|
One Doctor sues another Doctor
posted at 21/6/2012 6:29 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 963
First: 15/7/2011 Last: 24/5/2013 |
Miss T was three years old when she injured her right eye whilst playing with a stick. Six hours after the injury she was seen by Mr F, consultant ophthalmologist. He found a superficial laceration of the cornea containing purulent slough in its floor and margin. There was oedema, conjunctival congestion and evidence of pus in the anterior chamber. Mr F felt that the globe was perforated and contained a foreign body. In the presence of infection, his preferred course was to treat with oral and topical antibiotics, with a view to later surgical exploration. Miss T’s mum, a medical practitioner, attended with Miss T, and Mr F explained his opinion and plan to her. Mr F reviewed Miss T the next day, about 15 hours after the original injury and arranged to examine Miss T’s eye under general anaesthetic, after she had been starved. At operation he found a perforating conjunctivalscleral tear and removed a 2cm splinter from the eye. He repaired the tear and applied conjunctival gentamicin. Miss T did well and by the seventh postoperative day all inflammation had resolved and the tear had healed nicely. To Mr F’s surprise, a claim alleging negligence was brought by Miss T’s family. He was accused of ‘examining the eye roughly with a torch, when he knew this to be inadequate’, of failing to examine the eye in theatre under general anaesthesia, subjecting Miss T to unnecessary ‘torture’ by directing torchlight at the eye, failing to diagnose a perforation and foreign body, giving the wrong treatment and delaying removal of the splinter for 22 hours. |
|
|
Re: One Doctor sues another Doctor
posted at 21/6/2012 8:03 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 1790
First: 7/3/2009 Last: 24/5/2013 |
No, I don't think so. A decision was made by the opthalmologist about a course of treatment, first conservative. the next day according to further examination, surgical.. It seems from your description that he explained every stage of treatment to the mom and did so also the next day with the procedure performed under anasthesia. Miss T s mother was given full explanation and preferred to pursue the coure of treatment as advised by the opthalmologist, instead of seeking second opinion. You also state that the lesion healed without damage to the eye and eyesight. As to the "torch" claim, it has no ground to claim damage where such damage was not inflicted and no residual damage was caused. The "torch" was used in order to examine the eye, not in order to cause damage to the patient. You might argue pro and con the fact that surgery was delayed, but on the other hand there were also reasons to delay the intervention and treatment was started with antibiotics. The eye was examined, correct diagnosis was made, a course of treatment was consciously chosen and explained and treatment was successful.
|
|
|
Re: One Doctor sues another Doctor
posted at 21/6/2012 9:01 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 3045
First: 27/3/2012 Last: 20/5/2013 |
No, It does not appear from the above discussion that Mr. F was negligent, because the ophthalmologist was prompt in the clinical examination & a reasonably accurate decision was made to treat the patient with best possible alternatives. |
|
|
Re: One Doctor sues another Doctor
posted at 23/6/2012 1:56 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 963
First: 15/7/2011 Last: 24/5/2013 |
The Outcome: The expert agreed with all of Mr F’s management and found it ‘perfectly reasonable, on his part, to administer intensive antibiotic treatment … before attempting exploration’. The expert asserted that a more forceful examination at first presentation was contraindicated, with a risk of worsening the degree of trauma and spreading infection. The expert noted, ‘Mr F’s management succeeded in saving an eye which, at the outset, was in grave danger of being lost … I do not see any evidence that his management in any way added to the patient’s pain or distress. ’We resolved to defend the case to trial. The claimants failed to attend the court and the claim was dismissed. Dissatisfaction with unpleasant aspects of therapy seems to have been the motivation for this litigation, which is surprising given that a medically-qualified family member was present, receiving full explanation, at the time of the treatment. The failure of the claimants to attend the trial suggests that they realised there was no genuine basis to their claim. Unless a patient can prove both a breach of duty of care and a causal link to an injury resulting from this, they cannot successfully pursue a claim. Simply being unhappy with some aspects of an inevitably distressing treatment is not enough. We defend such frivolous claims, even where this involves significant expenditure, in order to discourage the continuing rise in the frequency of unfounded litigation |
|
|
Re: One Doctor sues another Doctor
posted at 30/6/2012 4:07 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 2
First: 30/6/2012 Last: 30/6/2012 |
I'm both saddened and surprised to see this post because I didn't think such lawsuits existed outside the US! But in the US, in order to sustain a malpractice suit one has to show evidence of harm and the fact that the child healed without evidence of permanent disability does not appear to support harm so I would doubt a case exists. |
|
|
Re: One Doctor sues another Doctor
posted at 30/6/2012 6:50 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 579
First: 8/6/2011 Last: 22/5/2013 |
I am afraid that claimes alleging negligence against doctors has become a fashion in uk. What i want to ask you Kirked is if Mr F has the possibillity now to sues Miss's T familly . |
|
|
Re: One Doctor sues another Doctor
posted at 30/6/2012 7:28 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 963
First: 15/7/2011 Last: 24/5/2013 |
In Response to Re: One Doctor sues another Doctor: I am afraid that claimes alleging negligence against doctors has become a fashion in uk. What i want to ask you Kirked is if Mr F has the possibillity now to sues Miss's T familly . Posted by ikaros Hi Ikaros, I cannot see any reason why Mr F could sue Miss T. |
