Family Practice Doctor Fails to Treat Heart Patient with Fatal Results
The following excerpt from a Notice of Intent to File Claim, or more commonly called, “Notice of Intent to Sue,” is a recent case that the litigators at Erlich, Rosen, Bartnick & Cook, P.C., have begun on behalf of one of our clients. If you wish to discuss a medical malpractice claim please contact ERBC at either www.ERBClaw.com or 1-877-453-2840 for a free consultation.
Factual Basis for Claim
Plaintiff began treating with Defendant Family Practice physician as his primary care physician in approximately 1994 until his death at age 40 on January 11, 2006. Defendant held himself out as a family practice physician with the osteopathic association. However, in some data available on the internet, he also indicates that he is a family practitioner, but has a sub-interest in psychiatry. Based upon the information available, it is believed that Defendant is not board certified as an expert in either family practice or psychiatry.
During this twelve year time period Defendant not only treated Plaintiff medically, but in addition was prescribing him psychiatric medications. At no time during their relationship did Defendant doctor order laboratory work or refer the Plaintiff to any other physician. Further, at no time during the relationship did Defendant take a family or personal history from the deceased Plaintiff. If a history had been obtained Defendant would have been aware of a strong family history of heart disease. Further, he would have realized that Plaintiff had several personal risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, and obesity. The psychiatric or psychological disorder that Defendant primarily treated Plaintiff for with medications was anxiety. If proper laboratory work had been performed Defendant would have found that his patient's blood work was also consistent with heart risk, including elevations of bad cholesterol ratios, bad triglycerides, low high density cholesterol and high low density cholesterol.
For several weeks prior to his death, Plaintiff was experiencing a “bubble” like feeling and heaviness in his chest. He was also short of breath when he exerted himself. This information was either known, or should have been known, to Defendant if he had taken a proper history, especially in the last six months of 2005 until the time of Plaintiff’s death in January of 2006. At the time this information was available, Defendant should have referred the patient to a specialist such as an internist, cardiologist, or potentially even a cardiovascular surgeon for evaluation and testing. This kind of evaluation should have occurred when Defendant first saw the patient and would have occurred if he had taken an adequate history from the patient, both family and personal. This breach of the appropriate standard of care continued all the way up and until the patient's death. However the worst breach occurred on December 7, 2005 when Plaintiff came in with a specific complaint of chest pain for a week. The only evaluation that was performed by Defendant was an EKG done in his office. No referral was made to any other physicians. Further, he diagnosed the patient's condition at that time as acid reflux and gave Plaintiff heart burn medication.
On December 16, 2005 there was a telephone call to the doctor's office indicating that the medication was not helping. A new prescription was ordered at that time. At no time was the patient referred to any other physician or emergency room prior to 4:45 a.m. on the 11th day of January, 2006. When Plaintiff awoke that morning he had chest pain and an ambulance was called and he was taken to Henry Ford Hospital where he was pronounced dead. An autopsy was performed by the Macomb County Medical Examiner and the cause of death in this case was cardiovascular heart disease causing either an arrhythmia and/or myocardial infarction (heart attack).
If Defendant had not acted negligently it is far more likely than not that the Plaintiff's high risk for cardiovascular disease would have been diagnosed. If laboratory work had been done, it would have shown indications of cardiac disease with elevated lipids, elevated cholesterol, low high density cholesterol and high low density cholesterol. Further, if the proper history had been taken, the patient's strong family history of cardiac disease would have been recognized. Further, his individual risk factors including smoking, obesity and hypertension all would have been taken into consideration. With this, the Plaintiff=s high risk for cardiac disease would have been recognized and he would have been referred to a cardiologist, an interventional cardiologist, and cardiovascular surgeon for treatment even before his chest complaints of December 7, 2005. If these necessary referrals would have taken place, the Plaintiff Decedent would have undergone cardiac evaluation including stress testing, cardiolyte studies, echocardiograms, holter monitor studies and heart catherterization which would have minimized his cardiovascular disease and allowed the proper treatment with medications, angioplasty, stenting procedures and/or bypass surgery. If this appropriate treatment had been performed, the arrhythmic and/or cardiac conditions including the myocardial infarction which ultimately led to the Plaintiff-Decedent's death would have been avoided.
Furthermore, if the Plaintiff had been referred to an emergency room on the date that he complained of chest pain on December 7, 2005, or on December 16, 2005 after his office phone call, as the standard of practice required, Plaintiff’s risk factors would have been diagnosed. His signs and symptoms, personal history, and family history, of cardiac risk factors would have led to a thorough cardiac evaluation including stress testing, cardiolyte studies, echocardiograms, holter monitoring, and heart catherterization which would have found and minimized the extent of the disease in the vessels of the patient's heart. This again, would have led to treatment with medications from a cardiologist and/or treatment by an interventional cardiologist with angioplasty and/or stenting and/or treatment by a cardiovascular surgeon with bypass. If in fact any of this treatment had occurred, it is far more likely than not that Plaintiff would have lived and not died at the age of only 40 years old.
