Case Result: Neurosurgeon Did Not Breach Standard of Care in Spinal Surgery, Affirms Michigan Court of Appeals
Our med-mal defense lawyers argued successfully to the Michigan Court of Appeals that the physician did not breach the standard of care.
Certified Nurse Anesthetist
Our client was a Certified Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) assigned to Patient X’s colonoscopy procedure. Based on her assessment of Patient X, which included her interview of the patient and review of the patient’s record, Patient X was not unstable. Patient X did, however, have several medical conditions including cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and liver disease.
The CRNA slowly titrated IV Propofol for the procedure. However, two minutes after the procedure started, the patient stopped breathing. Despite resuscitation efforts, Patient X went into cardiac arrest. Medical personnel were able to temporarily revive Patient X’s heart, but brain damage had already occurred. Patient X suffered two more cardiac arrests before ultimately expiring.
An investigation was opened against the CRNA by the Department of Health (DOH), at which point the CRNA contacted us at Chapman Law Group. We had the case reviewed by a CRNA expert witness who found that, despite Patient X’s untimely death, our client had met the standard of care. Moreover, in our review of the materials from the related civil lawsuit, it was determined that Patient X did not have the required clearance from her cardiologist to undergo the procedure. However, at the time of the procedure, this information was unknown.
We at Chapman Law Group submitted a response to the DOH detailing the events and our client’s involvement, along with a copy of the expert witness’ opinion. The Probable Cause Panel considered this evidence and dismissed the case against our client.
This information is a sample of our past results. Prospective clients may not obtain the same or similar results. Every case is different and each case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits. The circumstances of your case may differ from the results provided. The information provided has not been reviewed or approved by the State Bar.
As this Michigan nurse’s case shows, we have extensive knowledge and experience to maneuver the nuances of the Michigan Administrative Hearings System to our clients’ advantage.
Our attorneys were able to successfully cross-examine HPRP representatives, the client’s evaluators, and fact witnesses, as well as provide favorable character testimony.
The Court dismissed state law claims with prejudice and the 42 USC § 1983 claim without prejudice, as the pleadings were insufficient to state a claim against our licensed practical nurse client.