Justia Medical Malpractice Opinion Summaries

A physician sexually assaulted a twelve-year-old boy during a medical examination that required touching the child's genitals. The child's parents filed a medical malpractice complaint, including a negligent-credentialing claim against the hospital employing the physician. After settling with the hospital, the family sought excess compensation from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that neither the sexual assault nor the hospital’s negligence fell within the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA). The trial court denied the motion.The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court held that the defendants could challenge the MMA’s applicability post-settlement, that a negligent-credentialing claim must be based on an underlying act of medical malpractice, and that the physician’s sexual misconduct did not constitute medical malpractice. One judge dissented, arguing that the negligent-credentialing claim need not rest on underlying medical malpractice and that the physician’s misconduct did constitute malpractice.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment. The court held that the Fund could challenge whether a claim falls within the MMA after a settlement. It also held that a negligent-credentialing claim falls within the MMA only if the credentialed physician commits an act of medical malpractice. Finally, the court concluded that claims based on sexual assault by a physician during an authorized medical examination can fall within the MMA if the misconduct stems from an inseparable part of the health care being rendered. The court found that the physician’s sexual misconduct in this case fit within this narrow category, and thus, the defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Department of Insurance v. Doe" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Larissa Marland, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Norman Marland, filed a medical malpractice claim against the University of Connecticut Health Center and related entities. The decedent had been treated at the hospital and was later admitted to the intensive care unit, where he fell and subsequently died. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital staff breached the standard of care owed to the decedent.The plaintiff filed a notice of claim with the claims commissioner, including a physician’s opinion letter. The claims commissioner failed to resolve the claim within the statutory two-year period and an additional one-year extension granted by the General Assembly. Despite this, the commissioner eventually authorized the plaintiff to sue the state. The plaintiff then filed the present action in the Superior Court.The state moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims commissioner’s waiver of sovereign immunity was invalid because it was issued after the expiration of the one-year extension. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the commissioner did not have the authority to grant the waiver beyond the extension period.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiff’s action. The court held that, once the claims commissioner authorizes suit and waives sovereign immunity, the state cannot challenge that decision in the Superior Court. The court emphasized that such challenges should be raised before the claims commissioner. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with direction to deny the state’s motion to dismiss. View "Marland v. University of Connecticut Health Center" on Justia Law

Kristen Walker gave birth to her son Henry at Baptist St. Anthony’s Hospital under the care of Dr. Rhodesia Castillo. Henry required resuscitation after birth due to asphyxiation during labor and allegedly suffered a stroke. The Walkers sued the hospital and Dr. Castillo for negligence, claiming their actions caused Henry’s permanent neurologic injury. They provided expert reports from an obstetrician, a neonatologist, and a nurse to support their claims. The defendants challenged the qualifications of the experts and the sufficiency of the reports, arguing they did not adequately explain the standards of care, breaches, and causation.The trial court overruled the defendants’ objections and denied their motion to dismiss, finding the reports provided a fair summary of the experts’ opinions as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas reversed this decision, holding that the reports contained conclusory and incomplete language that did not sufficiently explain the cause of Henry’s brain injury.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that the expert reports sufficiently explained causation and that the trial court correctly rejected the defendants’ other challenges. The court found that the reports from Drs. Tappan and Null together explained how breaches of the standard of care by Dr. Castillo and the nurses caused Henry’s injury. The court also determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the defendants’ objections to the experts’ qualifications. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Walker v. Baptist St. Anthony's Hospital" on Justia Law

A medical-malpractice action was filed by Kalvyn Stull and his family against Summa Health System and associated parties, alleging that improper medical treatment following a car accident caused severe brain damage to Kalvyn. During discovery, the plaintiffs requested the residency file of Dr. Mazen Elashi, a resident physician involved in the treatment. Summa Health System claimed the file was protected by the peer-review privilege under Ohio law, supported by an affidavit from Dr. Erika Laipply, which stated that the file was used exclusively for peer-review purposes.The trial court in Summit County held that Summa had not sufficiently demonstrated that the peer-review privilege applied, as the affidavit contained ambiguities and lacked specific details. The court granted the motion to compel the production of the residency file. Summa appealed, and the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the affidavit was insufficient to establish the privilege due to its ambiguities and incomplete information.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that the presence of factual ambiguities in affidavit testimony does not alone determine whether the peer-review privilege applies. The court emphasized that the trial court has the authority to conduct further inquiry, including in camera review, to resolve the factual disputes and determine the applicability of the privilege. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for an in camera review of the residency file and any other necessary factual inquiry to resolve the legal question of whether the file is privileged. View "Stull v. Summa Health System" on Justia Law

