March 14th, 2008

John Ritter Medical Malpractice Trial — Defense Verdict

A defense verdict was handed down by a California jury today in a medical malpractice trial concerning the death of actor John Ritter from an aortic dissection. (Previously: The Medical Malpractice Trial of John Ritter)

The family had previously settled with other defendants for $14M, according to press reports, and had continued on with respect to a radiologist that had done a study two years before his sudden death, and a cardiologist in the emergency room.

The jury found with respect to the radiologist that he had been advised two years earlier to follow up after the study (but also alleged that it wouldn’t have made a difference.) The case against the cardiologist revolved around the failure to do a radiological study that had been ordered when he presented to the emergency room.

When I wrote about the case a few weeks back, I noted:

My personal view: Suits against emergency departments are very difficult, though not impossible. Jurors will, if given half a chance, give the benefit of the doubt to emergency room physicians, often times even if their own protocols are violated. I have no idea what will happen in this particular case since I won’t be in the courtroom hearing the evidence, but I say with some confidence that the scenario presented in the news media presents a difficult factual pattern if the hospital was the culprit in failing to get the CT scan done.

(hat tip to TortsProf)

More: Ritter Lawsuit Demonstrates How Medical Malpractice Caps Discriminate On Basis Of Wealth (David Lowe, InjuryBoard:Milwaukee)

March 5th, 2008

Charges Reinstated Against Empire State Building Parachutist

In 2006 Jeb Corliss tried to jump off the Empire State Building with a parachute and was arrested. After being charged with reckless endangerment, a lower court dismissed the case. Yesterday an appellate court reversed and demanded he stand trial.

The appellate decision in People v. Corliss focused on Corliss being overcharged with reckless endangerment in the first degree, because that meant he had to have acted with a depraved indifference to human life. While he may be a moron for thinking it could be done safely, or perhaps he’s just delusional, his conduct was not seen to be wicked as demonstrated by grand jury testimony of steps he took to try to do is safely. Thus, the court held, he should only be charged with reckless endangerment in the second degree, instead of the firs degree, since the lesser charge does not require the same mental state.

In the meantime, and this is the reason it appears here on a personal injury blog, Corliss had the chutzpah to sue the Empire State Building for intentional infliction of emotional distress because he got scared he might get hurt when security stopped him; As if someone that jumps off of buildings with a parachute would be distressed at this. Maybe it wasn’t chutzpah, of course, but just a desperate need for publicity. The quicker that case gets tossed out, with sanctions, the better for our legal system.

Now comes the really, really hard part, since there is zero chance he will enter a plea, in my opinion, because a trial gets him yet more publicity. But how do you find any New York juror that would state that they have an open mind about whether he endangered the people in the street below by trying to parachuting down into the street? It’s like asking if someone can keep an open mind on whether the sun rises in the east. I discussed those dangers in a post last month (see: Empire State Building v. Jeb Corliss).

Unless, of course, he goes with the insanity defense. Then, I think, he’s got a shot at an acquittal. If he doesn’t kill himself first in another stunt.

On a final note, Corliss complained in these comments on a blog just two days ago that the risk of jumping injuries is for suicides, and not BASE jumpers, citing four past examples of safe jumps. Readers will note that his entire argument is self-centered, focusing only on his own conduct. And he utterly ignores the fact that folks will stop in their tracks if they see someone float down from the sky in midtown Manhattan, while buses, trucks, cabs all zip by. The Appellate Division, however, did not ignore that, writing in words that mirrored my own prior post: “Even a properly functioning parachute that landed a jumper safely might cause a variety of accidents.”

Fonzie Takes The Stand in Ritter Trial

Actor Henry Winkler took the stand yesterday in the John Ritter medical malpractice trial.

According to a story at E-Online, two hours before Ritter was taken to the hospital (where he died of aortic dissection):

“We were talking in the middle of the soundstage,” Winkler said. “He was sweating, and told me, ‘You know, I really need to get some water.’ I went one direction and he went the other, and that was the last time I ever saw him.”

More on the story at the LA Times and Huffington Post, among others.

