June 07, 2006
Litigation Phobia Births A Tragedy, And Carries A Price

Fear of civil litigation can result in silliness, but also tragedy. The Tri-City Herald reports today that a federal court ruling in Louisiana has lowered from $7.5 million to $1.4 million the amount that the insurer of Kadlec Medical Center in Richland must pay to the family of Washington woman left in a permanent vegetative state after malpractice by a drug-impaired anesthesiologist. His former partners and employer in Louisiana reportedly knew of his Demerol habit but nonethless issued glowing recommendations prior to his hiring in Washington. The doctor is now ordered to pay $2.7 million; his Louisiana partners and the hospital that discharged him for drug abuse another $4.1 million total. Kadlec, which hired him based on misinformation, is left with a $1.4 million share of the penalties, as the Herald details in the above-linked article. All this follows an earlier pre-trial settlement against Kadlec and its insurer reached in Benton County court in March 2004. An appeal of this latest decision is possible, and perhaps likely.

Read on........

(Patient Kim) Jones was left in a persistent vegetative state after a November 2002 tubal ligation surgery at Kadlec at which Dr. Robert Lee Berry was the anesthesiologist. Berry, according to court documents, failed to monitor Jones properly, allowing her blood pressure to drop dangerously low. He also removed her breathing tube while she still was paralyzed from the sedatives. Only minutes earlier, Jones had given birth to her third child.

Berry previously had been employed at a hospital and a medical office partnership in Louisiana, where he was fired for drug abuse. Court records and testimony in the lawsuit revealed that Berry had been diverting the narcotic Demerol from patients for his own use while in Louisiana, and that his drug habit continued after he was hired at Kadlec. Trial testimony said he was drug impaired while attending to Jones. Kadlec officials, who hired Berry on the recommendations of his former employers, said they did not know of his drug problem or that he had been fired in Louisiana because of it.

According to a statement from Kadlec's insurer, hospital officials in Louisiana whitewashed the real reason for Berry's discharge at the time. "Primum non nocere," or "first, do no harm," as Hippocrates wrote in "Epidemics" (not in the Hippocratic Oath as commonly thought). This whole sad story represents a twist on the usual medical malpractice debate, which is centered around often egregious or unwarranted lawsuits by patients. I am concerned about abuse of the civil courts by the often-rapacious plaintiff's bar; and about rising medical insurance costs to practitioners. But an award cap of $350,000 on non-economic damages, such as that unsuccessfully advocated in Washington's Initiative 330 last year, would not have served justice in this instance.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 07, 2006 10:34 AM | Email This
Comments
1. I'm not so sure the $350 would not have served well. From what was stated in the post, I'm not sure what liability the local hospital had.

The suit against the LA group is not malpractice, so it wouldn't have been covered by the cap. Their penalty was for falsifying recommendations and hiding the fact that he was fired and why. If that were known, he would not have been hired or able to harm the patient. This suit would hold in any industry, though not many have the dire consequences as medicine.

Posted by: Fred on June 7, 2006 10:59 AM
2. But then if the georgia employer had told the whole truth about their employee they would have been sued for defamation and denying the employee future employment

Quite a tightrope we walk here

Posted by: swatter on June 7, 2006 11:11 AM
3. swatter - that is certainly possible. If it had gone to trial would it have cost them $2.7M and someone's life? I doubt it. It should be thrown out.

They now have someone's life on their hands because they lied.

When companies/people realize that the truth and doing the right thing is the best path in the long run instead of the just what is easy in the short term this country will regain some of its core values. This LA place learnt that lesson the hard way, not just in dollars, but someone's life!

Posted by: Fred on June 7, 2006 11:21 AM
4. For everyone of these stories there's a 1000 on the other side. I say we need the legislation limiting high awards.

Posted by: swassociates on June 7, 2006 11:46 AM
5. For everyone of these stories there's a 1000 on the other side. I say we need the legislation limiting high awards.

Posted by: swassociates on June 7, 2006 11:47 AM
6. I think it depends on what the payment was for. If it was for medical needs to take care of the woman for the rest of her life, I don't think the cap applies. The cap only applies to "pain and suffering". Actual damages are not capped.

Posted by: Janet S on June 7, 2006 12:28 PM
7. And in this case it should be to take care of her three children!

Posted by: Fred on June 7, 2006 12:36 PM
8. This is one of those cases where a lawsuit is more than justified. I'm all for it.

Posted by: Michele on June 7, 2006 02:57 PM
9. agree--this case was not good; pay the victims;

however it does not stop my frustration with our suing society; loser should pay; stop the CYA protective medicine and practice sensible medicine; stop the jury lotto; every facet of our lives is a look-over-shoulder and tread lightly for lawsuit; it's sickening; what's more, we are being bankrupted and mired by crap lawsuits from illegal aliens, criminals and every minority whining victim group; these resources could be better spent; also, let's bring back the notion of contributory negligence (oh my gosh--responsibility?!)to stop the stupid and negligent from collecting or treatening suits and using the 'ol settlement ploy;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 8, 2006 11:11 AM
10. The $350K is a cap on "pain and suffering". It has zippo to do with the amount to compensate for medical bills or for lost future income.

I have to say I'm sorely disappointed to see a Sound Politics blogger swayed towards the trial lawyer interests like this.

Posted by: ferrous on June 8, 2006 12:21 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?