In this paper we will reexamine the medical malpractice instance filed with the Brooklyn Supreme Court. Weber v. New York Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. I will discourse how this instance is more than a medical malpractice instance. that it is a instance about alteration and how one male parent vows to alter the manner wellness attention is carried out. I will besides discourse the possible results in this emotional instance. every bit good as foretelling the likely finding of fact in favour of the complainants.
Damon Weber was an energetic. sympathetic immature adult male whose life ended at the immature age of 16 as a consequence of what his male parent. Mr. Weber. believes was a divergence from the expected criterion of attention at the manus of doctors at the New York Columbia Presbyterian Hospital ( Weichselbaum. 2012 ) . As a consequence. Mr. Weber filed a medical malpractice suit on behalf of Damon against New York Columbia Presbyterian Hospital and the medical manager of paediatric bosom grafts. Dr. Mason. The instance is presently being heard in the Brooklyn Supreme Court. We will take a expression at the issues and parties affected in this instance every bit good as the stakeholders involved. When the instance is reviewed we will see how this is non merely another medical malpractice instance of unlawful decease. This is a narrative of alteration and how one male parent takes on the “fiefdom” ( Weber. 2012 ) of a world-renowned metropolitan infirmary to justify the decease of his eldest boy. Damon was born with a inborn bosom defect where merely one ventricle of the bosom was formed and physicians at the New York Columbia Presbyterian Hospital performed a life-saving “radical operation known as a Fontan procedure” ( Brown. 2012 ) .
The process was performed in an attempt to better oxygenated blood flow to Damon’s bosom. As a consequence of this process. Damon developed a common secondary unwellness called protein-losing enteropathy ( PLE ) which finally led to a bosom graft ( Brown. 2012 ) . The divergence from the expected criterion of attention in this instance occurred in the yearss and hebdomads taking up to. and following the bosom graft. The most important component in this instance is negligence based on the claim that Damon’s doctors failed to name a post-transfusion infection. and instead diagnosed a post-transfusion rejection which delayed intervention of the fatal infection ( Weichselbaum. 2012 ) . Another cardinal component in Mr. Weber’s claim is related to the proposed greed of doctors and beging of bosom graft patients at New York Columbia Presbyterian Hospital.
Brown reminds us that “heart grafts represent large money for infirmaries: at half a million dollars each. 20 paediatric graft operations a twelvemonth make a important part to the fundss of the New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center. ” ( Brown. 2012 ) . As Damon’s male parent. Mr. Weber. points out in an interview with Weichselbaum ( 2012 ) . “The wellness attention system is no longer about patients. It’s about the underside line…They didn’t provide my boy the criterion of attention. And now he is dead” . The atrociousnesss in this instance make non stop with greed. nevertheless. Mr. Weber will now hold to turn out that gross medical carelessness resulted in the misdirection of Damon’s wellness attention. Some of these atrociousnesss include Mr. Weber’s accusals of Damon being “casually “listed” as a possible bosom receiver — significance he has to be ready to have a new bosom at a moment’s notice — without his father’s knowledge” ( Brown. 2012 ) . Adding abuse to hurt. after the insouciant arrangement on the transplant list. several of the physicians involved in Damon’s attention disappeared for hebdomads.
This surely caused a important hold in obtaining a graft for which Damon should hold been at the top of the list. Other points that Mr. Weber will seek to turn out are efforts by the medical manager to cover up medical certification by claiming that Damon’s medical records were lost. Ultimately. Mr. Weber’s case is an attempt to raise alteration in the wellness attention universe by keeping doctors accountable for the timely and accurate diagnosing of critical unwellnesss or conditions and altering the manner physicians collaborate and carry out attention in complicated instances such as Damon’s. Finally. Mr. Weber wants this instance to function as a statement to the medical powers-that-be who conduct concern in moneymaking processs such as bosom grafts. so that they do non lose sight of the importance of entire. quality patient attention. Designation and Evaluation of all Main Possible Solutions Since this instance is still being heard in the Brooklyn Supreme Court. I was unable to turn up any sum-ups of the existent tribunal proceedings.
Therefore. I will be utilizing a similar medical malpractice instance. Sheila Corley. et Al. . . Plaintiffs-Appellees v. State of Louisiana. Department of Health & A ; Hospitals. et Al. . Defendants-Appellants ( hereinafter. “Corley case” ) . ( Corley. et Al. v. State of Louisiana. Department of Health & A ; Hospitals. et al. ) as a comparing. In the Corley instance. a medical malpractice claim was filed on the footing of the plaintiff’s claim that the doctors in charge of the patient’s attention failed to name a dangerous cancerous mass on his mediastinum. The following are the theories used in the plaintiff’s claim of malpractice ; and I assume similar claims were used in the Weber instance ( Corley. et Al. v. State of Louisiana. Department of Health & A ; Hospitals. et al. ) : * Respondeat higher-up. in that the complainants claim that the doctors named in the instance are employees of Louisiana Department of Health & A ; Hospitals. and therefore their carelessness imputes liability to the infirmary. * Failure to observe a awful disease with tragic effects in that the patient ( Corley ) died as a consequence of the big cancerous mass on his mediastinum.
“When. in handling a patient. a diagnosing can non be made. at that clip a differential diagnosing should be made. which includes all sensible. plausible and foreseeable causes for the marks and symptoms noted in the patient. After organizing a differential diagnosing. it is the physician’s responsibility to govern out all at hand. serious and dangerous causes for the marks and symptoms. Physicians are obligated to govern out these at hand. serious and dangerous causes foremost. Failure to extinguish these causes can subject a patient to a foreseeable hazard of injury and would farther represent a breach of the applicable criterion ( s ) of attention. ” ( Corley. et Al. v. State of Louisiana. Department of Health & A ; Hospitals. et al. ) . * Appellate reappraisal of the test court’s findings in a medical malpractice action is limited. The applicable criterion of attention is determined from the peculiar facts of a instance. including rating of the adept testimony. * The fact finder is to measure conflicting adept sentiments in relation to all the fortunes of the instance. Credibility findings. including the rating and declaration of struggles in adept testimony. are factual issues to be resolved by the trier of fact. which will non be disturbed on entreaty in the absence of manifest mistake.