(Hat tip to Christopher J. Robinette at TortsProf)

February 5th, 2008

The Medical Malpractice Trial of John Ritter

Four years ago comic actor John Ritter suddenly died from an aortic dissection after being rushed to the emergency room from the set of his sitcom, 8 Simple Rules … For Dating My Teenage Daughter. A medical malpractice action ensued. The defendants include a radiologist that did a scan two years before and failed to note any enlargement of the aorta in the 54-year old actor, and a cardiologist that saw him in the emergency room at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, California.

According to this story in USA Today:

[T]he cardiologist [was] summoned to the emergency room at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank after Ritter was taken there complaining of nausea, vomiting and chest pain. Plaintiff’s lawyers say a chest X-ray should have been performed before Lee treated Ritter.

The doctor’s lawyers say that there wasn’t enough time for that and that a chest X-ray ordered earlier inexplicably was not done. They say Ritter’s symptoms were more consistent with a heart attack than anything else and had to be treated quickly.

Kevin M.D. has previously written on this case. But, not being in the courtroom, he has to work from public accounts. He offers us this along with a longer analysis at the link:

Was it malpractice? Tough to say. The question I’d be interested in would be how long it took for the ER to order that chest CT scan.

His family says that he likely would have survived with prompt treatment and that the treatment for the aortic dissection is the opposite of treating him for a heart attack. The hospital, by the way, has already settled.

My personal view: Suits against emergency departments are very difficult, though not impossible. Jurors will, if given half a chance, give the benefit of the doubt to emergency room physicians, often times even if their own protocols are violated. I have no idea what will happen in this particular case since I won’t be in the courtroom hearing the evidence, but I say with some confidence that the scenario presented in the news media presents a difficult factual pattern if the hospital was the culprit in failing to get the CT scan done.

With respect to the radiology films from two years earlier, that will be a classic “battle of the experts” that cannot be evaluated by people outside the courtroom unless they have seen the actual films at issue.

Jury selection starts today.

January 18th, 2008

A Forced Rectal Exam and a Lawsuit. And Bernie Goetz???

It was hard to miss the stories this week on a lawsuit about a forced rectal exam in an emergency room. The blogospheric responses to it were, in a word, extraordinary.

The story itself is certainly odd, but not complex: Brian Persaud walks into a New York hospital with a head injury over the brow that needs eight stitches, and the ER staff then forces him to have a rectal exam against his will. Words are exchanged, he physically lashes out, he’s sedated, apparently placed on a ventilator (?) and arrested. Charges were dismissed, but he sues the hospital, and in the process raises issues of ethics, informed consent, medical necessity and assault.

Now here’s the striking part, and it jumped out at me when I first saw the story at Kevin, M.D. Kevin’s easy to pick on because he has a great blog even though I often disagree with him, so when I challenge his opinion as being out to lunch, it comes with the caveat that I still routinely check his site for stories and opinions.

So here’s the part that jumped at me: He immediately called it a “frivolous lawsuit.” And not just him, but many, many others in the comments couldn’t wait to rush to judgment. Based solely on an article that first appeared in a NY Times blog.

The patient’s ability to give consent for the procedure is, of course, dependent on the actual facts. And given the commotion this must have caused — the man was, after all, restrained and arrested — you know there are many witnesses to the man’s ability to make rational consent decisions. But have those that leaped to the conclusion that the case is frivolous actually seen or heard any witnesses? Well, of course not. The opinion offered on the merits has nothing to do with the actual facts, but on the political bent of the people offering up their opinions. (Volokh has 114 comments already.)

This reminds me, to some degree, of the criminal trial surrounding New York subway gunman Bernhard Goetz when he shot four teens on a subway in 1984 that he said were threatening him. It reminds me of that because, when the trial was held, there were competing demonstrators outside the court. One side wanted to crucify him as a racist and the other side wanted to hail him as a hero. And they all had one thing in common: Not a single one of them was actually in the subway to see what happened, nor had the evidence even been fully presented in court.

The rectal exam case makes for an interesting legal Rorschach test, just as the Goetz case had.