Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [infoguys-list] could Mr. Scott be saved?

Expand Messages
  • karousel
    First of all, you have to start out with the scientific theory of cause and effect . The effect are the symptoms presenting themselves (upper abdominal
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      First of all, you have to start out with the scientific theory of "cause and
      effect". The "effect" are the symptoms presenting themselves (upper
      abdominal pain and nausea) and the "cause" is what the emergency room has to
      determine and stabilize.

      I am not a doctor, but

      (1) I do know there are many conditions that can cause upper abdominal pain
      and nausea.

      (2) Also, I am not familiar with what many tests can determine. For
      example, an ultrasound of the abdominal area may not show something that a
      CT scan or MRI of the abdominal area can show.

      >>>> The hospital did an ultrasound of his abdomen and told him he was fine
      and was given pepcid. <<<
      This test indicated there was no problem (that can be determined from that
      TYPE of test) coming from the abdominal area. OK. Then why give him pepcid
      and send him home? The ultrasound apparently was not the appropriate test
      to diagnose his symptoms - but OK, they were able to eliminate one of the
      very many possibilities. They still have not determined what the man's
      problem is...and sent him home.



      >>>> Several weeks later, Mr. S went back to the hospital this time with
      terrible chest pains, and shortness of breath. Several tests were done at
      the hospital to determine whether Mr. S was having a heart attack.
      The tests, including an x-ray, stress test, EKG, cardiac enzymes all came
      back normal. An echocardiogram was not done and the cardiologist never asked
      the patient to follow up with him. After being discharged Mr. S still felt
      horrible. He continued to have chest pain and shortness of breath.<<<

      Mr. S. should have never been discharged from the hospital. He should have
      been admitted and testing should have continued until his problem was
      diagnosed. Chest pains and shortness of breath are life-threatening
      symptoms. An echocardiogram should have been done and the cardiologist
      should have followed up with him.

      This scenario only mentions specific tests,. However, only another doctor
      can be more specific as they would know what OTHER tests are available to
      rule out specific problems. If there are other diagnostic tests available
      and those other tests were not ordered, then there is negligence.


      >>>He continued to have chest pain and shortness of breath.Mr. S called his
      primary care physician(PCP) who did not call back the cardiologist but
      instead called a gastroenteroligist.<<<

      The PCP should have an idea of the many conditions that would cause the
      symptoms Mr. S. had. He should have known that there were other tests
      available to check for other heart CONDITIONS. A heart attack is one of
      MANY heart conditions although it should have been re-checked. He, too,
      IMO, was negligent.


      >>> The PCP believed that Mr. S had a complete cardiology work-up at Sands
      Hospital but did not have the records at the time of making the referral to
      the gastroenterologist <<<

      He ASS-U-MEd incorrectly. The tests Mr. S. DID have is NOT a complete
      cardiac work-up. He made decisions that were not based on his patient's
      medical records - which he did not have possession of. The PCP could have
      easily called Sands Hospital and had the records faxed to him so he could
      make an educated decision - not a poor presumption.


      >>>> Several months went by and now Mr. S was short of breath, fatigued,
      loss of balance and dizzy. He went back to Sands hospital. Sands told him
      they didn't know what was going on, all of his tests were normal. <<<
      Negligence/malpractice. Were these tests current tests done with this new
      ER visit? Whatever tests were "normal", obviously not the appropriate tests
      to diagnose an ongoing problem that is life threatening in nature. Hello!
      Anyone home? They should have pursued it, obviously. They should have
      gotten their heads out of their ........ and should have done work-ups in
      other areas. With the symptoms possibly being cardiac, Mr. S. should have
      received all tests available and exhausted them all to determine there was
      NOTHING wrong with his heart and simultaneously, should have been tested in
      other areas where his symptoms could be produced by other organs or
      conditions.


      An MRI of the brain is OK, as long as it would have been done simultaneously
      with other tests.


      >>>> An EKG was done during this visit which showed an old heart attack.<<<
      It has to be determined if the original EKG could have missed a heart attack
      (when he was first complaining of the symptoms) or if this occurred SINCE
      then, and obviously missed during his subsequent doctor/ER visits because it
      was assumed it wasn't his heart. (negligence)


      >>>> By this time Mr. S was not able to work or drive. The PCP put him on
      anti depressants, Mr. S told him he wasn't' depressed. In December of the
      same year, Mr. Scott went back to the hospital and told them of his
      shortness of breath and his upper abdominal pain. Sands' ER doctors told him
      his was fine and to take some more pepcid.<<<

      Sure, when in doubt - when you can't or don't figure out what is wrong with
      a patient, call it DEPRESSION, fill him up with pills and what the heck,
      some pepcid too.


      >>>> defense's experts will say:
      > A CT-scan can't accurately determine muscle size and therefore the doctor
      did not fall below the standard of care.<<<
      No, but other tests can. And omission is what killed this poor man.


      >>>> 2. The defendant's cardiologist argues that all the cardiologist was
      supposed to do in the hospital was rule out whether the patient was having a
      heart attack at the time. He is not required to do all testing in an
      emergency setting. <<<
      It is true that he is not required to do all testing in an emergency
      setting. However, the symptoms were strong enough to require a different
      evaluation. He should not have been sent home and should have been admitted
      to the hospital from the onset.

      I believe all doctors are culpable.

      wjf






      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <Jurydoctor@...>
      To: <infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: <Attorney-InformationExchange@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 12:15 PM
      Subject: [infoguys-list] could Mr. Scott be saved?


