Court Affirms Summary Judgment For Tele-Medicine Company: After Donna Harvard suffered a stroke at home, she was treated in the emergency room of John D. Archbold Memorial Hospital (“Hospital”), where the attending physician sought a consult with a neurologist from a tele-medicine company the hospital had contracted to provide such services. The neurologist informed Donna and her husband of the risks of tPA treatment, including the possibility of hemorrhaging, and they consented to treatment. The Hospital staff administered the medication at 3:17 p.m., within the extended four-and-a-half-hour treatment window. Unfortunately, Donna suffered a hemorrhage and died. Her husband sued the Hospital, its parent corporation, and the tele-medicine company Specialist on Call and Georgia TelePhysicians (collectively “SOC”), alleging that the failure to timely administer a blood-clot reducing treatment resulted in Donna’s hemorrhage.
SOC and the Hospital submitted the deposition of their expert, Dr. Steven Levine, in support of their motion for summary judgment, in which he concluded that there was a 99.9 percent chance that Donna would have hemorrhaged even if she had been given the drug earlier. He also pointed to a published study finding that treatment between three- and four-and-a-half hours was not related to a higher rate of hemorrhage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Hospital and SOC, finding that Harvard failed to show that any delay in care caused Donna’s hemorrhage. Harvard then appealed.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia (“Georgia Appellate Court”) stated in its opinion dated August 25, 2022: “the issue on appeal is whether Harvard met his burden to raise a factual question regarding causation. Like the trial court, we conclude that he has not. When causation is involved, plaintiff has a more complex dilemma where the defendant has given expert testimony that there was no proximate cause, because to merely show a causal link does not refute the defendant’s denial of causation and leaves an examination upon the entire record that the evidence does not create a triable issue as to the essential elements of causation, requiring the grant of summary judgment.”
“Here, both experts agreed that hemorrhage was a potential risk of tPA treatment, and that there was no clinically significant increase in risk whether the treatment was administered at hour three or hour four-and-a-half. Although Harvard’s expert opined that every minute of delay would increase the risk, he also admitted that Donna could have suffered a hemorrhage even if she had received the tPA before the expiration of the three hours, and he acknowledged that Donna was at a higher risk for hemorrhage due to hypertension. But, at no point in his deposition did the expert find with any reasonable degree of medical certainty that Donna would not have suffered the hemorrhage had the tPA been administered more quickly.”
Source Harvard v. John D. Archbold Memorial Hospital, Inc., A22A0960.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of hospital medical malpractice in Georgia or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Georgia medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your hospital medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a hospital medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.