 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DCH Healthcare Authority v. Duckworth12/19/2003
In neither case did the plaintiffs submit substantial evidence that the patient's condition worsened as a direct result of the actions of the defendant physicians.
"In the first case, the baby, Martin McAfee, contracted meningitis from bacteria. He was treated by Dr. Rodney Dorand. Dr. Dorand, a board certified neonatologist, submitted an affidavit stating that he was familiar with the degree of care, skill, and diligence normally exercised by physicians practicing neonatology in 1990, and that, in his opinion, nothing he did or did not do in his care and treatment of Martin McAfee probably caused or contributed to cause any injury. The affidavit of the plaintiffs' expert, Dr. O. Carter Snead III, offered a conjectural observation that, generally, the sooner the onset of treatment, the better the expected result. There is no evidence that the actions of Dr. Dorand or those of Dr. Gillis Payne, who first saw the baby, probably caused the poor outcome. In the second case, the plaintiffs submitted affidavits stating, generally, that 'time is of the essence' in treating breast cancer, and that patients who receive earlier treatment obtain a better result. There was no expert testimony to rebut the testimony submitted by the defendants indicating that the metastasis to the lymph nodes probably occurred in the early stages before the cancer could be diagnosed. The affidavits of the plaintiffs' experts did not rise to the level of substantial evidence that the actions of the defendants probably caused Brenda Roberts's injuries."
641 So. 2d at 267-68 (emphasis added).
The general statements proffered by McAfee and Roberts -- that "time of the essence," and that "the sooner the onset of treatment, the better the expected result" -- essentially mirror the statements made by Dr. Jones -- as soon as possible is "always the ideal," and "any delay in diagnosis can adversely affect a person's condition." Like the testimony in McAfee, Dr. Jones's opinion does not constitute substantial evidence that the two- or three-hour delay of which Mrs. Duckworth complains probably adversely affected Mr. Duckworth's response to treatment.
The expert testimony presented in the cases cited by Mrs. Duckworth is clearly distinguishable. Travis v. Scott, 667 So. 2d 674, 678 (Ala. 1995) (plaintiff's expert testified that if surgery had been performed on the decedent two days after she was admitted to the hospital, rather than eight days after admission, she "probably would have survived"); University of Alabama Health Serv. Found., P.C. v. Bush, 638 So. 2d 794, 803 (Ala. 1994) (plaintiff's expert testified that the challenged delay in treating the plaintiff's meningitis infection "caus " or "contributed to the neurological damage that occurred"); Parker v. Collins, 605 So. 2d at 826 (breast-cancer patient's experts were "80% certain" that cancer invaded the lymph nodes, necessitating a "mastectomy and course of chemotherapy and radiation treatments," because of the defendant-doctor's failure timely to diagnose a lump in the plaintiff's breast).
Because Mrs. Duckworth failed to present substantial evidence of medical causation, the trial court erred in denying the Center's motion for a JML. The judgment in favor of Mrs. Duckworth is, therefore, reversed, and a judgment is rendered in favor of the Center.
REVERSED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED.
Houston, Lyons, Brown, and Johnstone, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|