 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Murphy v. Bernice Community Rehabilitation Hospital10/26/2005
cident, and later that day she was able to sit in a chair while visiting with one of her daughters. However, she was given Ultram, a mild pain medication, for swelling and pain in her left knee. After the incident, BCRH began using a Hoyer lift, a type of mechanical sling, when transferring Ms. Murphy.
On March 28, 2002, Ms. Murphy participated in physical therapy and was examined by Dr. Shaw, who was apprised of the incident. He noted a bit of effusion in her left knee, but he did not detect any injury apart from her arthritis. Ms. Murphy complained of pain to her left knee and top area of the left knee later that day. On March 29, 2002, Ms. Murphy again participated in physical therapy in the morning, but she was more lethargic than usual. Her daughter found her slumped over in her chair, confused, and disoriented. BCRH contacted a physician and arrangements were made to transfer Ms. Murphy to Minden Medical Center ("MMC") for a CT scan. She was admitted to MMC when the scan showed that she had suffered a stroke.
The stroke caused left-sided paralysis in Ms. Murphy. MMC's records document some ongoing complaints of leg pain. Then, on April 1, 2002, sometime after undergoing a hip x-ray, she had an upsurge in the severity of the pain to her left knee area. She reported that her left knee was "killing" her, and she was unable to scale the pain on the pain chart. X-rays taken of her left knee and thigh on April 2, 2002, revealed a fracture of her left femur just above the knee. Surgery was performed on the fracture. She was unable to participate in rehabilitation following her stroke and had to be placed in a nursing home for care.
Following these events, Ms. Murphy instituted a medical malpractice action against Dr. Harris, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Mays, and BCRH. The claims against Dr. Harris were dismissed prior to trial and are not at issue in this appeal. The grounds of this malpractice action are the failure to diagnose the stroke prior to March 29, 2002, and the allegation that she broke her left femur at BCRH on March 27, 2002. A medical review panel found in favor of the defendants upon concluding that none of them breached the standard of care in treating Ms. Murphy. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict in the defendants' favor. The jury concluded that none of the defendants breached the standard of care in treating Ms. Murphy. The trial court rendered a judgment dismissing Ms. Murphy's claims after denying motions for a JNOV and a new trial. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
The applicable standard of review requires that the jury's conclusions not be set aside in the absence of manifest error or unless clearly wrong.
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So. 2d 880 (La. 1993). Where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. Id. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840 (La. 1989).
Physician Malpractice
In a medical malpractice action against a physician as provided by La. R.S. 9:2794, the plaintiff must prove the applicable standard of care, a violation or breach of the standard of care, and a causal connection between the alleged negligence and the resulting injuries. Johnston v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc., 35,236 (La. App. 2d Cir. 10/31/01), 799 So. 2d 671, 674-675. Opinions of expert witnesses from the relevant medical professions are necessaryto deter
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|