Must read op-ed on the effects of the Lucia case in Florida:
Dr. Haedicke was on call for Memorial Hospital and came in to see her. He evaluated her, drained her abdomen, ordered antibiotics and consulted four other physicians (who were also sued) to evaluate her condition. Her own surgeon returned to Tampa later that afternoon to assume care. Dr. Haedicke had seen her for a total of five hours.Mrs. Lucia’s attorney, Steve Yerrid, is good. He recently won a case for more than $200 million against another hospital and group of emergency room physicians. He wins lofty awards for those who have been ‘wronged,’ but it never seems to be about ‘the money.’ He creates empathy that jurors feel for his client. He was quoted as saying that Mrs. Lucia and her husband were ‘righteous.’
I’ve know Dr. Haedicke for more than 15 years. He is a religious man who tragically lost his 10-year-old son in a vehicular accident. When I spoke with him, he told me he’s been thinking about Mrs. Lucia’s case for the past six years. He says with conviction that if he had the opportunity to do it again, he would have treated her in the same manner.
For the past 20 years, Dr. Haedicke has been one of the rare ‘go to’ surgeons in Tampa when there were patients with injuries so severe that no one else would take them. He’s done more than 50,000 operations, saving many lives, and has not been sued.
We, of course, feel sorry for Mrs. Lucia, who had her legs amputated below the knees and her fingers removed because of lack of blood flow. The truth is that she came to Memorial Hospital in septic shock and multiple organ failure, a condition in which the death rate can be as high as 90 percent, but her life was saved. Now she can see her three children grow up. Had she died, I doubt this suit would have taken place, but because she survived and had an untoward outcome, she decided to sue.
(via Overlawyered)
Related posts:
- Excessive police force, as seen in the emergency room
- 911 from the ER waiting room
- Emergency room specialist call
- A patient dies after doctors fail to communicate in the operating room
- Nathan Lanier: Solving the emergency room crisis
- Recruiting versus retaining doctors
- Do HMOs drive blacks to the emergency room?
{ 14 comments }
Who was the physician who testified that the treatment fell below the standard of care? Was he not a good person and good surgeon?
And why do other verdicts the Plaintiff’s attorney had matter to the facts of this case?
“Was he not a good person and good surgeon?”
True statement. They searched the country for a paid whore in Texas who would say it was “reckless” care.
The patient doesn’t know that an elective tummy tuck can result in life threatening infection? This doctor just tries to jump in and help someone circling the drain that he didn’t initiate.
CJD, you have become so tiresome and blind sighted that you don’t add one tittle of legitimate conversation to the topic.
After working for a national company that gave preauthorization for outpatient radiology, I can state fairly confidently that medicine in the state of Florida is a nightmare. Physicians called for LLQ abd pain, r/o appy. More than once. They’d want lumbar spine CT/MRI’s for abd pain or abd/pelvis CT/MRI’s for lumbar pain. I had to deny those cases which meant they went to physician review. All of our review physicians groaned at the thought of talking directly to physicians there. When I worked at McDill AFB in Tampa, circa mid 90’s, there was a case that made national news about a hospital down the road that amputated the wrong foot of a diabetic patient. Because the case became notorious, the malpractice cap was lifted just for him. The best advice I would give to anyone who takes ill in Florida is to get on the first plane and leave.
“True statement. They searched the country for a paid whore in Texas who would say it was “reckless” care.”
What was that physician’s name and what were their credentials? And what about their analysis of the case did you disagree with based on your review of the records? Other than the fact they dared to disagree with another physician?
Or are you just, once again, spouting off with no knowledge of the facts?
It would be interesting to find out more about the plaintiff’s “expert”. For myself the plan is to do my surgery in a freestanding outpatient center and have limited privileges at a full service hospital that do not require ER call.
CJD,
Neither have you reviewed the medical records, the CV of the Expert Witness, or the court transcripts. Commenting that what appears to be a spade is probably a spade is not any less rigorous than your always knee-jerk assertion that true malpractice occurred and that the plaintiff and plaintiff attorney are correct.
Either way more harm will occur because of it if doctors will not treat emergencies.
BTW, why do you no longer sign in as CJD? Are you afraid of discovery of your identity or some onther lawyer thing. Just curious
Over at overlawyered, only 2 doctors have ventured an opinion on the case and both conclude that the decision to not administer fluids was likely wrong. No doctor has suggested otherwise.
