Would you sue?
 

Two weeks ago my appendix burst and I had an emergancy appendectomy. Both my wife and I told the anesthesiologist that I have a very low tolerance for any drugs and to go real easy on them or I could have complications. he said he would, my wife was told that I should come out of it within 4-5 hours and be ready for release after 8-9 hours. I ended up being out for almost 10 hours, when I woke up I was given morphin and fenegrin and was sent home.

Within five minutes of getting home I had a seizure and had to be taken back to the hospital in an ambulance. At the hospital the OR doctor determined that the seizure was the result of too many drugs for my body to handle. For the rest of my recovery I couldn't use any drugs for the pain.

The anesthesiologist said that he used a smaller dose than normal, but clearly not small enough for me. I am 6'5 and weigh 220, so I'm not a small guy but from past experience I know that usually a toddlers dosage is good enough for me.

The way I see it, this was just a case of unclear communication that led to an unfortunate event. I'm fine now, without any lasting effects (except of course the missing organ) Others that know what happened have suggested I sue for the trauma my wife and I went through. Neither of us feel that we should so we won't.

This whole thing has got me wondering though, how many people would sue and why. Personally I don't see the point in suing in this case, it was a simple mistake. So what do you guys think? What would you do in if you were in my place?

Sounds like a Dr. in an emergency situation did his best. You were not harmed by any professional misjudgement on his part, and you have no cause of action.

I agree with SirLance. There was no long term problems caused by what happened, so there is no real reason to sue.

Yes, if there was no outstanding long-term physical or mental damage, then the suit would collapse before it ever would be presented to a judge.

Unless someone with in an inordinate amount of money, time, and arrogance would pursue an endeavor such as this, it would be better just to chalk this circumstance up to simple miscommunication.

I have a friend who is an anesthesiologist, and he has told me many times that his job is more of a guessing game than anything else.

Every body has a million different reactions to any type of drug, and more often than not people don't list every medication they take. These medications can greatly change the effect the drugs given by the anesthesiologist.

You could probably get a lot of money by a hospital who would much rather settle, but I wouldn't put the personal blame on this man.

it's not like it was negligence, they cut back but not enough, you may want to have them add it to your record that you don't tolerate drugs well. medical prices are already high enough because people sue for less then this. as long as it was not negligence, or incompetence, i don't see the reason. they may owe you for lost wages, but beyond that, in my book, no harm, no foul.

I don't think you shoud (morally).

I think that if you do, and if you get a good (i.e. bad) lawyer, you may just have won the lotto.

How are you plnning on spending your millions?

/cynicism

Personally I think that suing is for misconduct, negligence or deliberate maliciousness, not for when people try their best but fail.

As someone how deals with liability settlements day in and day out, I think your only hope here is to get what I call "go away" money. If you get this into trial, it will cost the hospital a lot more to try the case than it will to just give you say $10,000 to make you go away. You'd then have to share that with your attorney and pay taxes on it, so in the end it would most likely be about $3,500-$4,000.

Also, Jetstream, there's nothing here that would cause a judge to dismiss this case out of hand unless there's some technicality. He would allow it to be tried on its own merits, and the plaintiff (frogza) would get his case to demonstrate how he was harmed. I suppose a case could be made for negligence here, but it's doubtful it would hold up in court.

Finally, frogza I hope you're feeling well.

I absolutely agree. I have the exact opposite problem, I tolerate the anesthetic too well so I need more to put me under. Found that out the hard way after waking up during a procedure once. Like Seaver said, it's more of a guessing game for them than anything because everyone tolerates it differently.

I hope you're feeling better frogza.

For me, it's a "it depends" thing. I agree that if you didn't have any lasting damage, then the suit is probably not a good idea for moral reasons.

If, however, you did incur some costs related to it, then you may want to see if they will pick up the tab for that, as you were not at fault in that case. Your insurance company may also be interested, because if it weren't for the reaction, you wouldn't have needed to go back, and your ins. co. wouldn't be paying out for it.

Just my 0.12714 Botswana Pula worth.....

I'm glad to see that so far you are all right in line with my thinking. Just to be clear, I was not and am not planning on sueing. After being told by several people that I should sue, I wanted to see if that was a normal reaction or not.

I certainly wouldn't sue, at least for the anesthesiologist's actions. If what you told the anesthesiologist was 'go a little easy' on the drugs, then that's not nearly enough guidance for him to be certain of getting it right. He (or she) is going to have to essentially guess at an amount that will keep you under 'long enough', but not cause adverse effects.

On the other hand, from what you say, it sounds like the hospital released you too early! You haven't really spelled out the timeline, but if they released you immediately after waking up from being under for an unusually long time...that sounds a bit irresponsible (aka 'cost conscious') to me. I don't know if I would sue over it, especially if there was no lasting damage, but I've heard a lot of stories about how hospitals are cutting costs by released patients as early as possible. I think it's inevitable that cases where the patient was released too early will increase.

I had been awake for almost an hour when I was released.

On an interesting side note, for the first 20 minutes after I woke up I spoke only spanish to my wife and the nurse. I could understand english fine but just couldn't figure out how to speak it. English is my native language, spanish was the second language I learned.

