Malpractice Attorneys

Nassau County, New York

 

Medication Error in Nassau County

 

This case involved the failure of a doctor to prescribe a proper, therapeutic dose of anti-seizure medication for a patient with a life long history of grand mal seizures. Six days after being prescribed the sub-therapeutic dose of anti-seizure medication, the patient suffered a grand mal seizure and subsequently fell, hit his head, and sustained total brain damage as a result.

 

The defendant prescribed half of the patient's usual dosage based only upon the patient's recollection of the dosage. The doctor failed to verify the correct dosage by calling the patient's previous treatment clinic, asking to see a prescription bottle or pill, or checking with a reputable source, such as the Physician's Desk Reference or a neurologist to see if the dosage was appropriate.

 

During trial, it became obvious that the defendant was unequipped to administer proper care to the patient. He admitted he usually did not treat this type of patient and testified that he did not know the minimal dose he prescribed was not acceptable for someone older than 12 years old. Additionally, he did not know that prescribing a lesser dose could result in a grand mal seizure.

 

The defendant's counsel called a physician board certified in internal medicine to support their claim that malpractice did not occur. With the aid of this "expert witness," the defense attempted to explain the plaintiff's injuries by just about every possible cause, other than the medical malpractice committed by their client.

 

The witness attempted to relieve the defendant of any accountability by offering alternatives to these two incriminating truths:

 

• The patient's medication levels were found to be below what the laboratory considered within the therapeutic range the day of the brain damaging event due to the defendant prescribing a sub-therapeutic dose of anti-seizure medication.
• The sub-therapeutic dose of medication prescribed by the defendant led to the seizure, fall, and brain damage sustained by the plaintiff.

 

The expert offered a number of possible reasons as to why the plaintiff's blood levels of anti-seizure medication could be below therapeutic level.

 

The plaintiff's compliance with taking medication was questioned. The expert attempted to infer that because the plaintiff had missed an x-ray appointment at a previous clinic in 1999 or 2000, he might not be compliant with orders to take his medicine during the time period the injury was sustained. The idea of non-compliance was discredited when the witness testified to the following key points:

 

• There was no record of the plaintiff being noncompliant with taking his medication at the previous clinic.
• Since ceasing care at that prior clinic and starting visits with the defendant, the plaintiff had not missed one appointment.
• Many prescription refills were called in for the plaintiff, most of which were at the plaintiff's request.
• There was no reference in the record specifically saying that he was not taking his medication.
  

 

The expert also offered the possibility that the plaintiff drank alcohol, creating hyper-excitability, which would cause the liver to work harder and metabolize all drugs in the system. He explained alcohol could cause the lower levels of the drug in the plaintiff's blood. However, that excuse did not seem so likely upon cross-examination either. The idea of alcohol consumption playing a roll was discredited based on the witness's testimony to the following points:

 

• The chart said nothing about the plaintiff having alcohol on his breath.
• If the hospital employees had smelled alcohol on his breath, they would have tested for those levels.
• The report was taken at 11:35 in the morning, making it less likely that the plaintiff had consumed alcohol.
• It was not likely that one beer would cause hyper-excitability in the brain of a large man.
• A neurologist would most likely agree that one beer would not cause hyper-excitability in a large man.

 

The defenses expert cited assault, as opposed to seizure, as a possible cause of the fall and the plaintiff's resulting brain damage. Upon further probing, the witness conceded that:

• The box for unarmed assault was not checked on the pre-hospital care report in the records.
• No evidence was found of a fractured skull on the CAT scans.
• There was no evidence in the records that support the position that the patient was assaulted.

 

The plaintiff's history of Sarcoidosis was mentioned as another possible cause of the seizure that led to the fall and brain damage. The witness stated that this was an important consideration because Sarcoidosis is a widespread disease, which causes scar tissue in various parts of the body. However, the notion that the plaintiff's Sarcoidosis was the cause of the seizure was quickly put to rest. The witness testified to these key points:

• In 90% of the cases of this disease, the scarring was found to be in the lungs.
• It was found that the plaintiff fit into this 90% of cases where scarring is limited to the lungs.
• There was no evidence that the plaintiff had any Sarcoidosis in his brain.

 

This case resulted in a substantial settlement in favor of the victim.

 

If you or a loved one has had an injury that you feel may have been preventable and have questions about the quality of the medical care you received, please call Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C. for answers and a complimentary consultation. Our malpractice attorneys handle all medical malpractice cases in New York, including the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Together we will continue our fight against FRIVOLOUS DEFENSES and DECEPTIVE DEFENSES.

 

 

 

Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, P.C.
Call Us Toll Free
1.877. ASK 4 SAM