MEDICAL MALPRACTICE. Nursing Home. $______ CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY

• Pages: 10-10

Volume 37, Issue 6, June 2022 Subscribe Now

Nursing Home

$1,000,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY

Medical malpractice – Nursing home negligence

– Failure to administer medication – Patient

suffers stroke due to lack of blood thinner

medication over period of 11 days.

Withheld County, MA

In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff

patient alleged that the defendant nursing home

was negligent in failing to administer medication

in a timely manner. The 11-day lapse in

administration of the plaintiff’s blood thinners

resulted in the plaintiff suffering a stroke. The

defendant nursing home denied the allegations

and disputed a causal relationship.

The 79-year-old patient was admitted to the defen-

dant nursing home for rehabilitation following a pel-

vic fracture. While the plaintiff was a patient at the

facility the plaintiff contended that the defendant

failed to administer the plaintiff’s medication, partic-

ularly Coumadin which she was required to take for

her atrial fibrillation. When the defendant facility re-

alized its error, the defendant physician attempted

to administer a larger dose of Coumadin to the

plaintiff. She suffered an embolic stroke from which

she mostly recovered due to a strict therapy

regimen.

The plaintiff, however, suffered a second stroke ap-

proximately 7 weeks later which required the plaintiff

to have around-the-clock care. The plaintiff brought

suit against the defendant nursing home and the

defendant physician alleging that the defendants’

negligence in failing to adhere to the plaintiff’s

medication requirements and failure to administer

Coumadin resulted in the stroke as well as the de-

fendant physician’s negligence in loading her

Coumadin when the error was discovered.

The defendants denied the allegations and dis-

puted causation and damages. The defendants ar-

gued that the defendants’ failure to administer the

medication was not causally related to either stroke,

particularly the second stroke, where the plaintiff

took it upon herself to travel across the country by

plane which was a factor in her stroke. The defen-

dant physician denied that administering a larger

dose of Coumadin had any deleterious effect and

the plaintiff’s injuries were not related in any way.

The parties agreed to resolve the plaintiff’s claim for

the sum of $1,000,000 received in total from both

defendants prior to the trial in this matter.

REFERENCE

Patient Doe vs. Nursing Home Roe. 09-11-20.

Attorney for plaintiff: John L. Malone of Tetzel Law

in Worcester, MA.

Ob/Gyn

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT

Medical malpractice – Ob/gyn negligence –

Defendant ob/gyn allegedly negligent in failing

to obtain neurosurgical consult before

performing arthroscopic procedure on plaintiff

with shunt – Shunt held in place by adhesions

and defendant contends proper to free it from

adhesions without consultation – Severe infection

at wound site – Multiple surgeries to externalize,

revise, reinternalize and ultimately remove shunt

over 44-day hospitalization.

Oneida County, NY

This medical malpractice case involved a plaintiff

in her 20s who had a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt

because of hydrocephalus and Chiari

malformation, and who underwent a

laparoscopic procedure that involved an ovarian

cystectomy, and hernia repair. The plaintiff

contended that the defendant ob/gyn negligently

failed to obtain a neurosurgical consult before

proceeding. The defendant maintained that it

would have been improper to permit the shunt

to remain embedded in adhesions and that the

care was proper and that a neurosurgical consult

was unnecessary.

The plaintiff asserted that because of the proce-

dure, the shunt dislodged and that she suffered a

severe infection at the wound site and along the

shunt and required multiple surgeries to externalize,

revise, reinternalize and ultimately remove the shunt

over a 44-day hospitalization, including 14 days in

the ICU. The plaintiff asserted that she suffered from

permanent abdominal scarring.

The plaintiff maintained that the shunt was secured

only by adhesions and that if the consult was ob-

tained, the defendant would have been advised to

take a wait and see approach. The defendant as-

serted that a wait and see approach was especially

improper because the adhesions were painful. The

plaintiff denied that the adhesions were the source

of the pain.

The jury found for the defendant.

10

VERDICTS BY CATEGORY