Failure to Send Stroke Victim to ER Causes Damages
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 1-800-595-0506 for a free consultation.
Factual Basis for Claim
At the time of this occurrence Plaintiff was a retired physician. He had a known history of diabetes, hypertension, COPD and renal failure requiring dialysis. Prior to July 12, 2008, Plaintiff had been obtaining dialysis three times a week. It was Plaintiff’s’ regular routine to attend dialysis independently. He would receive transportation from his home to dialysis by Metro Lift.
On July 12, 2008, shortly before leaving his home for dialysis, Plaintiff fixed his own breakfast and waited for the Metro Lift Service to pick him up. He had no blurred vision or headache. On the way to the dialysis center, Plaintiff experienced some weakness and minor difficulty with walking. During this time period he continued to feel weak. Upon arriving at the dialysis center, Plaintiff stated the automatic door on the Metro Lift van would not work and he had difficulty opening the door. One of the dialysis technician's indicated that Plaintiff had some facial drooping, weakness and was unable to walk to the dialysis chair on his own. The technician brought a wheelchair and contacted the registered nurse on duty. The nurse contacted the physician on call, Defendant, and indicated that Plaintiffs’ blood pressure was significantly elevated and that his blood sugar was elevated. After talking with Defendant, Plaintiff was not transferred on an emergent basis to a hospital but, in fact, was started on dialysis. During dialysis he was in a laying flat position, not in the usual upright position. After the three to four hours of dialysis, Plaintiff noticed that his weakness on his left side had become significantly worse. Due to his weakness he was assisted by a member of the staff from the dialysis center to help him into the Metro Lift van.
Upon arriving home, Plaintiff’s wife saw her husbands weakened condition and called EMS. Plaintiff was transported to a local Medical Center where he was diagnosed with an ischemic stroke. Testing and treatment were initiated, including but not limited to aspirin therapy. Plaintiff suffered from generalized weakness, left-sided weakness, and facial drooping secondary to a stroke. Following this hospitalization, Plaintiff required extensive physical therapy, and home care. He continues to suffer from the effects of his stroke.
Plaintiff incurred the initiation of an ischemic stroke shortly before arriving at the Defendant dialysis center. This meant that there was a clot or an occlusion in the blood vessel in his brain that was causing a loss of blood supply to a portion of his brain. The treatment for this occurrence can vary, but with all treatments time is of the essence.
Had Plaintiff been sent to the emergency room on a timely basis, he would have been in the emergency room within one to two hours of the onset of his symptoms. Treatment at that time would likely have included, but not limited to, heparin therapy, aspirin therapy, and/or the use of other possible clot busting drugs. It has been well established that a stroke treated within the first four hours will have far less residual sequela and in Plaintiffs’ case, more likely than not, he would have suffered from no residuals, if treated during that early time period.
Because of the delay caused by the defendants, Plaintiff did not get to the emergency room until eight hours after the onset of his symptoms. By that time options for treatment were limited.
As a direct and proximate result of the delay in diagnosis and treatment of the stroke caused by the defendants Plaintiffs’ physical and occupational therapy was significantly longer than it would have been.
Further, Plaintiff has been left with residuals from his stroke, including some slurred speech and weakness on his left side. It is more likely than not these residuals would have been totally avoided with prompt intervention. This would have occurred if the defendants had transferred the Plaintiff to an emergency room on an emergent basis, as the standard of practice required.