To broaden it just a bit…
There are some posters on this board (ok, maybe just one) who endlessly rolls back to the refrain that anyone who was not a paid lawyer who has read every document in the case, sat in for the entire trial, interviewed all the jurors and had dinner with the judge’s family could possibly have anything useful to say or any sort of valid opinion on any issue that gets posted here.
It’s tired. It’s old. It’s pointless. And it’s flat wrong. The sooner you knock it off and try to provide a little substance, the better off we’ll be.
I’m perfectly happy to admit that people who haven’t been to Iraq can, in fact, have valid opinions about the war, people who haven’t traveled to Cuba can have valid opinions about Communist dicatorships, and people who haven’t played an inning of major league baseball can, in fact, validly opine on everything from steroids to no-hitters.
Lawyer guy, no one’s completely informed on any given issue, yourself very much included. Pointing that out over and over again while avoiding substantive dicourse proves or gains exactly… what? I’m not sure. And I don’t think you are, either.
“Commenting that what appears to be a spade is probably a spade is not any less rigorous than your always knee-jerk assertion that true malpractice occurred and that the plaintiff and plaintiff attorney are correct.”
I’m not saying either is correct. I’m just curious if any of these people condemning a decision by those who have heard the evidence have seen the evidence themselves? If the answer is no, then how exactly are you able to disagree with the finding? How do you know that it is a spade – simply because a doctor was found to have committed malpractice the jury must have been wrong?
“that anyone who was not a paid lawyer who has read every document in the case, sat in for the entire trial, interviewed all the jurors and had dinner with the judge’s family could possibly have anything useful to say or any sort of valid opinion on any issue that gets posted here.”
Actually, no one has made that claim. The question is merely as I stated above. I know that having facts BEFORE you form an opinion is a novel idea, but surely not so novel that you can’t even contemplate it.
As to substantive discource on the subject, how exactly is it possible to have substantive discourse on a lawsuit when you don’t know the specific allegations, don’t know the evidence utilized to prove or disprove those allegations, or know exactly how fault was apportioned by the jury?
Short of having Bill Fristian diagnostic powers that is?
What’s more, how can you advocate changes in policy based on such little information?
And you don’t have to be a paid lawyer to investigate the file – if it was a trial, it’s public record. If you feel that strongly about it, you need only order the transcript from the court reporter.
“I’m perfectly happy to admit that people who haven’t been to Iraq can, in fact, have valid opinions about the war, people who haven’t traveled to Cuba can have valid opinions about Communist dicatorships, and people who haven’t played an inning of major league baseball can, in fact, validly opine on everything from steroids to no-hitters.”
I can get a ridiculous amount of information on all of those, first hand information no less, and I can directly observe the effects of steroid use and watch a no hitter. But if I’ve formed an opinion on the merits of this particular lawsuit, what could I have based it on if I didn’t have the transcript? A story about what a nice guy the physician was and how he lost his child? John Edwards lost a child. How is that relevant to the merits of any particular case?
“Either way more harm will occur because of it if doctors will not treat emergencies.”
So is it your position that regardless of the merits of the case, an emergency physician should be immune from liability for his acts simply because he might not return to the emergency room?
“Over at overlawyered, only 2 doctors have ventured an opinion on the case and both conclude that the decision to not administer fluids was likely wrong. No doctor has suggested otherwise.”
Uh, Elliott, not quite true. In the comments area, there are opinions from physicians reviewing the difficult choices as to fluid administration. But, then, as you’re always quick to point out, we don’t have all the facts in this case. But that doesn’t keep you from damning the doctor, does it?
http://www.thenewsroom.com/categories?c_id=wom-bc-kg When Doctors and nurses are short staffed this is the consquences. – Kate from The Health Desk at TheNewsRoom.com
The only person defending this as a difficult decision (note not the right decision) in the comments on any blog I’ve read about the case is an Ob/Gyn. Many of the comments are of the nature, “of course you do fluids first then pressors” or “fluids AND pressors”. Now you all know I’m not a doctor despites some calling me Dr. Elliott, but that seems to be the opinion of those willing to offer one. Of course, most of the comments are the poor doctor should never be held accountable because he is a SAINT.
Comments on this entry are closed.