Negligent Nurse Over-Medicates Patient Resulting in Death
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
On September 5, 2005 Plaintiff drove himself to the Emergency Room of a Detroit area hospital. He had complaints of abdominal pain and diarrhea. On arrival he was alert, calm and oriented times three. He was seen by an Emergency Room physician.
An x-ray film was taken of his abdomen that showed gas and stool in the patient�??s colon. The diagnosis at the time was possible bowel obstruction. While the patient was still in the Emergency Room, the on-call physician was contacted. The decision was made to admit the patient and place a naso-gastric tube. Furthermore, an order was entered increasing the amount of pain medication. The naso-gastric tube was placed in an attempt to decompress Plaintiff-Decedent�??s abdomen. Another order was written for a CT film of the abdomen with oral and intravenous contrast material.
After admission to the Defendant Hospital an increased dose of Dilaudid was given to the Plaintiff by Defendant Nurse and thereafter oral contrast was given to him for the purpose of preparing him for the ordered CT scan of the abdomen. The contrast material and increased Dilaudid were both given by Defendant Nurse. When the on call doctor next saw the Plaintiff he was already unresponsive and it was determined at that time he had been over-medicated with the pain medication, Dilaudid, and in fact had aspirated, (swallowed) contrast material into his lungs.
As a result of the aspiration, an inflammatory process started in the patient�??s lungs and he rapidly deteriorated which led to his family insisting he be transferred to the University of Michigan Medical Center where he expired on September 16, 2005.
It should be noted that the Plaintiff�??s abdominal symptoms subsided, with the decompression of his abdomen and there was no total bowel obstruction diagnosed, nor was it necessary to treat with any type of surgical intervention. Plaintiff died as a result of the inflammatory process caused by the aspiration of contrast material.
If the Plaintiff�??s naso-gastric tube had been allowed to stay in place, the patient�??s abdominal complaints which were caused by an illius would in fact have been effectively treated and the signs and symptoms of abdominal pain and/or diarrhea would have been relieved. Further, if the CT of the abdomen had not been ordered and the intravenous and oral contrast material not given to the Plaintiff for ingestion as the standard of practice required, Plaintiff would not have aspirated the contrast material.
If the standard of practice had been complied with by Defendant Nurse, the patient would not have been given excessive narcotics which caused his swallowing of the contrast material into his lungs. If he was not obtunded by the narcotic material, he again would not have aspirated leading to his respiratory distress. Therefore, if the standard of practice had been complied with by all of the Defendants, Plaintiff would not have aspirated contrast material. If the standard of practice had been complied with, his underlying illius condition, which was causing his abdominal complaints, would have been treated and cured. If the aspiration had not occurred, the inflammatory process in his lungs would have been prevented. The inflammatory process of the lungs would not have become what is known as adult respiratory distress syndrome, (ARDS), and the Plaintiff would not have died as a result of the inflammatory lung process at the University of Michigan Medical Center on September 16, 2005.