The case involves a medical malpractice suit brought by the parents of a stillborn child against the midwives who attended the birth. The plaintiffs alleged that the midwives failed to obtain informed consent for delivery by midwife at a birth center instead of by a physician at a hospital. They claimed the midwives did not disclose the risks associated with midwife delivery for an expectant mother of advanced maternal age with a history of miscarriage. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the midwives, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that midwife delivery caused the stillbirth.The superior court found that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to establish proximate cause, a necessary element in informed consent claims. The court noted that the plaintiffs needed to show both that they would not have consented to the treatment if properly informed and that the treatment caused the injury. The midwives presented expert testimony indicating that their care did not cause the stillbirth, and the plaintiffs failed to rebut this with their own expert evidence.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court's summary judgment in favor of the midwives. The court held that the plaintiffs did not present admissible evidence to dispute the midwives' expert opinion that the stillbirth was caused by an infection unrelated to the midwives' care. The court also affirmed the superior court's award of enhanced attorney’s fees to the midwives, finding that the plaintiffs engaged in vexatious or bad faith conduct during the litigation. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' failure to provide necessary expert testimony on causation was fatal to their claims. View "Goodwin v. Mat-Su Midwifery, Inc." on Justia Law

David Bourne was diagnosed with chronic anxiety, major depressive disorder, and chronic low back pain by Dr. Zidrieck Valdes in 2015. Valdes prescribed Klonopin and an opioid. In 2019, Valdes informed Bourne of new CDC guidelines against concurrent use of these medications and switched Bourne to Buspar. Bourne experienced withdrawal symptoms and refused a referral to an in-patient drug treatment facility. Despite reporting stress and receiving a half-dose emergency prescription of Klonopin, Bourne showed no signs of withdrawal or suicidal ideation in subsequent visits. In November 2019, Bourne died by suicide, leaving a note blaming the medication changes.Bourne's wife and child sued Valdes for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in not tapering off Klonopin. Their expert, Dr. Donald A. Misch, supported this claim. Valdes moved for summary judgment, arguing that suicide is a superseding cause that precludes liability. The district court agreed, citing the "suicide rule" and granted summary judgment, stating Valdes had no control over Bourne.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that a patient's suicide does not automatically preclude liability for medical malpractice. The court emphasized that established medical malpractice principles should apply, and whether a medical provider's negligence led to a patient's suicide is a factual question for the jury. The court found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on the "suicide rule" and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bourne v. Valdes" on Justia Law

In this case, Claudia Kennedy, as the executor of Donald R. Gerres's estate, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Western Reserve Senior Care and Dr. Sataya Acharya, among others, alleging that substandard medical care led to Gerres's death in October 2013. Kennedy initially filed the lawsuit in September 2014, voluntarily dismissed it in January 2019, and refiled it within a year.The trial court denied the healthcare providers' motion for judgment on the pleadings, which argued that the four-year statute of repose for medical claims barred Kennedy's refiled action. However, after the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Durrani, which held that the saving statute does not preserve claims refiled after the statute of repose expires, the healthcare providers sought summary judgment. The trial court denied this motion but later granted a directed verdict in favor of the healthcare providers after Kennedy's opening statements.Kennedy appealed to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, arguing that R.C. 2305.15(A) tolled the statute of repose because Dr. Acharya had moved out of Ohio. The Eleventh District affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that applying the tolling statute to Dr. Acharya, who left Ohio for legitimate business purposes, violated the dormant Commerce Clause.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that R.C. 2305.15(A) does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause as applied to a physician who moved out of Ohio to practice medicine in another state. The court found that the tolling statute serves a legitimate local purpose and does not impose a burden on interstate commerce that is clearly excessive in relation to its benefits. The judgment of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Kennedy v. W. Res. Senior Care" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, the decedent's son and Administrator of her estate, filed a negligence, medical malpractice, and wrongful death lawsuit in the Supreme Court, New York County, against Dewitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center and other defendants. The decedent was a resident at Dewitt in February and March 2019. Dewitt moved to transfer the venue to Nassau County based on a forum selection clause in two electronically signed admission agreements. Dewitt supported its motion with the agreements and an affidavit from its director of admissions, Francesca Trimarchi. The plaintiff contested the authenticity of the agreements, claiming the signatures were forged and provided an exemplar of the decedent's handwritten signature for comparison.The Supreme Court granted Dewitt's motion, finding that Dewitt met its initial burden to show the forum selection clause was applicable and enforceable, and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the alleged forgery. The case was ordered to be transferred to Supreme Court, Nassau County. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Dewitt failed to adequately authenticate the admission agreements as Trimarchi did not witness the signing, and thus the forum selection clause was unenforceable. The dissent argued that the burden should be on the plaintiff to prove the clause should not be enforced.The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the Appellate Division's decision, reinstating the Supreme Court's order. The court held that Dewitt met its burden of establishing the authenticity of the agreements through circumstantial evidence, including Trimarchi's affidavit and the agreements themselves. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the authenticity of the signatures. The court also clarified that CPLR 4539(b) was inapplicable as the documents were originally created in electronic form. The certified question was answered in the negative. View "Knight v New York & Presbyt. Hosp." on Justia Law

