurse their history and that they require that much medication.

He may well attempt that defense, but it is not a valid defense to say that the standard of care is for him to dispense medication as ordered by a physician regardless of what the prescription is. A trained monkey could do that. His standard of care is far more complicated and certainly a respected expert pharmacy witness will not be hard to find to testify he breached the standard of care by filing an order for 80mg without batting an eye. what % of liability for what happened this breach would be responsible for is another matter...

 

[squishO90]

OP, it would be very helpful if you would bold any posts or comments you make that are within someone else's posting. It pretty confusing to try to figure out who is saying what. Know what i mean? Thanks.

Yes my apologies

 

[RRevak]

"Rhode Island does not place a limit on fees an attorney may recover in a medical malpractice action."

Uhoh

Exactly.....