Alvarez, Sambol & Winthrop, P.A., is proud to announce that the firm obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice action tried in Clearwater, Florida.
The case was tried on behalf of Douglas Eiland, M.D., by Stephen B. Sambol and Jeffrey M. Thompson of the firm. Richard Mangan and William Lazenby tried the case on behalf of Evan Harris, M.D. Frank Winkles tried the case on behalf of the Plaintiff. The venue for the trial was Pinellas County, Florida, before the Honorable Nelly Khouzam.
The Plaintiff initially brought this action against the anesthesiologist who the Plaintiff claimed negligently misplaced a central venous catheter into the carotid artery, the radiologists who the Plaintiff claimed failed to properly interpret the post-insertion x-rays, and the hospital where he was admitted. The Plaintiff claimed that the removal of the catheter resulted in a clot being dislodged or “stripped off” the catheter and that the clot subsequently traveled through the arterial system and became lodged in the left vertebral artery, causing a stroke. The Plaintiff died from unrelated causes on October 21, 2003, leaving no statutory survivors. Prior to the trial, the defendant anesthesiologist and the hospital both settled with the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s theory at trial was that Defendant Evan Harris, M.D., failed to properly perform an initial, oral interpretation of a post-insertion chest x-ray on July 18, 2000, and that he failed to advise the treating anesthesiologist that the central catheter had been placed in an artery, not a vein. The Plaintiff claimed that Douglas L. Eiland, M.D., failed to properly interpret the chest x-ray on July 19, 2000, when he failed to mention the presence of a central catheter in his report. Dr. Harris denied that he interpreted the x-ray on July 18, 2000. Dr. Eiland admitted that he read the x-ray the following day and that he failed to note in his report the presence of the central line. However, Dr. Eiland denied that the misplacement of the line or the removal of the catheter was the cause of the decedent’s stroke. Prior to trial, Dr. Eiland admitted that he breached the standard of care, but contested this matter as to causation and damages, arguing that misplacement of the catheter did not cause the stroke.
At trial, the decedent and his sister, Brinda Whiteside, claimed that the evening that the catheter was removed the decedent began to suffer slurred speech, anxiety, uncontrolled movement of his left arm, difficulty swallowing and vision problems in his left eye. However, none of these symptoms were recorded by his treating physicians or the nurses on staff at the hospital until three days after the line was removed. The staff at the hospital only recorded symptoms of what the patient called an “anxiety attack.” Some four days after the catheter was removed, and in light of the patient’s complaints of difficulty swallowing and uncontrolled movements the day before, a CT scan of the head was ordered. This scan showed evidence of a left-sided cerebellar stroke.
The Plaintiff presented expert testimony from a vascular surgeon, Dr. Alik Farber, that the removal of the catheter caused a clot to be “stripped off” as it traveled past the aortic arch and that this clot flowed upwards into the patient’s vertebral artery causing a stroke. Plaintiff’s rehabilitation specialist, Rodolfo Eichberg, M.D., testified that the Plaintiff would have lived longer had he not had the stroke.
The defense contended that the decedent’s medical chart did not document any symptoms of a stroke until July 24, 2000, some four days after removal of the line. The defendants’ neuroradiology expert, Gordon Sze, M.D., testified that the Plaintiff’s CT scans showed that the stroke occurred closer to July 24, 2000. As such, the defense argued that the onset of the stroke did not correspond with the removal of the catheter, since the symptoms of a stroke would have begun within hours of the clot becoming dislodged. The defendants’ vascular surgery expert, George Anton, M.D., also testified that the removal of the catheter would not have caused a clot to dislodge in the manner described by Plaintiff’s experts. He testified that Plaintiff’s theory would essentially require the clot to travel against the blood flow in the arteries, which although possible, was not likely. He testified that if the clot had been dislodged at the site the Plaintiff claimed it became dislodged, it would more likely travel down the arm or into the legs. He also testified that to the extent that a clot could be stripped off, it would be stripped off at the site of insertion on the right side and not the left, and therefore would have caused a right-sided stroke. In light of the delays in onset and the anatomical inconsistencies in the case, the defense argued that the stroke the patient suffered was not related to the placement or removal of the catheter.
After deliberation, the jury found that Dr. Harris was not negligent. They also found that while Dr. Eiland admitted that he was negligent, that his negligence did not cause or contribute to the Plaintiff’s injuries or damages. Therefore, a verdict for the defense was returned.
Special thanks to Dr. Eiland’s insurance carrier, ProAssurance, for allowing us to take this case to trial.