Really... if you were awake, aware, and alert after sedation, and your respirations weren't depressed at all, there's no way they'd foresee the seizure activity, regardless of how long you were asleep (unconscious). Prolonged sedation isn't something they worry about too much- it's when your respirations slow down that concerns them. Now granted, 10 hours is a long time, but it's not unreasonable by any means... it just means that it took your body a long time to metabolize it and filter it out.

Also, the language thing happens... it doesn't mean much of anything other than certain parts of your brain had awoken and others hadn't. People are sent home from dental surgery still drugged out of their minds all the time. I don't think an hour waiting period is anything to care about.

I would consider getting a copy of the medical records, and ask another anesthesiologist for their thoughts if he did in fact per your instruction decrease the amount of drugs he gave you. If it seemed reasonable I would let it go, if not I would file a complaint with the medical board.

Always avoid unnecessary litigation.
It encourages the lawyers, and more of the same.

In Canada you wouldn't get a dime.

"You're not dead" would be response.

Kind of a British "Keep a stiff upper lip" thing.

Don't use that doctor next time.

I had a migraine for 12 days with no relief and I went to the ER for it. I made sure to be specific in telling them that I cannot use any triptans like Imitrex or Zomig. They cause a serious heart problem in me. They noted it on my chart. Later, the nurse came in and put Imitrex in my IV while I was sleeping. The doctor had told her to do this. I woke up to chest pains and my heart rate was through the roof. There were people all around me freaking out and trying to save my life. It was really scary. I lived through it and although I considered suing for it, I decided that mistakes happen and no permanant damage was done. I am alive and well now. I don't want medical attention to get any more expensive than it already is, and medical malpractice suits are the main reason for the expense now.

IF YOUR APPENDIX WAS RUPTURED WHEN REMOVED--YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE HOSPITAL AT LEAST OVER NIGHT TO MONITOR THE POSIBILITY OF INFECTION.

I wouldn't sue, but i would get them to make a clear note on your medical records about your drug tolerance (or lack thereof) for future reference.

I'd definitely sue for this. I'm a big believer in not driving up the high cost of health care, but if you were "specific" and it was "noted on (your) chart" the doctor owes you something. The DOCTOR and noone else.

That's just it--he WASN'T specific. Unless he instructed them to administer, say, "50% of the normal dose," there are no grounds for a suit. Actually, even under those circumstances, the anesthesiologist is required to act according to his best judgement.

Uninformed patients assume that working on people is like working on a car. The same people who want to sue for being out too long would be just as anxious to sue if they woke up during the procedure. As is painfully obvious, people vary in their response to drugs.

My statement to the sue-happy would be, "Either specify the exact quantity of medication you desire, or accept the fact that anesthesia is an inexact science, and be prepared for a less than ideal outcome."

"Or you can find another anesthesiologist. Good luck finding one who will guarantee a perfect result, and enjoy your ruptured appendix."

Just for the sake of discussion (not because it will change anyone's mind in this case) I would like to point out what it takes for a finding of malpractice.

First, the medical professional must provide care that does not meet the community standard of care. Second, there must be harm to the patient as a result of the substandard care.

Part one has not been establised in this case with regards to the anesthesia. It could be argued that discharge was premature, but that is rapidly becoming the norm without people having bad outcomes.

As far as the second part, your damages would be limited to the cost of your follow up care and any extra lost income, because you had no permanent loss of function and you had no real suffering (other than a little bit of worry).

I was encouraged by everyone's answers. Unfortunately there are too many people who think bad outcome equals malpractice.

I think there are too many cases of people suing (whether medically or not). I think it's become an "easy" way to get money. I would not sue for any reason unless something very serious happened to me.

If there are no long-term effects, I wouldn't sue -

Further more, if there aren't any long-term effects, you would be hardpressed to have a successful case, because of the situation. Because of the fact you didn't tell the doctor a specific amount, he can't be held liable. You told me less, and he gave you less. Your attorney would have to argue that the doctor didn't practice "due diligence" by giving you a lesser amount of anestesia, and that just gets nasty.

The defendant would simply argue that there isn't a simple way to tell what is the 100% correct amount to give someone who is a certain weight that is very "sensitive to drugs." Considering there isn't even a defined amount in place today (anestesiologists usually use guidelines and make a guestimate at how much you need, and increase it until you pass out) for what is required, the case would go nowhere. It's just not a good idea. Morally, ethically, legally.

If I were an anesthesiologist I would be concerned with making sure you stayed under long enough for the procedure. Short of monitoring your vitals, I wouldn't be overly concerned with your opinion of how much or little drugs you needed.

basically, if a patient looked over at me while I was administering meds and said he needed half or twice as much as normal, I would nod reassuringly and give him whatever I was trained to give.


as a patient, I'd be more concerned with coming out too early rather than too late.


I wouldn't sue.

Sueing a dr for saving your life is not really what I'd call a sensible thing to do. You didn't die, you got your emergency apendectcomy and you had a siezure. You lived. Get on with your life.

I'm also in the 'wouldn't sue' group.

On a side note not at all relevant to the current example, I kinda wish we had some judges in Oz (and probably the US as well) who'd be willing to say "you did something stupid, you hurt yourself, you can't get money for your own stupidity".

This case was overturned on appeal and I think that is the correct result.

At what point did people stop becoming responsible for their own actions?