Bookmark and Share

Special Edition Legal Case Study


Healthcare Professionals and Medical Malpractice: A Case Study with Risk Management Strategies

Medical malpractice claims can be asserted against any healthcare provider. Although there may be a perception that physicians are held responsible for the majority of lawsuits, the reality is that healthcare professionals, including physical therapists, pharmacists and counselors are more frequently finding themselves defending the care they provide.


Physical Therapist Edition

Case Study: Improper Full Spinal Deep Thrusts

This case involves a physical therapist working in a private practice setting. In this case, the patient was a 5'2", 156 lb, 54-year-old woman, who underwent a hysterectomy and afterwards began to experience low back pain. Five months after surgery the patient sought treatment for her back pain with an orthopedic surgeon who believed she was suffering from degenerative problems and prescribed physical therapy... Read the Full Case with Risk Management Recommendations
 

Read Previous Issues of the HPSO Special Edition Legal Case Study: Physical Therapist Edition

Pharmacist Edition

Case Study: Poisoning From Incorrect Anti-Fungal Medication

In this case, the insured pharmacist received an order for the plaintiff to receive intravenous Amphotericin Lipid Complex. The insured pharmacist incorrectly supplied Amphotericin B. The co-defendant pharmacy technician produced the correct labels but placed them on the incorrectly selected medication... Read the Full Case with Risk Management Recommendations
 

Read Previous Issues of the HPSO Special Edition Legal Case Study: Pharmacist Edition

Counselor Edition

Case Study: Alleged Slanderous Statements by the Defendant Regarding the Plaintiff and Alleged Improper Reporting of Privileged Health Information to the Plaintiff's Employer

The plaintiff was a 52 year old practicing physician when he was court-ordered via the state's professional resource network (PRN) to see the defendant counselor for assessment following an arrest for suspected driving under the influence (DUI)... Read the Full Case with Risk Management Recommendations
 

Read Previous Issues of the HPSO Special Edition Legal Case Study: Counselors Edition



January 2010 Legal Case Study
Man Claims E-Stimulation Machine Caused Third-Degree Burn Over Sacrum - Tenderness in Area Remains After Healing - Defendant Claims Burn Was From Use of Heating Pad at Home - Defense Verdict.

The plaintiff, about thirty-four at the time, injured his low back at work in October 2000. His employer sent him to the defendant’s facility for treatment. He was examined and prescribed physical therapy and strengthening.

The plaintiff claimed that during the second treatment session e-stimulation therapy was used and he was left unattended. The plaintiff alleged that he felt an increasing heat sensation over the treated area, which he believed was part of the treatment. The plaintiff was not provided with any means of calling for assistance and was not instructed on how to stop the e-stimulation machine or how to recognize if the treatment was going awry.

The plaintiff claimed that during that evening and the next morning he developed additional swelling and reddening of the skin over the injured area. The plaintiff went to the third physical therapy session and the facility’s doctor was called in to examine his low back. A second degree burn was diagnosed. The plaintiff claimed that the burn had developed before he used any heating pads at home and that the size of the burn was significantly smaller than the surface of his home heating pad, but very similar in size to the gel-coated electrical pad used during the e- stimulation procedure.

The plaintiff refused further treatment at the defendant facility and was referred to a plastic surgeon, who diagnosed a full-thickness third degree burn over the sacrum. Surgery was deferred in favor of allowing the burn to heal by granulation. The plaintiff also used ointments and received minor pain medications. The bum healed, but left the plaintiff with continuing tenderness. The plaintiff claimed that the location of the burn would interfere with the use of a climbing belt if the plaintiff returned to performing pole work as an electrician.

The defendant denied negligence and claimed that the plaintiff had not made any complaints at the time of the session and that there was no visual indication of a bum at the time. The defendant also maintained that it was impossible for the e-stimulation machine to have caused such a bum and that it was more likely from the plaintiffs use of a heating pad at home, which he had been instructed to do.

According to Jury Verdict Reporting Service a defense verdict was returned.

With permission from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts; Lewis Laska, Editor, 901 Church St., Nashville, TN 37203-3411, 1-800-298-6288.

Search the Archives

By Topic
By Keyword