My dad had a similar case and had to admit the patient which was against hospital policy and hospital administration. The following day patient had pulmonary embolism and my dad saved this hospital and accepted apology from insurance company and hospital CEO. Dr. Hussain
After listening to all of the depositions available to this case, it seems that the scant amount documentation in the medical record is one of the reasons the defendants lost the case. Given this ER uses "charting by exception", there seems to be a number of key findings that were not documented in the medical record. Documentation is so very important, and in charting by exception-- one must document all the abnormal findings pertinent to the situation, and changes in the patient's status. It also seems that nobody effectively ascertained the exact description of the mechanism of injury (MOI) as stated by the patient. The patient's words describing the injury are the most important, thus clearing up any misconceptions that the healthcare personnel may have. There is no consistent documentation among the providers regarding MOI as stated by the patient.
I would like to watch the trial on this. I can’t understand why they won, I’m glad he won, the man lost his leg but as far as the evidence showing this was the fault of the medical professionals in the ER, it doesn’t seem to prove that at all
I believe they won because of incomplete and inconsistent charting. The temperature of the extremity should have been charted. The pain level after administration of pain medication should have been assessed and charted.
I think they won because they cannot prove that the PA , DR, and RNs removed the brace and checked his leg properly. I think they relied on x-rays that were not properly reviewed, and the PT is not a complainer so he didn't make his concerns completely understood. I do think that the staff mainly the PA and DR should have been more attentive to this PT and the Nurses should have been more of a advocate for this guy. If I was his nurse I would have bugged the crap out of the DR about this guy.
Remember Jury Trials, are not about the truth, facts, or the law, but the consensus the jury arrive to. Watching three depositions on this case, I arrived at the conclusion that: the nonchalant, sneaky attitude of the doctor, together with the horrible record keeping, and the failures between the PA and the doctors, made it impossible not to win it. More than malpractice, came down to negligence. The nurse did a better job, than everyone involved, that is shameful. Because the diagnosis and treatment comes from the rest of the team, that was very unprofessional and lazy.
@@GoodnightJLH *Trolling DOC* But tell us why you can not come to a medical opinion?? But tell us how you would have handled this case in the ER.?? *BART*
@@bartkay1ify How could I tell you how I would have handled this case without at least hearing the deposition of the plaintiff as well as cross examinations and plaintiff lawyer questioning? I have no idea if malpractice took place in this case because there is nowhere near enough information here. Plaintiff lawyer basically claims that the doctor, the PA and 2 nurses basically lied and didn’t feel a pedal pulse. Defendants claim that the patient had a pulse in ER but that he injured the artery after he left ER. There is insinuation that the patient was noncompliant with instructions to wear the brace and not to bear weight. I honestly see no evidence either way in the depositions put online by the attorney group. I only hope that the actual decision made in this case was just.
@@GoodnightJLH No Plaintif says you do not stop at pedal pulsse. That below the standard of care. My approach as a engineer would be the pop artery is not damaged with an intimal tear.
The description for this video is confusing. It says the deponent is a Physician's Assistant serving as an expert witness, and that's how he's introduced in the video itself. But the description then says he was one of the "doctors" at the ER (presumably being sued), and then later refers to him as a "nurse" while saying he's not a defendant. I take it this was copy/pasted from other depos on this same case but not given a once-over.
My dad had a similar case and had to admit the patient which was against hospital policy and hospital administration. The following day patient had pulmonary embolism and my dad saved this hospital and accepted apology from insurance company and hospital CEO.
Dr. Hussain
This PA definitely seemed more knowledgeable than the actual doctor !!
Excellent witness...whatever side he’s on, he knows his stuff!
Yes, he presents himself very, very, well.
HE IS A VERY GOOD PA KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT
Very intelligent gentleman he makes more sense than the physicians did!
Wow what a great witness, very impressed!