      > Mr. S. was married and had a 10 year daughter when he died.
      > On 3-22-98 Mr. Scott, a 33 year old, 245 pound security guard who was 5'6
      > went to the emergency room at Sands Hospital complaining of upper
      abdominal
      > pain and nausea.
      >
      >
      > The hospital did an ultrasound of his abdomen and told him he was fine and
      > was given pepcid.
      >
      > Several weeks later, Mr. S went back to the hospital this time with
      > terrible chest pains, and shortness of breath. Several tests were done at
      the
      > hospital to determine whether Mr. S was having a heart attack.
      >
      > The tests, including an x-ray, stress test, EKG, cardiac enzymes all came
      > back normal. An echocardiogram was not done and the cardiologist never
      asked
      > the
      > patient to follow up with him. After being discharged Mr. S still felt
      > horrible. He continued to have chest pain and shortness of breath.Mr. S
      > called his
      > primary care physician(PCP) who did not call back the cardiologist but
      > instead
      > called a gastroenteroligist.
      >
      >
      > Mr. S had told PCP what had happened at Sands hospital and advised him of
      his
      > complaints. The PCP believed that Mr. S had a complete cardiology work-up
      at
      > Sands Hospital but did not have the records at the time of making the
      > referral to the gastroenterologist
      >
      > .The gastro was told by PCP that a complete cardiac work up was done at
      > Sandler. The gastro performed tests and found that Mr. S did have some
      acid
      > refux
      > and a small hernia but it could not be the cause of all Mr. S's
      complaints.
      > Several months went by and now Mr. S was short of breath, fatigued, loss
      of
      > balance and dizzy. He went back to Sands hospital. Sands told him they
      > didn't know
      > what was going on, all of his tests were normal.
      >
      >
      > Sands' ER doctors did not call in a cardiology consult despite the fact
      that
      > many of his symptoms were cardiac in nature.
      >
      > Mr. Scott called back his PCP and went to see him. He told him of his
      > complaints and of the fact that he was also unable to sleep. The
      cardiologist
      > referred him to a neurologist. the neurologist did a brain MRI and he told
      > Mr. S he
      > was normal.
      >
      >
      > By this time Mr. S was not able to work or drive. The PCP put him on anti
      > depressants, Mr. S told him he wasn't' depressed. In December of the
      same
      > year, Mr. Scott went back to the hospital and told them of his shortness
      of
      > breath and his upper abdominal pain. Sands' ER doctors told him his was
      fine
      > and to
      > take some more pepcid.
      >
      > An EKG was done during this visit which showed an old heart attack.
      >
      > 3 days later Mr. S died of an enlarged heart caused by heart disease.
      >
      > The radiologists were sued along with PCP, the cardiologist, and the ER
      docs.
      >
      > Plaintiff's experts will testify that :
      > 1. the heart condition could have been diagnosed by a simple
      echocardiogram.
      > 2.the heart was enlarged on x-ray.
      > 3. the cardiologist should have advised patient to do echo and follow up
      > studies since he only did part of the workup in the hospital.
      > 4. The ER docs should have called in a cardiologist in September and
      > December.
      > Mr. S could have been saved if treated with medicines.
      > 5. The Medical examiner at autopsy found the heart to be enlarged.
      > CT-scan showed
      > that the heart wall muscles are enlarged. This was confirmed by
      > autopsy.
      >
      > defense's experts will say:
      > 1. The radiologists state that the heart is not enlarged. (see
      plaintiff's
      > point # 5)
      > A CT-scan can't accurately determine muscle size and therefore the doctor
      did
      > not fall below the standard of care.
      >
      >
      > The way you measure a heart on x-ray is by using a simple formula. If the
      > heart size is greater than 50% of the chest cavity it considered enlarged.
      > Our
      > expert opines that it is about 55%. Their experts state that it greater
      than
      > 50%
      > however argue that you also have to look at the overall heart size not
      just
      > the width and therefore it is not enlarged.
      >
      >
      >
      > 2. The defendant's cardiologist argues that all the cardiologist was
      supposed
      > to do in the hospital was rule out whether the patient was having a heart
      > attack at the time. He is not required to do all testing in an emergency
      > setting.
      > Had anyone told him that he was having continuing symptoms he would have
      done
      > more tests. This doctor had not instructed him to return if he had
      additional
      > symptoms and did not schedule any follow up appointments. The discharge
      > printed form given by the hospital tells him to follow up with the
      > cardiologist but
      > the cardiologist specifically told him not to follow up with him. this is
      not
      > disputed by the cardiologist. The cardiologist will by inference argue
      that
      > the other medical providers should have alerted him to the continued
      cardiac
      > symptoms.
      >
      > 3. The ER physicians will argue that since the x-ray came back normal in
      > September they had no reason to believe there was a cardiac problem. Also
      his
      > problem also resolved during the visits. In September they thought his
      > problems
      > were neurological since he also complained of loss of balance. In
      September
      > the
      > ER docs did nothing to figure out his reason for shortness of breath which
      is
      > a major cardiac symptom. Also they called the primary care physician and
      told
      > of his symptoms and it was the PCPs job to make the appropriate
      referal.The
      > main argument for the ER physicians is that the patients condition was not
      > life
      > threatening and they didn't see reason to admit. They also feel that his
      > upper
      > abdominal complaints were most likely related to his acid reflex and
      hiatal
      > hernia.
      > The PCP says he made multiple referrals to initially the cardiologist and
      > then to a gastroenterolgist then neurologist and he acted appropriately.
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > <p><hr></p>
      > To subscribe, send an empty message to <a
      href="mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-subscrib
      e@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
      > To unsubscribe, send a message to <a
      href="mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-unsubs
      cribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
      > <p><hr></p>
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.