Is it Malpractice ??

[richinspt]

My wife was admitted to the hospital on a wed. Friday morning she delivered a baby via C-section. By Saterday she was having leg cramps, and shortness of breath. Doctors/Nurses say it's probably from lying in bed. A massage was given, so were ICE/HOT packs. By monday the leg pain was severe and swelling had set in. An ultrasound was conducted on Monday but nothing was found. Tuesday she was discharged , barely being able to walk. Thursday Another trip to Radiology reveals a blod clot from her pelvic area down past her knee. She was admitted for another 5 days for treatment, and now has to take drugs for 3 months. Is this Malpractice? What can I do?

 

[lawrat]

I am a law school graduate. What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.

Okay, yup, she may be entitled to all medical bills subsequent to her c-section, possibly the c-section itself (because procedure was not done right, caused her a blood clot) and all pain and suffering. I say "may be" because you have to prove that what they did was negligent and that negligence caused her damages and injuries.

It will probably sound under a legal theory of "res ipsa loquitor" which means: your wife was not negligent (we know this because she was in the hospital under doctor care), this would not have happened had there not been negligence, and the doctors were negligent for failing to perform due care to discover the clot.

You need to immediately seek an attorney in your state who specializes in medical malpractice.

Try the following:
1) attorneypages.com
2) your STATE BAR and ask for lawyer referral.
Hope this helps.

 

[lars coltrane]

I am curious as to what was done on Thursday that discovered the blood clot? Was it something that was not done earlier?

Even with a delayed discovery, this does not sound like much of a case. There is no significant worsening as a result of the failure to diagnose. There was no need for surgery or even additional hospitalization. Taking medication is standard care for treatment of a blood clot. Is there any other injury?

 

[RICHINSPT]

On Thursday it was another Ultrasound. There was need foradditional hospitalization, she was admitted for another 5 days just for treating the Blode Clot. One of my concerns was the fact she walked around for several days (2 at home) with a blod clot that could have broken up and traveled to heart, lungs, or bain!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lars coltrane:
I am curious as to what was done on Thursday that discovered the blood clot? Was it something that was not done earlier?

Even with a delayed discovery, this does not sound like much of a case. There is no significant worsening as a result of the failure to diagnose. There was no need for surgery or even additional hospitalization. Taking medication is standard care for treatment of a blood clot. Is there any other injury?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[lars coltrane]

In any medical malpractice action, you must have a doctor (the expert) who says that what was done was below the standard of care. Have you had a chance to run what happened past another doctor? (this is where a lawyer can be helpful as lawyers who do medical malpractice cases have doctor whom they trust to review medical records in these type of cases).

Of course, I am not a doctor. However, I have heard that blood clots are a common risk of any surgery. Once discovered, it is necessary to be re-admitted for treatment. The initial course of blood thinners, and the like, can be very dangerous if not monitored in a hospital setting. Walking around for the days before discovery is scary, but it sounds like the real dangers, such as the clot moving and causing a more serious injury, did not occur. There is no damage. (it is like the auto accident that almost happened).

Remember, I am not a doctor, but what it sounds like is that when they did the first ultrasound either the clot was not yet present or it was missed. Then, when they did the second ultasound, the clot was discovered.

If you wish to pursue a claim, I suggest that you contact an attorney in your area and discuss the facts with him/her. I am sure that there are other facts which may be important that you and I have not discussed or even considered.

We all hope you wife fully recovers and that both of you enjoy raising your new child. It really is the best part of life.

 

[Big1]

Have you consulted with another doctor!

 

[spunky]

I perform ultrasound tests for these types of situations and I can tell you that:

1. Blood clots or "deep vein thrombosis" IS a complication of surgery - any type of surgery. Pregnancy is also a predisposition.

2. Fresh, new "DVT" usually does not show up on ultrasound. The denser the clot, the brighter the echos. Therefor, certain "maneuvers" are performed to check for fresh thrombosis. These include compression, to see if the vein is collapsable or "empty", val salva, a breathing maneuver, and color flow doppler, to ensure flow through the entire vein. Artifact can obscure the optimum view as can patient position, swelling, extrinsic pressure, etc. This is a NON-INVASIVE test, meaning is does not penetrate the skin. There is always the possibility of false negative. The doctor was right to order a follow up exam, when the clot was older and would show up better. However, reading your original post, DVT was my FIRST guess and should have been considered initially. It is possible the doctor did a physical "manual" exam and determined that a clot was not probable. However, proper treatment was rendered eventually and probably NOTHING would have PREVENTED the formation in the first place. You will have a tough time proving otherwise. Good Luck and glad it all worked out in the end.