MI: pt. discharged with UTI infection dies: experts' qualifications need not match defendant's. (Hospital Law Decisions of Note).CASE FACTS: Robert Hall
n infection in one or more of the structures that make up the urinary system. Occurs more often in women and is most commonly caused by bacteria. (UTI UTI urinary tract infection. UTI abbr. urinary tract infection UTI urinary tract infection. UTI Urinary tract infection, see there ). However, the patient was transferred without treatment for the UTI. On the day of transfer, the patient suffered a seizure and went into a coma. His condition slowly deteriorated until he died one month after his discharge from the hospital. The personal representative of the patient's estate brought suit against the hospital alleging that hospital employees and Dr. David Lavine, who supervised certain medical students and residents, had treated the patient negligently. A third-year medical student noted the presence of bacteria in the patient's urine which raised a concern about urosepsis. This indicated the patient had a UTI and needed medical attention prior to discharge. The plaintiff asserted that the patient's seizure and death were the result of the failure to treat the UTI. The plaintiff filed a complaint and an affidavit of merit signed by Dr. Jack Kaufman. Dr. Kaufman was board certified board certified, adj the status of a dental specialist such as an orthodontist who has become a board diplomate by successfully completing the certification program of the recognized certification board in that area of practice. and a specialist in internal medicine. The defendant moved to disqualify To deprive of eligibility or render unfit; to disable or incapacitate. To be disqualified is to be stripped of legal capacity. A wife would be disqualified as a juror in her husband's trial for murder due to the nature of their relationship. Dr. Kaufman from providing expert opinion testimony or, in the alternative, to limit the scope of his opinion testimony. The hospital argued that Dr. Kaufman was not qualified to render testimony against Dr. Lavine since Dr. Lavine was board certified in internal medicine, critical care medicine, and nephrology nephrology Branch of medicine dealing with kidney function and diseases. An understanding of kidney physiology is important not only in treating kidney disease but in knowing the effect of drugs, diet, and hypertension on kidney disease, and vice versa. . The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment motion for summary judgment n. a written request for a judgment in the moving party's favor before a lawsuit goes to trial and based on recorded (testimony outside court) affidavits (or declarations under penalty of perjury), depositions, admissions of fact, answers on the grounds that Dr. Kaufman was not board certified in the same specialties as Dr. Lavine. The plaintiff appealed. COURT'S OPINION: The Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case. The court held, inter alia [Latin, Among other things.] A phrase used in Pleading to designate that a particular statute set out therein is only a part of the statute that is relevant to the facts of the lawsuit and not the entire statute. , that trial court failed to correctly interpret the applicable law relative to the testimony of expert witnesses. The court was mindful that the plaintiff's theory indicated that the alleged malpractice occurred during the practice of internal medicine since the injury to the patient occurred before the patient was discharged from the hospital and not during the practice of nephrology or critical care. The plaintiff's position that negligence was committed while the patient was under "general care" in the hospital was sound. It is totally unreasonable to require an "exact match" of every board certification board certification n. The process by which a person is tested and approved to practice in a specialty field, especially medicine, after successfully completing the requirements of a board of specialists in that field. held by a defendant physician or an expert testifying on behalf of one. Such "perfect match" requirement would be an onerous task and would make it virtually impossible to bring a medical malpractice Improper, unskilled, or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional. case. Tate v. Detroit Receiving Hospital, 2002 WL 54817 N.W. 2d -- MI Meet the Editor & Publisher: A. David Tammelleo, JD, is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for nearly 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Providence, R.I., firm of A. David Tammelleo & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United States. In addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Reagan Reports, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolific writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievements as an attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers and Marquis Who's Who in American Law. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion