Weeks after being seen and released in the ER for what presented as low-risk chest pain, a male patient died from aortic dissection.
Sensing that a claim might be coming, our Member, the emergency medicine physician, alerted Physicians Insurance and reviewed the patient’s chart, wondering if he could have missed something.
In fact, the physician and the physician assistant (P.A.) had gone beyond the standard of care in evaluating and treating the patient. They had offered to admit the patient for monitoring, which he’d declined, and arranged an expedited cardiology consultation with a colleague upon his release home—all of which was clearly documented. In addition, the patient had followed up with both the consulting cardiologist and his primary care provider as directed, and neither had detected anything emergent.
A lawsuit was filed naming every provider involved with the patient, including this physician and the P.A., plus the radiologist who read the chest X-ray, the consulting cardiologist, and the primary care provider. Eventually, all providers were dropped from the lawsuit, except the emergency medicine physician and the P.A.
“It stung to have our care scrutinized like that—to have our training, our skills, our motives, and our judgement called into question,” the physician recalled.
The plaintiff claimed that one particular test would have helped the care providers detect the patient’s aortic rupture. However, defense experts reviewing the case confirmed that this was not a test that was indicated by what was seen in the ER that day, and that the care delivered had met or exceeded the standard of care.
In Defense of Good Medicine
As the claim unfolded, our Member had a voice in the process at every turn. Did he want to consider a settlement? The answer was a firm no. “We had given great care and exceeded the standard, and the experts agreed,” the physician said. “I wanted to have my day in court to defend my care.”
What about a high/low agreement, where both parties to the trial would agree to a cap on damage awards and a minimum to be awarded to the plaintiff upon a defense verdict—a way to buffer exposure to unpredictable jury verdicts? Once again, confident that he had done nothing wrong, the physician was steadfast in believing such an agreement was unnecessary. PI fully supported his stance.
“In a 20-year career, this was my first trial, coming right after I had stepped away from clinical medicine to an administrative role,” the physician said. “The incident was every bit the nerve-wracking, horrifying nightmare you might imagine, but I took great comfort in the expertise and care I was given by Physicians Insurance and my defense team. They provided an incredible level of advocacy that let us clear our names at trial.”
And clear their names we did, with a unanimous verdict for the defense.