Good case. The plaintiff expert made a lot of comments that were very questionable. Not only did he not rely on reliable literature in the subject, but he made a point to say the physician should have been overly cautious because of the patient's faith. This was strange considering that this visit was completely unrelated to GIB and her use of coumadin, and ER doc is not the one who chose to put an 88 yo woman with dementia and anti blood beliefs on coumadin. I also find it unlikely that her faith came up since patient wasn't even able to provide any meaningful history due to her underlying dementia. This was a weak case at best, but it is concerning an "expert" would manipulate the literature and/or only look at one study in order to make the lawyer happy.
Old frail lady who’s anti-blood religious, on anticoagulants , passed away because of bleeding internally due to anticoagulants, why did any lawyer decided to take up this case???
How does a claim like this occur? A frail sick elderly woman on anticoagulation who wont have a transfusion dying from a GI bleed is completely unremarkable. Who thought to attribute this to an obscure (and probably insignificant) drug interaction?
I disagree, based on the info provided, with the decision to prescribe the Z pak. I think we over treat viral URI, and that sounds like what this is. Having said that, this lawsuit is ridiculous. The patient was EIGHTY EIGHT for crying out loud, and the doctor even told the family that the INR was elevated! I guess documentation wise it’s a good idea to have it in the chart somewhere but luckily the family was honest about that. Ridiculous case, and the plaintiffs “expert” is clearly a hack and honestly I would favor naming and shaming such people to discourage the practice.
Any thoughts or comments on the fact that the Jehovah's Witness was okay with getting KCentra which is a human blood product, but not transfusions? I find it interesting that FFP is genereally consented for as a blood products and typically refused by JWs but this one was apparently okay with KCentra?
Is the repeated “I assume” by the plaintiff expert for describing factual events in the patient history normal in certain sectors? I don’t think I’ve seen it before and it struck me as odd.
I’m a bit surprised that it made it to trial given the testimony that the family was counseled about the Coumadin (TV law drama in real life?) and that, at the age of 88, potential damages shouldn’t be that high?
Was this case in TX? Typically the lawyers wouldn’t chase after a questionable mishap on an 88 yo with dementia. Just curious as the woman lived right across the border.
Good case. The plaintiff expert made a lot of comments that were very questionable. Not only did he not rely on reliable literature in the subject, but he made a point to say the physician should have been overly cautious because of the patient's faith. This was strange considering that this visit was completely unrelated to GIB and her use of coumadin, and ER doc is not the one who chose to put an 88 yo woman with dementia and anti blood beliefs on coumadin. I also find it unlikely that her faith came up since patient wasn't even able to provide any meaningful history due to her underlying dementia. This was a weak case at best, but it is concerning an "expert" would manipulate the literature and/or only look at one study in order to make the lawyer happy.
My takeaway: be very careful with anticoagulation. Document discussions and risks/benefits.
Old frail lady who’s anti-blood religious, on anticoagulants , passed away because of bleeding internally due to anticoagulants, why did any lawyer decided to take up this case???
How does a claim like this occur? A frail sick elderly woman on anticoagulation who wont have a transfusion dying from a GI bleed is completely unremarkable. Who thought to attribute this to an obscure (and probably insignificant) drug interaction?
I disagree, based on the info provided, with the decision to prescribe the Z pak. I think we over treat viral URI, and that sounds like what this is. Having said that, this lawsuit is ridiculous. The patient was EIGHTY EIGHT for crying out loud, and the doctor even told the family that the INR was elevated! I guess documentation wise it’s a good idea to have it in the chart somewhere but luckily the family was honest about that. Ridiculous case, and the plaintiffs “expert” is clearly a hack and honestly I would favor naming and shaming such people to discourage the practice.
Any thoughts or comments on the fact that the Jehovah's Witness was okay with getting KCentra which is a human blood product, but not transfusions? I find it interesting that FFP is genereally consented for as a blood products and typically refused by JWs but this one was apparently okay with KCentra?
Is the repeated “I assume” by the plaintiff expert for describing factual events in the patient history normal in certain sectors? I don’t think I’ve seen it before and it struck me as odd.
I’m a bit surprised that it made it to trial given the testimony that the family was counseled about the Coumadin (TV law drama in real life?) and that, at the age of 88, potential damages shouldn’t be that high?
Was this case in TX? Typically the lawyers wouldn’t chase after a questionable mishap on an 88 yo with dementia. Just curious as the woman lived right across the border.