In comparing to the Corley instance. the Weber instance would probably use the same theories in turn outing medical malpractice against New York Columbia Presbyterian Hospital and the medical manager of paediatric grafts. If the tribunal utilizes the same principals in make up one’s minding the Weber instance. the finding of fact will probably be in favour of the complainant on the footing that the doctor and hospital’s intervention fell below the criterion of acceptable attention. Another issue that will probably be a factor in the Weber instance is the infirmary “losing” all of the medical records refering to Weber’s attention. Reading in our text book reminds us that the medical record is “the belongings of the health care supplier and is maintained for the benefit of the patient” ( Pozgar. 2012 ) . The infirmary must guarantee that patients have entree to their records for reappraisal and/or copying unless “the information could moderately be expected to do significant injury to the patient” ( Pozgar. 2012 ) .
The existent keeping of medical records varies from province to province. but should be retained long plenty to run into “patient demands. statutory demands. future demand for such records. and the legal consideration of holding the records available in the event of a case. If the infirmary “loses” a medical record that is involved in a legal proceeding. it can badly impact the plaintiff’s ability to turn out his/her instance. As our text edition points out in the Rodgers v. St. Mary’s Hosp. of Decatur instance. the tribunal upheld their original finding of fact against the infirmary for neglecting to retain the X raies of the plaintiff’s married woman for a period of 5 old ages ( Pozgar. 2012 ) . At the really least. I would believe it could be found extremely leery that a infirmary would lose the medical records of a patient who files a case. | Decision Statement and Defense Against Weaknesses
My research therefore far indicates that all elements of a claim of medical malpractice have been met in the Weber instance and therefore a determination by the tribunal in favour of the complainant is likely to happen in this instance. The doctors and infirmary in the Weber instance surely had a responsibility to care as a patient-physician relationship was clearly established. A breach of responsibility is traveling to be the biggest factor in turn outing the medical malpractice claim. as it will trust on adept testimony as to the critical status of Damon merely prior to the graft and the immediate demand for the bosom graft to take topographic point. The doctors and infirmary named in this instance will be required to supply testimony and adept grounds to fulfill the tribunal that they acted within acceptable criterions of attention in handling Damon Weber and that detaining intervention of the post-transfusion infection was non the cause of his death. This will probably be a hard undertaking as medical grounds seems to indicate to the fact that so. Damon should hold received the bosom graft desperately and that a sensible criterion of attention would hold been met if the doctors were to hold ruled out post-transfusion rejection versus post-transfusion infection since the infection was the most likely cause of Damon’s decease.
The infirmary may do a claim that because the doctors acted within a sensible criterion of attention. liability may non be imputed upon them in this instance. However. the infirmary will still hold to reply for the loss of the patient’s medical record. I would believe that most tribunals would happen it extremely leery that the medical records were lost in this instance. While the tribunal may happen that the two issues are unrelated. it surely casts a shadow of uncertainty on the portion of the doctors.
Ultimately. this instance is about far more than medical malpractice. It is a instance about raising alteration in our wellness attention system. It is about conveying to illume the personal farces committed in this instance. such as misdiagnosis and neglecting to handle Damon in a timely mode. Mr. Weber hopes to derive the legal community’s support in keeping these doctors accountable for their carelessness in supplying seasonably medical attention to Damon. Mr. Weber besides hopes to expose the greed associated with selling for high-profile organ transplant instances such as this. If Mr. Weber and his legal squad win. the finding of fact will be in favour of the complainant and amendss will be awarded in conformity with similar instance jurisprudence. More significantly. Damon’s decease will be vindicated and with any fortune. the doctors and infirmary involved will alter the manner they pattern. so no other household has to digest the hurting that the Weber household experienced. After all. isn’t that the intent of medical malpractice cases: to seek compensation for the injured patient and to supply a civil agency of forestalling farther malpractice by the same medical professionals?
Brown. I. ( 2012. February 3 ) . A decease in the household. The New York Times. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. nytimes. com/2012/02/05/books/review/immortal-bird-Mr. Weber-webers-lament-for-his-son. hypertext markup language? pagewanted=all & A ; _r=0
Pozgar. G ( 2012 ) . Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration. ( 11th ed. ) . Chapter 11. pps. 282. 291-292. Sudbury. Ma: Jones and Bartlett Learning. Weber. D. ( 2012 ) . Immortal bird: A household memoir ( Large print erectile dysfunction. ) . Waterville. Me. : Thorndike Press. Weichselbaum. S. ( 2012. March 30 ) . Brooklyn dad’s memoir of late boy campaigns for alteration at infirmary. New York Daily News. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //articles. nydailynews. com/2012-03-30/news/31263092_1_damon-heart-transplant-memoir 749 So. 2d 926 ; 1999 La. App. LEXIS 3708. Retrieved from World Wide Web. lexisnexis. com/hottopics/lnacademic
( March 30. 2012 Friday ) . A dad’s campaign Son’s decease at infirmary detailed in his new book. Daily News ( New York ) . Retrieved from World Wide Web. lexisnexis. com/hottopics/lnacademic
( June 1. 2012 Friday ) . Remembering A Son In ‘Immortal Bird’ . National Public Radio. Retrieved from World Wide Web. lexisnexis. com/hottopics/lnacademic