In this negligence action, appellant Ronald Green, Executor of the Estate of Joseph Fusco, appealed a Superior Court order affirming the trial court’s grant of a nonsuit in favor of Appellees Pennsylvania Hospital (the “Hospital”), Contributors to Pennsylvania Hospital, and several nurses and doctors. Joseph Fusco (“Decedent”) arrived at the emergency department of the Hospital, complaining of shortness of breath, rapid breathing, and wheezing. He was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (“ICU”) and given medication, which failed to alleviate his symptoms. As a result, Decedent, who suffered from a number of pre-existing conditions, was intubated and placed on a ventilator in order to assist with his breathing. Decedent remained on a ventilator in critical condition for ten days. In an attempt to wean Decedent from the ventilator, a physician at the Hospital performed a tracheotomy. The tracheotomy site had become blocked; re-insertion of the tube went into Decedent's throat causing air outside of his lungs to accumulate and collapse his lungs and trachea. The Decedent was again intubated, this time through his mouth. However, by this time, he suffered cardiac arrest and died. Appellant, as executor of Decedent's estate, brought a negligence action against the Hospital and the nurses and doctors that treated Decedent shortly before his death. When a hospital patient experiences an acute medical emergency, such as that experienced by Decedent in this case, and an attending nurse or other medical staff issues an emergency request or page for additional help, "it is more than reasonable for the patient, who is in the throes of medical distress, to believe that such emergency care is being rendered by the hospital or its agents. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court’s grant of a nonsuit under Section 1303.516(a) was erroneous in the instant case, and that the question of whether a reasonably prudent person in Decedent’s position would be justified in his belief that the care rendered by Dr. Malaisrie was rendered by her as an agent of the Hospital should have proceeded to the jury." The Supreme Court, therefore, reversed the Superior Court’s decision affirming the trial court’s grant of a nonsuit in favor of the Hospital on this issue, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision to the extent it affirmed the trial court's grant of a nonsuit in favor of one of the nurses. View "Green v. Pennsylvania Hospital" on Justia Law

Dusty McIlwain brought his two-year-old son Hunter to the Natchez Community Hospital emergency room because Hunter had been vomiting, crying, and complaining of pain. Dr. Michael Wheelis, the emergency room doctor, knew Dusty and previously had worked with Carol McIlwain (a nurse), Dusty’s mother and Hunter’s grandmother. Dr. Wheelis was aware that Hunter had suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage previously as a result of a motor vehicle accident. That night, Dusty and Carol McIlwain informed Dr. Wheelis only that Hunter had abdominal pain and had vomited. Dr. Wheelis did not observe any neurological symptoms. After deciding that Hunter should be kept overnight in the hospital for observation, Dr. Wheelis, who had no authority to admit patients, spoke with Dr. Jennifer Russ, a pediatrician, at the request of the family, at approximately 2:10 a.m. After conferring, Drs. Russ and Wheelis diagnosed Hunter with dehydration and gastroenteritis. Several hours later, Hunter had a seizure, and was moved to the intensive care unit (ICU). Approximately 24 hours after he was admitted to the hospital, a CT scan of Hunter revealed that he suffered an aneurysm. He slipped into a coma and was pronounced dead several hours after the test. Jennifer McIlwain filed a medical malpractice suit against the doctors involved with Hunter's treatment. Trial was held more than ten years after Hunter had died, and ended in a deadlock. The trial court declared a mistrial. Following entry of the Order of Mistrial, the defendants filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), arguing that Jennifer McIlwain had failed to establish her burden of proof as to the issue of causation. The trial court granted the motions and entered a final judgment of dismissal as to all claims in favor of all defendants. Jennifer timely filed this appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. The Court found that Jennifer offered sufficient evidence of the requisite elements of a medical-negligence case against Dr. Wheelis; therefore, the trial court erred in granting Dr. Wheelis’s motion for JNOV. However, Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Miller failed to develop evidence that a violation of the standard of care in the setting in which she practiced was equivalent to that as applied to Dr. Russ, and the Court found the trial court did not err in granting Dr. Russ’s motion for JNOV. View "McIlwain v. Natchez Community Hospital, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2003, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court amended its Rules of Civil Procedure to require malpractice plaintiffs to file a certificate of merit (COM) within 60 days of bringing suit, under penalty of dismissal. Five years later, to dismissal of meritorious claims due to technical oversights, the Court amended the Rules again, setting conditions that had to be met before a defendant could seek dismissal. The Third Circuit previously held that the COM requirement is substantive state law that must be applied by a federal court sitting in diversity. Schmigel sued Dr. Uchal, who performed Schigel’s laparoscopic adjustable gastric band surgery in Pennsylvania before moving to Florida. Realizing that no COM had been filed, Uchal waited out the 60-day window, then filed a motion to dismiss. The next day, Schmigel’s counsel filed an “answer,” attaching the missing COM, and arguing that Uchal had not waited 30 days after giving notice of the deficiency to allow for cure before filing his motion to dismiss, The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit reversed, finding that conditions precedent to dismissing an action for failure to comply with the COM requirement, including fair notice to a plaintiff, are substantive law that must be applied in federal court. View "Schmigel v. Uchal" on Justia Law

