Olajumoke
Lawal
HCM
88
12/2/13
“Tracey WALLACE and Eric Wallace,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Jonathan S. McGLOTHAN, Defendant-Appellant.”
I.
Procedure
a.
Who are the parties?
·
Tracey
Wallace, (Plaintiff}
·
Eric
Wallace (Plaintiff) vs.
·
Jonathan
S. McGlothan (Defendant)
b.
Who brought the action?
·
Tracey Wallace & Eric Wallace,
plaintiffs
c.
In what court did the case originate?
·
United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
d.
Who won at the trial-court level?
·
The plaintiffs
e.
What is the appellate history of the
case?
·
Plaintiffs,
a patient and her husband, sued defendant doctor, alleging medical malpractice.
A jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs and awarded nearly $ 700,000 in
damages. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Terre Haute Division, denied the doctor's motions for judgment as a matter of
law.
II.
Facts
·
Tracey
Wallace decided to undergo surgery so that she would no longer need to wear
glasses or contact lenses.
·
She hired Dr. McGlothan to perform the
procedure.
·
On
the patient history form that Tracey completed for Dr. McGlothan, she stated
that she had trouble reading fine print and driving at night and in bright
sunshine.
·
Dr.
McGlothan started with Tracey's right eye. After he cut the flap, he noticed a
“buttonhole flap,” a LASIK complication that occurs when the mechanical blade
cuts the corneal flap too thin in one or more areas.
·
Dr.
McGlothan informed Tracey of the problem, checked his equipment, and replaced
the blade. He then proceeded to the left eye.
·
After
Dr. McGlothan made the cut, though, he again noticed that a buttonhole flap
complication had developed.
·
Dr.
McGlothan then stopped the surgery, replaced the flaps, put bandage contact
lenses in Tracey's eyes.
·
Sent her home.
·
Tracey
returned to Dr. McGlothan's office for follow-up on April 26 and 29. During
that time, Tracey stayed at home with the lights dimmed, shades drawn, and,
occasionally, sunglasses on.
·
Tracey's
eyes were very sensitive to light, and she described that they felt like they
had sand thrown in them.
·
On
April 29, after her visit with Dr. McGlothan, Tracey went to see another
physician, Dr. Donald Conner, O.D., an optometrist.
·
Before
meeting Dr. Conner, Tracey filled out a patient history form stating that she
had been “bothered by glare or reflection, particularly when driving at night.”
·
Dr.
Conner examined Tracey and saw “aberrations” in her corneas that were affecting
her vision
·
Dr.
Conner recommended that she see Dr. Francis Price, M.D., an ophthalmologist and
cornea specialist, whom Tracey visited the following day.
·
Dr.
Price also examined Tracey's corneas and saw the complications caused by the
surgery.
·
Dr.
Price determined that her left eye was worse than her right, and the next day,
Dr. Price performed a non-invasive, corrective procedure on Tracey's left eye
that involved pulling back the flap created during the surgery, smoothing it
out, and laying it back down as evenly as possible.
·
Tracey
continued to see Drs. Conner and Price regularly for some time. Both doctors
saw improvement in Tracey's corneas and vision, but they also observed
lingering problems.
·
By
mid-2003, scarring had developed on Tracey's left cornea, so Dr. Price
performed a corrective laser procedure to remove some of the scarring.
·
After
the treatment, Dr. Price again observed improvement.
·
Tracey
last saw Dr. Price in June 2006
·
Saw
Dr. Conner just before trial in 2007.
b. Are
there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the
opinion?
·
When was the last
time Dr. McGlothan performed a successful LASIK procedure?
·
Where else could
the patient have gotten this procedure done?
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
IV.
Holding
a.
What is the court’s precise holding
(decision)?
·
The appellate court affirmed the district
court's denial of the doctor's motions for judgment as a matter of law and
affirmed the judgment.
b.
What is its rationale for that
decision?
·
The district
court found that the doctor breached the standard of care as to the patient's
left eye, and the jury determined the amount of damages. The appellate court
determined that the district court did not err in denying the doctor's motions
for judgment as a matter of law because (1) the district court did not plainly
err when it admitted the testimony of plaintiffs' experts, and (2) although
plaintiffs waived their waiver argument as to the doctor's preexisting injury
argument, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the
buttonhole flap complication to the patient's left eye resulted in a permanent
injury that was unrelated to any preexisting condition. The doctor's arguments
regarding discovery violations, perjury, and fair trial violations were
rejected.
c.
Do you agree with that rationale?
Yes
V.
Implications
a.
What does the case mean for healthcare
today?
·
Care
takers need to be aware of the strict guidelines and make sure to follow them
more closely.
b.
What were its implications when the
decision was announced?
·
A
jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs and awarded nearly $ 700,000 in damages.
c.
How should healthcare administrators
prepare to deal with these implications?
·
Strict guidelines must be updated and
reviewed constantly.
·
Physicians
need to be very cautious when dealing with dangerous procedures.
d.
What would be different today if the
case had been decided differently?
·
Physicians would
not pay as much attention to detail and be more negligent if they were to not
be prosecuted in this fashion.
Overall I agreed with the court’s
decision award the plaintiffs $ 700,000 in damages. I do not believe Dr.
Griswold performed medical malpractice I applaud the courts for that decision.
People always find a reason to try to sue doctors.
References
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1525250.html
No comments:
Post a Comment