03.08.2013 Views

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

diagnoses other than those that would be appropriate to his or her special field of<br />

practice.<br />

One case that settled prior to trial involved a woman in her mid-50s who presented<br />

to her physician with abdominal pain. Initial evaluation did not uncover an<br />

explanation, <strong>and</strong> she eventually sought care at a hospital emergency room. The<br />

emergency room physician did a general evaluation <strong>and</strong> wrote a differential<br />

diagnosis that included abdominal aortic aneurysm. She was admitted to the<br />

hospital under the care of a gynecologist <strong>and</strong> given an ultrasound <strong>and</strong> a pelvic<br />

examination. A mass was noted in her abdomen, <strong>and</strong> the pelvic examination<br />

discovered cervical cancer. She was then transferred to the regional cancer center<br />

for definitive treatment. Once in the cancer center on the gynecology service, she<br />

was treated for the cancer.<br />

Over the next couple of weeks, she continued to complain of pain that was<br />

inappropriate for the extent of her cancer. Her treating physicians assumed that this<br />

pain was partially psychogenic, <strong>and</strong> they had her evaluated by a psychiatrist. The<br />

pain suddenly became much worse, <strong>and</strong> she was given a tranquilizer for anxiety.<br />

When she was finally examined three hours later, there was no blood supply to her<br />

legs; she had clotted off an abdominal aortic aneurysm. This diagnosis had been<br />

hinted at early in her evaluation, but once she was on a subspecialty gynecology<br />

cancer service, all diagnostic considerations were limited to gynecologic cancer <strong>and</strong><br />

its complications.<br />

6. <strong>Medical</strong> Malpractice Litigation References<br />

Aksu MN. Expert witness or “hired gun?”. J Am Coll Dent. 1997;64:25–28.<br />

Allen AM. The nurse <strong>and</strong> the deposition. Orthop Nurs. 1987;6:50–51.<br />

American Psychiatric Association resource document on peer review of expert<br />

testimony. J Am Acad Psychiatry <strong>Law</strong>. 1997;25:359–373.<br />

Annas GJ. Medicine, death, <strong>and</strong> the criminal law. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:527–530.<br />

Beckman HB, Markakis KM, Suchman AL, Frankel RM. The doctor–patient<br />

relationship <strong>and</strong> malpractice: lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med.<br />

1994;154:1365– 1370.<br />

Berlin L. On being an expert witness. AJR. 1997;168:607–610.<br />

Bertin JE, Henifin MS. Science, law, <strong>and</strong> the search for truth in the courtroom:<br />

lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow. J <strong>Law</strong> Med Ethics. 1994;22:6–20.<br />

Black B. Subpoenas <strong>and</strong> science—when lawyers force their way into the laboratory.<br />

N Engl J Med. 1997;336:725–727.<br />

Black E. What to expect at your deposition: a guide for physicians <strong>and</strong> health care<br />

professionals. Pa Med. 1998;101:24.<br />

37

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!