After listening to all of the depositions available to this case, it seems that the scant amount documentation in the medical record is one of the reasons the defendants lost the case. Given this ER uses "charting by exception", there seems to be a number of key findings that were not documented in the medical record. Documentation is so very important, and in charting by exception-- one must document all the abnormal findings pertinent to the situation, and changes in the patient's status. It also seems that nobody effectively ascertained the exact description of the mechanism of injury (MOI) as stated by the patient. The patient's words describing the injury are the most important, thus clearing up any misconceptions that the healthcare personnel may have. There is no consistent documentation among the providers regarding MOI as stated by the patient.
I was taught, "if it wasn't documented, it wasn't done." Charting by exception, especially about the injury, is risky in my opinion.
This witness is sharp.
I would like to watch the trial on this. I can’t understand why they won, I’m glad he won, the man lost his leg but as far as the evidence showing this was the fault of the medical professionals in the ER, it doesn’t seem to prove that at all
I believe they won because of incomplete and inconsistent charting. The temperature of the extremity should have been charted. The pain level after administration of pain medication should have been assessed and charted.
I think they won because they cannot prove that the PA , DR, and RNs removed the brace and checked his leg properly. I think they relied on x-rays that were not properly reviewed, and the PT is not a complainer so he didn't make his concerns completely understood. I do think that the staff mainly the PA and DR should have been more attentive to this PT and the Nurses should have been more of a advocate for this guy. If I was his nurse I would have bugged the crap out of the DR about this guy.
Remember Jury Trials, are not about the truth, facts, or the law, but the consensus the jury arrive to. Watching three depositions on this case, I arrived at the conclusion that: the nonchalant, sneaky attitude of the doctor, together with the horrible record keeping, and the failures between the PA and the doctors, made it impossible not to win it. More than malpractice, came down to negligence. The nurse did a better job, than everyone involved, that is shameful. Because the diagnosis and treatment comes from the rest of the team, that was very unprofessional and lazy.
Why are you glad that they won if you don’t think malpractice was proven?
Jury award him because he was black man, if white man, jury wouldn’t award him anything, crazy.
Under no circumstances should “ddx” or “r/o” appear in a deposition if they haven’t been charted.
It’s the wrong link for the closing statement. It’s something to do with a child’s death.
Part 2?
Which party ended up winning the lawsuit?
Natasha Atsatt says in the description patient got paid
The plaintiff, Kevin Tolson won his case and was awarded by a jury $5.2 million that was later reduced to 1.5 million.
I'm glad the plaintiff okayed the depositions. I like Miller and Zois
But why aren’t the depositions of the plaintiff posted? The attorneys cherry picked which depositions to post which is a bit deceptive.
@@GoodnightJLH *Trolling DOC*
But tell us why you can not come to a medical opinion??
But tell us how you would have handled this case in the ER.??
*BART*
@@GoodnightJLH how can it be deceptive, ridicules comment!
@@bartkay1ify
How could I tell you how I would have handled this case without at least hearing the deposition of the plaintiff as well as cross examinations and plaintiff lawyer questioning?
I have no idea if malpractice took place in this case because there is nowhere near enough information here. Plaintiff lawyer basically claims that the doctor, the PA and 2 nurses basically lied and didn’t feel a pedal pulse. Defendants claim that the patient had a pulse in ER but that he injured the artery after he left ER. There is insinuation that the patient was noncompliant with instructions to wear the brace and not to bear weight. I honestly see no evidence either way in the depositions put online by the attorney group. I only hope that the actual decision made in this case was just.
@@GoodnightJLH No Plaintif says you do not stop at pedal pulsse. That below the standard of care. My approach as a engineer would be the pop artery is not damaged with an intimal tear.
The description for this video is confusing. It says the deponent is a Physician's Assistant serving as an expert witness, and that's how he's introduced in the video itself. But the description then says he was one of the "doctors" at the ER (presumably being sued), and then later refers to him as a "nurse" while saying he's not a defendant. I take it this was copy/pasted from other depos on this same case but not given a once-over.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Why is he not complicating the questions for the dr as he did to the nurses?
This man is a Physician Assistant.
I agree he is not consistent.
Who cares!
Because he’s answering in a reasonable way.
Part 2?