Medical Malpractice: $650,000.00
Plaintiff, age 45 and unemployed, was admitted to Defendant hospital with breathing difficulties. Plaintiff refused medication because she claimed to have quit using IV amphetamines two weeks prior to her hospital admission and did not want needles used to administer medication. On two occasions, Plaintiff complained of pain in her lower left leg, and examinations revealed positive pedal pulses and appropriate vascularization. Plaintiff was in inpatient for five days prior to discharge, however defendant alleged that plaintiff eloped prior to formal discharge. Three days later, Plaintiff returned to the hospital complaining of severe pain in her left lower leg. A Doppler examination revealed poor vascularization. Plaintiff again refused medication. A course of urokinase was attempted, but unsuccessful, and emergency surgery was performed in an attempt to re-establish vascularization to both legs. Although re-vascularization was established, the right leg became ischemic, and after several hours it became apparent that both legs were ischemic. The surgery was not successful, and Plaintiff’s left leg was amputated at the knee. Plaintiff alleged that it was noted at the conclusion of the surgery that the right leg had become ischemic, and efforts to re-vascularize the right lower leg were not successful and it was also amputated. Plaintiff contended that the doctors who first examined her failed to properly diagnose the developing ischemia in Plaintiff’s left leg, and that the timely diagnosis would have prevented the need for surgical intervention. Plaintiff also contended that the retention strap to Plaintiff’s right leg was too tightly applied during the lengthy second surgery on the left leg, which led to the ischemia and eventual amputation of the right leg. Defendants contended there was no failure to diagnose a vascular condition during Plaintiff’s first admission, and the Plaintiff was a non-compliant patient who refused medication and refused to cooperated with physicians during her first admission; that during her two days away from the hospital, Plaintiff used IV drugs and was under the influence when she presented to the hospital the second time, when she again was non-compliant and refused medication. Defendant contended that Plaintiff’s ischemia was due to other factors, and that Plaintiff’s initial refusal of medication and delay of administration of the medication contributed to a worsening of the vascular compromise in her legs, that both legs were amputated below the knee following surgery, and later amputated above the knee.
The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.