A nine-year-old child (“Minor”) died from cardiac arrest caused by hypovolemic shock. Plaintiffs filed this action against the Queen’s Medical Center (“QMC”), Dr. Thinh T. Nguyen (“Defendant”), and The Emergency Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants failed to provide information required under the informed consent doctrine before treating Minor for vomiting and nausea with the medication Reglan. The circuit court granted judgment as a matter of law for Defendants on the informed consent claim. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated in part the ICA’s judgment on appeal as to Plaintiffs’ informed consent claims, holding (1) Plaintiffs presented sufficient expert medical evidence to advance their informed consent claim to the jury; and (2) the ICA erred in concluding that Plaintiffs waived the issue of Defendant’s failure to inform them of all statutorily mandated information. View "Ngo v. Queen's Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

In 2011, 74-year-old Garnell Wilcoxon lived alone. He suffered a stroke, awoke on the floor of his bedroom covered in sweat, feeling sore and with no memory of how he got there. Wilcoxon was admitted to the Troy Regional Medical Center for analysis and treatment for approximately one year before he died. Following Wilcoxon's death, Brenda McFarland, one of Wilcoxon's daughters, filed a complaint as the personal representative for Wilcoxon's estate, asserting claims for : (1) medical malpractice; (2) negligence; (3) breach of contract; (4) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention; and (5) loss of consortium. In its answer, Troy Health asserted, in part, that McFarland's claims were barred from being litigated in a court of law "by virtue of an arbitration agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant." Troy Health then moved to compel arbitration, asserting that forms signed by one of Wilcoxon's other daughters, acting as his attorney-in-fact, contained a valid and enforceable arbitration clause. McFarland argued that "Wilcoxon did not have the mental capacity to enter into the contract with [Troy Health,] and he did not have the mental capacity to give legal authority to enter into contracts on his behalf with" relatives who initially helped admit him to Troy Health facilities when he first fell ill. According to McFarland, "[t]he medical records document that Wilcoxon was habitually and/or permanently incompetent." Therefore, McFarland argued, both a 2011 arbitration agreement and a 2012 arbitration agreement were invalid. The circuit court denied Troy Health's motion to compel arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that McFarland failed to prove that Wilcoxon was mentally incompetent when he executed a 2012 durable power of attorney naming his other daughter as his attorney-in-fact, and also failed to demonstrate that Wilcoxon was "permanently incompetent" before that date, and because there was no other issue concerning the validity of the 2012 arbitration agreement. View "Troy Health and Rehabilitation Center v. McFarland" on Justia Law

