|
|
|
    | ||
|
|
|
     | ||
| ||
| ||
|
|
|
 |
   |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Twelve days after the cardiologist for the 56-year-old plaintiff performed the catheterization—a minimally invasive procedure in which a medical team inserts a catheter into an artery in the patient’s groin, enabling doctors to observe the coronary arteries for diagnostic purposes—the patient visited the emergency room of the hospital complaining of pain at the point of insertion. After examining the patient, Schuyler Roche’s client observed not a single complication, such as infection or vascular compromise, and therefore considered the pain a normal postoperative complaint. She prescribed pain medication and instructed the patient to return to the emergency department if his condition worsened. The patient returned to the hospital two days later when Schuyler Roche’s second codefendant saw him. The patient’s situation had deteriorated significantly since his previous emergency room visit; his right leg had swelled, and he was unable to walk. Diagnosing the condition as a deep vein thrombosis, or blood clot, our second codefendant admitted the patient to the hospital immediately, after which several other caregivers took over: the patient’s internist and cardiologist and various interns and residents from the hospital. Nearly three weeks after receiving the catheterization, the patient no longer had blood flow to his right leg. In an effort to reestablish blood flow, a vascular surgeon performed a graft procedure, which initially succeeded. Some two weeks later, however, the graft “blew out,” compelling doctors to amputate the right leg. In filing suit, counsel for the plaintiff alleged that Schuyler Roche’s clients and the other caregivers—although having correctly diagnosed the deep vein thrombosis—had failed to diagnose and treat in a timely manner an infection in the plaintiff’s femoral artery, failure that led to the loss of blood flow in his right leg and its subsequent amputation. Arguing on behalf of the two emergency room physicians, Schuyler Roche’s Charles Cole emphasized that the patient did not lose blood flow to the right leg until nearly a week after the second emergency room visit, during which Schuyler Roche’s client had been the first to diagnose the deep vein thrombosis and, suspecting an arterial problem, had ordered an arterial blood flow study. Cole and Juarez also effectively established that during the first emergency room visit, the plaintiff did not exhibit any signs or symptoms—fever, infection, swelling, walking difficulty—requiring further testing or admittance. After a six-week trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, an attorney for the plaintiff concluded his closing argument by asking the jury to award a verdict of $17 million in favor of his client. Following two-and-a-half days of deliberation, the jury entered guilty verdicts against the hospital, based on the conduct of its employees, and against the cardiologist, demanding a $3.5 million award from those defendants. Conversely, the jury found Schuyler Roche’s codefendants, as well as the internist, not guilty. Speculating on the split verdicts, Richard Juarez says, “Weighing the evidence, the jury rightly concluded that the treatment rendered by the emergency room doctors had been appropriate. After the second emergency room visit in which one of our clients correctly diagnosed the blood clot and admitted the patient to the hospital, however, the jury obviously felt more aggressive care was warranted as the patient’s pain, swelling and signs of infection quickly increased.” Charles Cole concludes, “Our clients’ actions were entirely defensible and, at the time, in the best interests of the patient; I am grateful we succeeded in establishing the facts and in proving our case to the jury.”
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
©2001-2008 Schuyler Roche, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |