Case 1

Olajumoke Lawal

12/2/13

HCM 388, Case Analysis

"Colleen EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Garry GRISWOLD, an individual, dba Ada-Boise Vision Clinic, Defendant-Respondent

I.                   Procedure

a.      Who are the parties?

·                     Colleen Evans (Plantiff) vs.

·                     Garry Griswold (Defendant)

b.      Who brought the action?

·         Colleen Evans, the plaintiff.

c.       In what court did the case originate?

·         Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho

d.      Who won at the trial-court level?

·         The defendants

e.       What is the appellate history of the case?

·         This is a malpractice action against an optometrist. The optometrist prescribed an antibiotic, Gentamicin, for a low grade infection.  The appellant experienced a toxic reaction to Gentamicin. The district court granted the optometrist's summary judgment motion on the basis that appellant's expert witness, an ophthalmologist, failed to demonstrate familiarity with the standard of care applicable to the practice of optometry.  

II.                Facts

·                     Appellant Colleen Evans (Evans) contacted Eye Masters, a retail optical store, regarding a vision check-up.

·                     An employee of Eye Masters referred Evans to the independent optometrist at Master Eye Associates where she met Respondent Garry Griswold (Dr. Griswold) on October 29, 1993.

·                     Dr. Griswold was either an employee and/or independent contractor of Master Eye Associates on that date.

·                     Dr. Griswold examined Evans' eyes and wrote a prescription for new glasses.

·                     Griswold also suspected that Evans suffered from keratoconjunctivitis, a bacterial infection.

·                     The physician prescribed her hydrocodone, acetaminophen, a tranquilizer, and also ordered X-rays. As a result, Dr. Griswold prescribed Gentamicin, a therapeutic pharmaceutical agent.

·                     Evans used the medication in accordance with Dr. Griswold's instructions over the ensuing weekend.

·                     On Monday, November 1, 1993, Evans' eye infection had worsened.

·                     She visited Dr. Griswold's office at Ada-Boise Vision Clinic.

·                     Dr. Griswold's optometry notes from that day state:  “Pt. self-treated ‘eye infection’ 1-2 weeks ago with erythromycin-seemed to get better. Noted eyes matted shut this a.m.   Felt vision getting worse.”

·                     Under a section titled “Plan”, Griswold wrote:  “Stop all meds to rule out toxic rxn, if condition worsens consider culture and sensitivity and change to ciloxin to rule out bact. keratoconjunctivitis.”

·                     On November 2, 1993, Evans called Dr. Griswold regarding the deterioration of her eyesight.  

·                     Griswold instructed her to go to St. Luke's Medical Center out-patient laboratory and have a culture performed on her eyes.  

·                     On November 3, 1993, Dr. Griswold called Evans and informed her that after 24 hours, no organisms had been detected.

·                     Dr. Griswold informed Evans that she did not have a bacterial infection, but that she probably had a viral infection.

·                     Dr. Griswold told Evans to continue using the Ciloxin to prevent any secondary infections from occurring.

·                     In spite of the elimination of Gentamicin, Evans' eye condition appeared to worsen.

·                     Evans returned to Dr. Griswold's office on November 13, 1993.   Dr. Griswold performed another examination of Evans' eyes and believed that she was in the middle phase of the viral infection.

·                     He instructed Evans to resume using the Gentamicin for the next ten days.

·                     On November 15, 1993, Evans decided to obtain treatment from ophthalmologist Dr. Mark Borup (Dr. Borup).  

·                     To counteract the toxic reaction, Dr. Borup stopped the antibiotics for four days, and prescribed a lubricating steroid ointment to soothe and heal the eyes.   By November 22, 1993, Evans had improved.

·                     By November 29, 1993, she had continued to improve, but showed symptoms of a severe dry eye condition, which, according to Dr. Borup, is quite common for middle aged patients in the dry climate of Idaho.

·                     In January 1995, Evans filed suit against Dr. Griswold alleging that he violated the optometry standard of care by failing to recognize a toxic reaction to taking Gentamicin.  

·                     Evans also alleged that Dr. Griswold violated the optometry standard of care by failing to refer her to a physician at an earlier point in time.

·                     Dr. Griswold filed a motion for summary judgment and his own supporting affidavit.   In his affidavit, Dr. Griswold stated that he is a licensed optometrist, that he had actual knowledge of the standard of care applicable to his treatment of Evans for the year in question, and that his treatment of Evans complied in all respects with the standard of health care applicable to individuals engaged in the practice of optometry in Boise, Idaho.

·                     The district court granted Dr. Griswold's motion for summary judgment, ruling that an action against an optometrist falls under the Idaho Healthcare Malpractice statutes, I.C. § 6-1012 and § 6-1013.  

·                     The court further ruled that the testimony of Dr. Borup was deficient because it did not sufficiently demonstrate knowledge as to the applicable standard of care.

      b.   Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion?

1.                  Did Dr. Griswold do everything he could for the patient?

2.                  Why didn't the patient get a second opinion  when their gut feeling said there was more to the infection?

III.             Issues

a.       What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court?

·         Medical Malpractice

b.      Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues?

·         Yes I do agree

IV.              Holding

a.       What is the court’s precise holding (decision)?

·         The district court granted the optometrist's summary judgment motion on the basis that appellant's expert witness, an ophthalmologist, failed to demonstrate familiarity with the standard of care applicable to the practice of optometry.

b.      What is its rationale for that decision?

·         The court felt that the affidavit and deposition testimony of Dr. Borup is insufficient to comply with either I.C. §§ 6-1012 or 6-1013 since Dr. Borup professed to have no knowledge of the community standard of care with respect to the practice of optometry, the particular specialty of health care involved in this case.

c.       Do you agree with that rationale?

Yes

V.                 Implications

a.       What does the case mean for healthcare today?

·         Healthcare providers need to stay up to date with their practices and  listen more closely to the symptoms when the patient has an  issue.

b.      What were its implications when the decision was announced?

·         Dr. Griswold was granted the optometrist's summary judgment motion

c.       How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these implications?

·                     Strict guidelines must be updated and reviewed constantly.

·                     Annual evaluations should be increased in number to ensure the knowledge of the physicians is still up to date.

·                     Second opinions should be provided before any decisions are made.

d.      What would be different today if the case had been decided differently?

·         There could possibly be more cases like this in which patient is somewhat taking advantage of the doctor.

Overall I agreed with the court’s decision to grant the optometrist's summary judgment motion.  I do not believe Dr. Griswold performed medical malpractice. Though it's easier said than done, doctors do not have all the answers.

References

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/id-supreme-court/1485080.html

TROUT, C. (1997, April 7). Supreme Court of Idaho,Boise, January 1997 Term. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from FindLaw: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1591617.html