Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)
Q. Was there any contraindication to giving William Smith, on March 23,
2002, vancomycin?
A. If after seeing this patient and his history and physical and his background and his medical condition, if I thought that he should also be on vancomycin, there is no contraindication.”
Page 97 lines 5 through 8:
“Q. On March 24th, 2002, you did not do a percussive exam on Mr. Smith, true?
A. I did not do it because I did not think there was any need for it.”
Page 117 lines 13 through 16:
“Q. You had him on Ancef, and Ancef had no therapeutic value whatsoever for this patient it turns out?
A. On the 26th when you find out he’s MRSA, yes.”
In summary, Dr. Z’s care of Mr. Smith was below the standard of care in the following areas:
1. Dr. Z. knew that he was being asked by Dr. Y. to evaluate whether Mr. Smith had osteomyelitis (infection in the spine). In fact Dr. Z. had previously treated Mr. Smith for osteomyelitis in 1991.
Dr. Z. knew that performing a percussive exam is a required exam to rule in or rule out osteomyelitis. In spite of this, he did no percussive physical exam on either March 23 or March 24, 2002. The following day Mr. Z. was diagnosed with osteomyelitis in the spine which ultimately led to his quadriplegia. Dr. Z. violated his own protocol by not performing a percussive exam. Had he performed the exam, the osteomyelitis in Mr. Smith’s lumbar area would have been confirmed and steps could have been taken to prevent its spread to his cervical spine.
2. Dr. Z. continued Mr. Smith on Ancef even though he thought the wound may be infected and even though Ancef “had no therapeutic value whatsoever” for plaintiff if he had an MRSA infection. After the onset of his quadriplegia, it was confirmed that plaintiff indeed had an MRSA infection. (See Part 21 of 23.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.