Claim Review: According to the Parties
According to the Claimant
One of the plaintiff’s experts, a board certified internist, believed that the Internist deviated from the normal standard of care by assuming that the blood infection was addressed by the Cardiologists. Plaintiff’s Infectious Disease expert stated that the Infectious Disease physician failed to properly diagnosis and treat the patient and should not have agreed to the discharge. Plaintiff’s Cardiologist expert stated that both the Cardiology Group and the Internist failed to appropriately diagnose, evaluate and treat the positive results of the blood culture.
Further, Plaintiff’s nurse expert testified that the nurse practitioner acted appropriately by both faxing and contacting the patient’s Internist with regard to the positive blood culture. This expert noted that the nurse practitioner also notified both physicians she worked with in the Cardiology group regarding the results and her actions.
Board Certified Infectious Disease specialist, an expert for the Defense, stated that the plaintiff died of an unfortunate essential fatal complication of arteriosclerotic vascular disease and not as a result of any acts or commission on the part of the Internist which was not inconsistent with the autopsy report.
A second physician expert for the defense, Board certified in Emergency Medicine, opined that the Internist, while he received a faxed copy of the blood culture, it indicated that it was ordered by the Cardiologist during the hospitalization of the patient. The internist did not participate in the care of the patient during this hospitalization. The expert further opined that the standard of care requires that the physician ordering the test review and act upon the results.
Another defense expert witness, a Board Certified Cardiologist, stated that there was no deviation on the part of the Cardiologist or the Nurse Practitioner. He stated that perforation of a vessel is a well known complication of an angioplasty. A second Board Certified Cardiologist expert opined that the Cardiologist was blameless and that the Internist was responsible to follow the positive blood culture.
An intensive care defendant expert physician also opined that the Cardiologists were correct in their care of the patient. He stated that is was unnecessary and unreasonable to expect the hospital physician, who may or may not have an outpatient office, to follow the patient post discharge. He also stated that all defendants in his conclusion have had experience with the fatal complication of a pseudoaneurysm of the ascending aorta and that they could not have suspected or anticipated the event prior to the patient’s death. He further opined that the hospital and the hospital’s laboratory have a responsibility to communicate critical laboratory results. The hospital should have a protocol for the procedure to ensure proper mechanisms for the discharged patient’s abnormal laboratory results.