 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dumont v. Maaliki9/22/2000
the facts available to Dr. Maaliki at the time he saw Mrs. Dumont, he should have suspected the possibility of a pulmonary embolism. Thereafter, knowing that pulmonary emboli are life-threatening, Dr. Maaliki should have performed subsequent testing to either exclude or diagnose the condition. This failure resulted in Dr. Maaliki's breach of the standard of care.
The testimony at trial established that Mrs. Dumont was an obese, insulin- dependent diabetic who had previously suffered incidents of shortness of breath. Dr. Maaliki's history and examination of Mrs. Dumont revealed that she was complaining of shortness of breath on exertion, headaches and a dry cough. Her lungs were clear and she had no apparent heart problems. The shortness of breath that Mrs. Dumont experienced on previous occasions was not the same as she experienced on the date of her visit to CIS. It was the opinion of Dr. Tepper, plaintiffs' expert, that further testing was necessary and that Dr. Maaliki's treatment fell below the standard of care.
The plaintiffs in this matter, Mrs. Dumont's husband and children, testified at the trial. They testified that prior to her visit to CIS, Mrs. Dumont was experiencing severe shortness of breath, could only walk slowly and would have to stop and catch her breath every 10-15 feet. Although she had made an appointment with her treating physician, her symptoms were severe enough to warrant a visit to CIS before the date of her appointment with her physician. They further testified that Mrs. Dumont's exam was very brief, lasting approximately fifteen minutes.
The trial court rendered judgment without assigning written reasons. At the hearing on the motion for a new trial, the trial judge indicated that, after considering the credibility of the witnesses, he found the plaintiffs to be credible. He felt that Dr. Maaliki had not accurately diagnosed Mrs. Dumont's condition because the doctor had not taken enough time to adequately do so. The trial court went on to state that, based on the factual history, the court accepted the medical testimony presented by the plaintiffs over the defendants' medical testimony. After reviewing the record in its entirety, we find that the trial court's decision that Dr. Maaliki was negligent is supported by the evidence introduced at trial. We find no manifest errors in the trial court's determination.
The trial court's finding that Mrs. Dumont's death was caused by Dr. Maaliki's negligence
As stated above, the plaintiffs must prove that, as a proximate result of the lack of knowledge or skill or the failure to exercise this degree of care, the plaintiff suffered injuries that would not otherwise have been incurred. La. R.S. 9:2794 A (3). The test for determining the causal connection is whether the plaintiff proved through medical testimony that it is more probable than not that the injuries were caused by the substandard care. Hoot v. Woman's Hosp. Foundation, 691 So.2d at 789.
Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Tepper, testified regarding causation and the process by which pulmonary emboli affect the body. It was his opinion that because Mrs. Dumont's legs had not yet begun to swell when Dr. Maaliki saw her, if she had been given the blood thinner, Heparin, or other anticoagulants, her chance of survival would have been excellent. The substance of Dr. Tepper's testimony, when reviewed as a whole, is that if Dr. Maaliki had taken time to evaluate Mrs. Dumont's condition, he would have suspected the possibility that Mrs. Dumont was suffering from a pulmonary embolism and would have conducted further tests. It is more probable than not that, as a result of these tests, he would have discovered the embolism, and cou
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|