In a recent post, https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2023/medical-institutional-standard-care-and-liability-breach-independent-respondeat-superior, I discussed a case involving the death of a prisoner for lack of timely emergency treatment. Windhurst v.
The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires any hospital that participates in Medicare and provides emergency services to provide (1) an appropriate medical screening examination to anyone who comes to its emergency department asking for treatment, and (2) necessary stabilizing treatment or transfer to another medical facility if the examination reveals an emergency medical condition. Per the EMTALA regulations, this requirement applies not only to emergency departments, but also to any department where at least one-third of outpatient visits involve emergency c
I’ve previously written about the surprising (to me) number of reported cases in which “the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate expert opinion on causation during discovery, resulting in summary judgment for the defendant.” See https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2020/product-liability-defendant-wins-summary-judgment-because-plaintiff%E2%80%99s-expert-offered-no and previous blog posts cited therein.
The case is Ashland Hospital Corp. v. Lewis, http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2018-SC-000276-DG.pdf (8/29/2019). The defendant, an interventional radiologist, performed a cerebral angiogram to assist in diagnosing the cause of the plaintiff’s chronic headaches. A recovery room nurse told the defendant that the plaintiff was complaining of headache and scotoma (spots in his field of vision). These symptoms may indicate a stroke, but they also are not uncommon after a cerebral angiogram.
This case points up the extreme care and attention to detail that a plaintiff’s attorney must exercise in reviewing an expert’s affidavit in opposition to summary judgment. The case is Fernandez v. Alexander (Calif. Ct.
