 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lewis v. Hull4/6/2005
Petitioners, Joann Lewis and Lucy Sikes ("Petitioners"), seek review of the trial court's granting of Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment finding that the damages suffered after November 10, 1999, by Joann Lewis were unrelated to the conduct of Defendants. For the reasons set forth herein, the partial summary judgment is affirmed.
FACTS
On September 19, 2003, Joann Lewis and the bankruptcy trustee of her estate, Lucy Sikes, filed suit against Dr. John E. Hull, M.D. and his employer, The Arthritis Clinic & Lab, Inc. ("The Arthritis Clinic"). The petition alleged that Ms. Lewis was treated by Dr. Hull on November 10, 1999, and that, during her visit, she was administered the medication Toradol. After receiving the medication, Ms. Lewis allegedly suffered an allergic reaction. The petition alleges that Ms. Lewis' allergy to Toradol should have been known by Dr. Hull because she had previously suffered a similar reaction when he had administered the medication. Accordingly, Petitioners seek to have Dr. Hull and the Arthritis Clinic held liable for the damages suffered by Ms. Lewis for Dr. Hull's breach of the standard of care.
Prior to filing the lawsuit, Ms. Lewis' claim was submitted to a medical review panel. The panel reviewing her claim consisted of four members: Larry Arbour, as the attorney-chairman; Robert Wolf, M.D.; Robert E. Goodman, M.D.; and Thomas A. Pressly, M.D. The panel rendered its opinion on June 23, 2003. Two of the physician panel members, Drs. Pressly and Goodman, concluded that the evidence did not support the conclusion that Dr. Hull breached the applicable standard of care in his treatment of Joann Lewis.
In their reasons, the panel members found that the history preceding Ms. Lewis' November 10, 1999 visit would not have created any certainty as to Toradol being the source of her previous allergic reactions. Ms. Lewis had been administered the medication on two prior occasions by Dr. Hull -first in September 1998 and again in November 1998. The first time she was administered the injection, Ms. Lewis reported no adverse reaction. The second time, she returned to Dr. Hull's office shortly after the injection complaining of a raspy voice, itching and a generalized urticarial rash. The panel noted, however, that, during the November 1998 visit, Ms. Lewis was also administered a Celestone injection. Additionally, the panel noted that the patient had recently been prescribed Darvocet and was taking other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The panel concluded that, as a result of these other medications Ms. Lewis was taking, the etiological factor or factors giving rise to her allergic reaction would have been uncertain and Dr. Hull's administration of Toradol on November 10, 1999, would have been within the standard of care.
The third member of the panel, Dr. Wolf, dissented from the panel's conclusion on the basis that the severity of Ms. Lewis' allergic reaction following her November 23, 1998 visit should have put Dr. Hull on notice not to administer any of the possible offending medications until the specific cause of the reaction was determined. Dr. Wolf noted, however, that the only injury sustained by Ms. Lewis following the November 10, 1999 injection of Toradol was a urticarial rash and a cough which were treated that same day and from which Ms. Lewis "recovered uneventfully." He further noted his belief that Ms. Lewis' hospitalization on November 14 and 15, 1999, and her symptoms and complaints thereafter were unrelated to the Toradol injection. In paragraph 2 of his dissenting remarks, Dr. Wolf states:
The only damage/injury sustained by Ms. Lewis as a result of the administration of Toradol
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|