Larkin v Dedham Medical Associates: Tort Law Malpractice Case
This paper examines the 2015 medical malpractice case Larkin v Dedham Medical Associates, decided in Norfolk Superior Court, Massachusetts. The plaintiff suffered a catastrophic hemorrhagic stroke during labor — leaving her paralyzed from the waist down — after her treating physician, Dr. Johnson, repeatedly failed to enter critical brain abnormality findings into the appropriate medical database and patient problem file. The paper reviews the facts of the case, evaluates the arguments presented by both plaintiff and defense, and assesses the jury's $35.4 million verdict. It concludes that the plaintiff's argument was stronger, supported by Dr. Johnson's dual failure to follow both his professional duty of care and his employer's internal documentation policies.
- Introduction and Case Overview: Background on the 2015 Massachusetts malpractice case
- Facts and Medical Background: Chronology of Larkin's treatment and physician errors
- The Arguments: Plaintiff vs. Defense: Competing legal claims over standard of care
- The Jury's Verdict and Damages: $35.4 million verdict and damages breakdown
- Analysis: Evaluating the Strength of Each Argument: Critical assessment of plaintiff and defense positions
- Implications for Duty of Care in Medical Practice: Broader lessons on documentation and physician duty
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its legal analysis in specific, well-documented case facts, enabling a clear chain of causation from the physician's negligence to the plaintiff's injury.
- It evaluates both sides of the argument with appropriate critical distance, acknowledging the defense's partial validity while explaining why it ultimately fails.
- The concluding reflection on the broader implications for duty of care — extending it to medical documentation, not just bedside care — adds analytical depth beyond mere case summary.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses a real case to illustrate an abstract legal concept — the scope of duty of care under tort law. By tracing how a clerical/documentation failure constitutes medical negligence, it demonstrates how legal liability is assessed holistically rather than narrowly, a technique common in law and applied ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a case overview, moves through the detailed medical chronology, presents the opposing legal arguments, discusses the verdict, and closes with a normative assessment of who had the stronger case and what the outcome implies for medical practice. This mirrors the structure of a legal case brief adapted for academic analysis.
Introduction and Case Overview
One recent case of medical malpractice settled under tort law was 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. The case ultimately resulted in a jury verdict of $35.4 million in favor of the plaintiff, drawing attention to the scope of physician responsibility for patient documentation and inter-office communication.
Facts and Medical Background
Prior to the stroke, Larkin had run in the Boston Marathon, but subsequently suffered dizzy spells and was admitted to Dedham Medical Associates with those symptoms. At that time, she was given MRI and CAT scans, which revealed brain abnormalities. As a result, Dedham was required to place Larkin on a "special list of patients with certain medical conditions that other doctors can access" (Andersen, 2015). However, her name was never entered into this database. Consequently, her obstetrician was unaware of her brain issues. Had this information been known, Larkin would have been given a caesarean section, since natural labor would have been dangerous given her condition. This did not occur, and she went through labor, suffering a massive stroke shortly thereafter.
The treating physician, Dr. Johnson, was found to have erred on multiple occasions. Imaging had revealed a large venous varix on the left side of her brain and an aneurysm on the right side — findings first documented in 2004. In 2005, Larkin returned to seek treatment for ongoing dizziness, and the same abnormalities were again identified through imaging. She was scheduled to return for further imaging in 2006. There was dispute over what occurred next: either Dr. Johnson did not order the imaging that year, or he did but Larkin did not return to the clinic. In either case, the imaging was not performed in 2006, and Larkin was still not entered into the medical database.
It was established that the OB/GYN office regularly reviewed Larkin's medical records, but Dr. Johnson had not reported the brain abnormalities to the appropriate records, so the OB/GYN remained unaware of the problem. During labor, a clot formed in the venous varix, leading to a severe hemorrhagic stroke.
Furthermore, in addition to his failure to enter the information into the medical database, Dr. Johnson had not discussed the significance of the brain findings with Larkin or her husband. As a result, they did not understand the implications of those findings and therefore did not report them to the OB/GYN. Dedham Medical Associates' internal policy required Dr. Johnson to enter these problems into Larkin's files, but he repeatedly failed to do so. Consequently, Larkin underwent a natural birth that would not otherwise have been permitted.
The Arguments: Plaintiff vs. Defense
The defense argued that the error lay with the OB/GYN's office. According to the defense, the OB/GYN was obligated to review the patient's entire medical record, not merely the problem list. Had they done so, they would have noted the brain abnormalities, which were filed in Larkin's general file. The defense therefore contended that the OB/GYN's office failed to provide an adequate standard of care. The plaintiff's attorneys countered that it was Dr. Johnson who had failed the standard of care by not properly filing the critical information about Larkin's brain condition in the designated location. The defense also argued that, having not seen Dr. Johnson in over a year, Larkin herself did not inform him that she was pregnant (VerdictSearch.com, 2016).
References
Andersen, R. (2015). 7 years after stroke, paralyzed woman awarded $35 m. Boston Globe. Retrieved April 6, 2016 from https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/05/07/walpole-woman-awarded-million-medical-malpractice-case-lawyer-says/yxUOo2yzRNBZtVOzZSdvjL/story.html
VerdictSearch.com (2016). Suit: Doctor's failure to report brain abnormality led to stroke. VerdictSearch.com. Retrieved April 6, 2016 from http://verdictsearch.com/verdict/suit-doctors-failure-to-report-brain-abnormality-led-to-stroke/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.