Lattimore brought a wrongful death action against two doctors and Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare arising from their care and treatment of Yvonne’s father, who had gone to the hospital for a blood transfusion, experienced gastrointestinal bleeding, and died. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment. The court of appeal reversed, finding that the declaration of Lattimore’s medical expert was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on whether treatment of her father violated the applicable standards of care applicable to physicians and surgeons. However, the medical expert declaration did not raise a triable issue of fact on the standard of care applicable to nurses and hospitals in general. View "Lattimore v. Dickey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendant, a medical doctor, claiming that Defendant failed to obtain her informed consent before operating on her. The jury returned a verdict for Defendant, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. The court of appeals affirmed. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the judgment should be set aside because the trial court’s instructions to the jury misstated the law regarding informed consent. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the instruction given in this case was in error because it failed to incorporate the law applicable to a medical provider’s duty to obtain informed consent; and (2) Plaintiff was prejudiced by the erroneous instruction. View "Sargent v. Shaffer" on Justia Law

Siouxland, a group practice of obstetrician-gynecologists, terminated Hagen, its President and an equity owner, invoking the for-cause termination provision in Hagen’s 1993, Employment Agreement, after an incident during which Hagen yelled at Dr. Eastman (another Siouxland doctor) and hospital staff, accusing them of neglecting a patient, resulting in a stillbirth. Hagen also reported the incident to hospital administration and told the Siouxland partners that he was considering reporting to the Iowa state medical board. Hagen advised the patient to sue for malpractice. Hagen filed suit, alleging wrongful retaliatory discharge in violation of Iowa public policy. The other doctors testified about Hagen’s history of workplace conflicts and outbursts and about concern that his suspension by the hospital would hurt the reputation of the practice. A jury awarded Hagen $1,051,814 in compensatory damages. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that Hagen failed to prove he was an at-will employee who may assert a tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The exclusive remedy of a medical professional practicing under Hagen’s Employment Agreement would be a breach of contract claim, which would permit inquiry into the professional conduct the district court found separately protected by the tort of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. View "Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, PC" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from five separate but essentially identical wrongful death claims brought by Plaintiffs against Hospital. The petitions alleged that a former employee of the hospital intentionally administered a lethal dose of medication that resulted in the decedents’ deaths and that the Hospital acted affirmatively to conceal the suspicious nature of the deaths. The trial courts entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of Hospital, concluding that Plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred by the three-year limitation in Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.100. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that their claims were not barred by the statute of limitation because Hospital intentionally and fraudulently concealed the tortious nature of the decedents’ deaths. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, despite the harsh result, Plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred because the three-year statute of limitation had passed when the lawsuits were filed and because section 537.100 does not provide an exception for fraudulent concealment. View "Boland v. Saint Luke's Health Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Volkman, a University of Chicago M.D. and Ph.D. (pharmacology), board-certified in emergency medicine, was in financial distress after lawsuits. Hired by Tri-State, a cash-only clinic, he was paid $5,000 to $5,500 per week. Soon, pharmacies refused to fill his prescriptions, citing improper dosing. Volkman opened a dispensary in the clinic. The Ohio Board of Pharmacy issued a license, although a Glock was found in the drug safe. Follow-up inspections disclosed poorly maintained logs; that no licensed physician or pharmacist oversaw the actual dispensing process; and lax security of the drug safe. Patients returned unmarked and intermixed medication. The dispensary did a heavy business in oxycodone. A federal investigation revealed a chaotic, unclean environment. Tri-State fired Volkman, who opened his own shop; 12 patients died. Volkman and Tri-State’s owners were charged with conspiring to unlawfully distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); maintaining a drug-involved premises, 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1); unlawful distribution of a controlled substance leading to death, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 24(c). The owners accepted plea agreements and testified against Volkman, The Sixth Circuit affirmed his conviction on most counts, and a sentence of four consecutive life terms. On remand from the Supreme Court, in light of Burrage v. United States (2014), the Sixth Circuit again found the evidence of but-for causation sufficient. View "United States v. Volkman" on Justia Law