In medical-malpractice cases or any type of legal case for that matter the divide between plaintiff and defense is as wide as a football field. You’re taught from day one in law school that the opposing counsel is the enemy and in order to win the case for your client, you must treat the other side as such. But when it comes to medical-malpractice cases, what if it were different? What if both sides could work together presuit to define and clarify the issues that exist between the patient and the health-care provider?
A 70-year-old man, who was previously rendered paraplegic by a work-related injury, was admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of colonic obstruction. Surgery in the nature of reduction of sigmoid volvulus, sigmoid resection and creation of end colostomy was performed. During the next five post-operative days, the patient experienced abdominal distension, dark red stoma and severe pain, with virtually no stool emanating from the ostomy tube. An abdominal X-ray was taken five days after surgery that showed continued colonic distension with gas, but considered the possibility of either residual obstruction or post-op ileus a partial or complete blockage of the bowel that prevents the content of the intestine from passing through. All residents and attending physicians agreed that this represented a post-op ileus without any other clarifying studies. Finally, on day seven, a new attending surgeon ordered a CT examination. The patient was immediately taken back to surgery, where the surgeon confirmed that the ostomy connection was to the rectum as opposed to the proximal colon. Corrective surgery was performed that day, as well as three other subsequent corrective surgeries, but the patient unfortunately died two months later. The causes on the death certificate were cardiopulmonary arrest, end organ failure, sepsis and abdominal/peritoneal infection.