A baby, S.K., was injured during labor and delivery, allegedly due to the negligence of the delivering doctor, Dr. Goodman, who used a Mityvac obstetrical vacuum delivery system. The plaintiff, S.K.'s conservator, claimed that the use of the vacuum caused brain damage to S.K. and sought damages from Dr. Goodman’s employer, Obstetric & Gynecologic Associates of Iowa City and Coralville, P.C. (the clinic).A jury in the Iowa District Court for Johnson County found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding substantial damages. The clinic appealed, arguing that the district court erred in admitting a package insert from the vacuum, which contained hearsay statements about when the vacuum should not be used and potential harms from its use. The clinic contended that the insert's admission violated Iowa’s hearsay rule and prejudiced the trial's outcome.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the clinic. The court found that the package insert contained hearsay and did not fit within any recognized exceptions, including the residual exception and the market reports exception. The court noted that the insert's admission was prejudicial, as it directly addressed a central dispute in the case and was emphasized in the plaintiff's closing argument. The court concluded that the erroneous admission of the insert deprived the clinic of a fair trial.The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The court also addressed a procedural issue raised by the clinic regarding the plaintiff's certificate of merit affidavit, ultimately denying the clinic's motion to reverse on those grounds. View "S.K. v. Obstetric & Gynecologic Associates of Iowa City and Coralville, P.C." on Justia Law

In February 2013, the decedent was admitted to Elmcrest Care Center, suffering from Parkinson’s disease, dysphagia, and dementia. On August 4, 2017, he was found nonresponsive and later died in the hospital. The Estate of Jose de Jesus Ortiz, represented by Ericka Ortiz, filed a civil action against Elmcrest and its staff for elder abuse, neglect, negligence, willful misconduct, and fraud, alleging that their failure to provide necessary care led to his death. The trial court compelled arbitration based on an agreement signed upon the decedent’s admission.The arbitrator issued a First Interim Award on March 30, 2022, finding that the Estate did not meet its burden of proof on any claims. The award allowed for further submissions to address any omitted issues. The Estate requested an amendment, arguing the arbitrator had omitted damages for pre-death loss of dignity. The arbitrator issued a Second Interim Award on May 26, 2022, awarding $100,000 in damages for pre-death pain and suffering. Respondents moved to vacate this award, arguing the First Interim Award was final. The arbitrator denied the motion, stating the First Interim Award was not final and had omitted a necessary issue.The trial court initially denied the Estate’s petition to vacate the First Interim Award, ruling it was not final. However, it later vacated the Final Award and confirmed the First Interim Award, finding the First Interim Award had resolved all necessary issues. The Estate appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s order, holding that the First Interim Award was not final as it expressly reserved jurisdiction for further proceedings. The court directed the trial court to confirm the Final Award issued on September 30, 2022, which included the damages for pre-death pain and suffering. View "Ortiz v. Elmcrest Care Center, LLC" on Justia Law