Boston Wrongful Death Lawyer

CASE SUMMARY:

Our Boston medical malpractice attorneys handled a case where the decedent was admitted to a medical facility following difficulties she was experiencing at home caring for herself. When she was admitted, it was noted that she had a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and was taking Methotrexate once weekly for management of her condition.

The decedent was doing reasonably well until October 2011 when she developed a sore throat and swelling about her lips. It was ultimately discovered that instead of receiving her weekly dose of Methotrxate, she had been receiving the medication daily for 8 consecutive days.

The investigation revealed that the nursing supervisor had changed the time of the administration of her Methotrexate so that it would be consolidated with other medications she was receiving. In doing so, however, the nursing manager failed to notice that when she changed the time of the administration, the pharmacy computer’s software program defaulted to a daily administration.

The order was electronically delivered to the outside pharmacy, which failed to notice the error and instead, approved and filled the order. The following day, the decedent began receiving the first of her eight consecutive doses of this toxic medication. None of the nurses that administered the medication had checked the medical chart (as required) to confirm when the decedent received her last dose of the medication. Also, one of the nurses that administered the majority of the consecutive Methotrexate doses was unaware of the therapeutic dosing frequency of the medication.

Even when the decedent complained of a sore throat and lip swelling, none of the nursing staff investigated the cause, but rather administered Benadryl and Tylenol to aid with symptom relief.

Finally, following her eighth consecutive dose, the nursing staff realized their error and she was transported to a nearby hospital for treatment. Unfortunately, by the time she arrived, the extent of the overdose was severe and she was unable to recover.

From October 20 – November 8, the decedent remained in the ICU department. She was conscious during most of this time and endured significant conscious pain and suffering prior to her death.

The decedent was the matriarch of a very close Italian family and her loss was felt by all the family members, especially her daughter with whom she lived with for many years before being placed in the medical facility, and her two sons.

Claims were pursued against the medical personnel and facility involved in this systemic breakdown that allowed myriad errors to compound, resulting in the decedent’s untimely death. Claims were also pursued against the outside pharmacy that received and approved the order for the daily doses of the medication, based on the flaws in their computer software program that allowed for the inadvertent change from weekly to daily dosing when a change in the time of the administration of the drug was entered.

The parties engaged in the pre-litigation discovery and then mediated the case. However, issues over the validity and effect of Indemnification Agreements between the defendants created insurmountable obstacles to the resolution of the case that day.

Ultimately, with the continued assistance of the mediator, the indemnification issues were resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, resulting in a settlement.

CASE SUMMARY:

The decedent, a 36-year-old male, was transported to the Emergency Room involuntarily and subsequently admitted to the Emergency Department pursuant to M.G.L. c. 123, sec. 12. Upon arrival, the decedent was examined by an emergency room physician and two psychiatric clinicians. The plan, following the patient’s evaluation, was to transfer the patient, pursuant to Section 12, to a secure inpatient psychiatric unit as soon as a bed was available. Unfortunately, no bed was available so the patient/decedent remained in the Emergency Room with security observing him overnight.

The next morning the hospital nursing staff and psychiatric clinician found him to be calm and cooperative. Following a discussion with the decedent, the psychiatric clinician spoke with one of the two emergency room physicians on duty. One of the two emergency room physicians authorized the discharge of the decedent to a non-Section 12 psychiatric facility. The emergency room physician never examined the decedent and never spoke with him prior to authorizing the discharge. While the identity of the physician who authorized the discharge was never confirmed, it was undisputed that one of the two on-duty emergency room physicians that morning had authorized the discharge. The two physicians on duty were identified through the printed “rotation schedule.” The following morning, the decedent escaped from the non-section 12 psychiatric facilities and died.

The Estate alleged that the practice group that employed the two physicians on duty at the time the decedent was discharged was vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employee. The plaintiff alleged that the physician who authorized the discharge breached the standard of care when the physician discharged him to an inappropriate facility. The plaintiff, through expert testimony, established that at a minimum a qualified medical professional, pursuant to Section 12, was required to evaluate the decedent to determine whether he remained in need of Section 12 protection. The plaintiff’s experts all testified that the psychiatric clinician that examined the decedent was not a qualified medical professional as required by the statute. As a result of the inappropriate discharge, the decedent was in an inadequate facility from which he escaped and died within twenty-four hours of his discharge from the hospital.

The defense focused on the alleged change in the decedent’s condition on the date of discharge. The defense further argued that the change in the condition of the decedent warranted a lifting and/or withdrawal of the Section 12 order issued the prior day.

The case was tried before a fourteen (14) member jury for seven days. The jury was out for approximately twelve hours before returning a verdict in favor of the decedent’s estate and against the Emergency Room Practice Group.

Find Out If You Have A Wrongful Death Case

To find out more information about Massachusetts wrongful death law and evaluate your case, contact us for a free confidential case review and receive a response within hours, or call (617) 886-0500. If you need a lawyer outside of Massachusetts, contact us for a referral.