Malpractice and Tort Law

Tort Law One recent case of medical malpractice settled under tort law was that of Larkin v Dedham Medical Associates, which was concluded in 2015 in Norfolk Superior Court in Massachusetts. In this case, Larkin suffered a stroke hours after giving birth, and was paralyzed from the waist down as a result of this stroke. Prior to the stroke, Larkin has run in the Boston Marathon, but suffered dizzy spells thereafter, and was admitted to Dedham Medical Associates with those symptoms.

At this time, she was given MRI and CAT scans, which showed brain abnormalities. As such, Dedham was required to put Larkin on a "special list of patients with certain medical conditions that other doctors can access" (Andersen, 2015). However, her name was not put into this database. As such, her obstetrician was not aware of her brain issues. Had this information been known, Larkin would have been given a caesarian section because it would have been dangerous for her to be in labor.

However, this did not occur and she went through labor, having a massive stroke shortly thereafter. The physician, Dr. Johnson, had erred on other occasions, it was found. The imaging had revealed a large venous varix on the left side of her brain and an aneurysm on the right side. This was in 2004. In 2005, Larkin had returned to seek treatment regarding what was now ongoing dizziness. The same things were found in imaging. Larkin was to return for further imaging in 2006. There was dispute about this -- that Dr.

Johnson did not order the imaging this time, or that he did but Larkin did not return to the clinic. In either case, the imaging was not done in 2006, nor was Larkin entered into the database. It was found that the OB/GYN office regularly checked Larkin's medical records, but Dr. Johnson had not reported the brain abnormalities to the appropriate records, so the OB/GYN did not know about the brain problems. During labor, a clot formed in the venous varix, leading to a severe hemorrhagic stroke.

It was found that, in addition to the failure to enter the information into the medical database, Dr. Johnson had not discussed the importance of the findings about Larkin's brain with her or her husband, so that they did not know the significance of those findings, and thus did not report them to the OB/GYN either. Dedham Medical Associates house policy demanded that Dr. Johnson put these problems into Larkin's files, but Dr.

Johnson had repeatedly failed to do so, and as such Larkin was subject to natural birth which would not otherwise have been the case. The defense argued that the error was with the OB/GYN's office. The defense argued that they were under obligation to review the entire medical records, not just the problem list. Had they done so, they would have noted the brain abnormalities, which were filed in Larkin's general file.

Thus, the defense argued that the OB/GYN's office failed to provide adequate standard of care, while the plaintiff's lawyers argued that it was Dr. Johnson who failed to provide adequate standard of care, relating to the filing of the information about Larkin's brain. The defense further argued that Larkin, having not seen Dr. Johnson in over a year, did not inform Dr. Johnson about the fact that she was pregnant (VerdictSearch.com, 2016). The case was heard by jury. The jury ruled for the plaintiff, and awarded Larkin $35.4 million.

This was calculated on the basis of a variety of factors, including past medical cost, loss of parental relationship, future medical cost, lost earnings, pain and suffering and loss of consortium for the husband, Timothy Larkin. The final judgment is expected to total over $41.2 million with prejudgment interest (VerdictSearch.com, 2016). In this situation, the plaintiff's had the best argument. Dr. Johnson had not only failed in his duty to the client, but performed against the regulations of his employer. Had Dr.

Johnson followed Dedham policy, he would have input the information about the brain abnormalities in Larkin's problem file, not just the general file. The original error that precipitated this situation was with Dr. Johnson, and the fact that it was against policy as well as duty of care lent a strong case to the plaintiff. The defendant's point about the OB/GYN's lack of due diligence is a fair point, but represents deflection of blame more than anything: they were not obligated to look at that information.

The defendant's attempt to cast blame on the plaintiff, who has lost control of most body function, was heroically stupid in a jury trial. The strength of the plaintiff's argument was bolstered by Dr. Johnson not following policy, and ultimately they were able to successful draw a chain of events that led back to Dr. Johnson. It was interesting that they did not sue the OB/GYN office. Did this signify that they genuinely felt Dr. Johnson was responsible, or just that there was a better case there.

Or that Dedham was better able to pay because this amount was within its insurance policy? That this was not a shotgun approach, but a focused suit against Dr. Johnson, probably helped frame the plaintiff's argument. For its part, the defense did not have a strong argument. It could not demonstrate that the OB/GYN's.