Greedy Trial Lawyer
Analysis Of The "Medicine" In $217 Million Verdict Not Productive
Category: Seeing Clearly Now
Over at Kevin M.D. the medicine behind the $217 medical malpractice verdict in Tampa, Florida, is being reviewed.
The medicine behind the Navarro stroke case
More details are emerging from the record breaking malpractice case. Let's look at the medicine behind the case:On Aug. 9, 2000, Navarro, who was a professional basketball player in his native Philippines, entered University Community Hospital-Carrollwood with a headache, nausea, dizziness, confusion and double vision. He described a personal medical history of hypertension, diabetes and elevated cholesterol plus a family history of strokes to the triage nurse. A different nurse than the triage nurse also noted he was unsteady on his feet.
When Navarro spoke with Herranz in the examination room, he mentioned the sudden onset of a headache earlier that day and that he had felt a "pop" in his head.
According to the 2005 second amended complaint, Herranz did not complete an adequate medical history of Narvarro, nor did he do a complete or adequate neurological exam.
Navarro spent about 5 1/2 hours at UCH-Carrollwood, during which time he had two CT scans of his brain and was diagnosed with "sinusitis/headache" by Austin, prescribed Vicodin for the pain and an antibiotic by the doctor and sent home. He was not told to watch for any stroke symptoms.
I have commented, as follows, on Kevin's blog:
I realize the effort in this article is to examine the medicine behind the verdict. The medicine only provides the factual basis for the jury to conclude malpractice occurred. As in all malpractice cases it is a yes or no decision. You can slice and dice the facts all week, but, trust me, these facts are not special or unique to lawyers who review missed or delayed diagnosis cases.The medicine, however, does not provide a good explanation for what is obviously unique - the jury felt the need to award punitive damages and, as a consequence, to be certain the compensatory damages were truly adequate. By their dollar awards in this case the jury is communicating disgust with someone or something (likely multiple someones or somethings). The level of disgust is likely related to the size of the punitive damage award. I would say this jury was about as disgusted as one can get and not yell obscenities.
Since I was not in the courtroom it is difficult to isolate the fuel that ignited the jury's reaction to the case. I have my suspicions, but they could be well off the target.
There is one observation I feel confident enough to express - the probability of an award of punitive damages and a bleed-over into a large compensatory damage award should have been assessed very carefully by the defendants, the insurance company and the defense attorneys. It is extremely rare for a judge to permit a jury in a medical malpractice case to even consider the award of punitive damages. This judge concluded the evidence justified the jury instruction on punitive damages and the arguments of counsel on the subject. Alarm bells should have been ringing very loudly at that point and, probably, well prior to that point.
The fact is that judges have been insulating medical providers from larger medical malpractice verdicts for years by denying the victims the opportunity to seek punitive damages for grossly negligent, reckless or willful misconduct.
One of my suspicions is that some aspect of the defense of the case before the jury was perceived as disingenuous or dishonest. Maybe the jury thought the defense was entirely fair and honest but still awarded over $100 Million in punitive damages. But, more likely, the cock crowed three times during the defense summation.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.greedytriallawyer.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/357