Henry Macon Bradford (Plaintiff) vs ·Martin J. O'Neill, Jr. M.D (Defendant)
Case Analysis
Procedure.
a. Who are the parties?
b. Who brought the action?
e. What is the appellate history of the case?
Facts
a. What are the relevant facts as recited by this court?
b. Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion?
Issues.
a. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court?
b. Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues?
Yes,
Holding.
a. What is the court’s precise holding (decision)?
b. What is its rationale for that decision?
c. Do you agree with that rationale?
Yes
Implications.
a. What does the case mean for healthcare today?
b. What were its implications when the decision was announced?
c. How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these implications?
Procedure.
a. Who are the parties?
- · Martin J. O'Neill, Jr. M.D (Defendant)
b. Who brought the action?
- · Henry Bradford
- Supreme Court of Louisianad.
- Martin J. O'Neill, Jr. M.D (Defendant)
e. What is the appellate history of the case?
Facts
a. What are the relevant facts as recited by this court?
- · Mr. Bradford was suffering from a severe coronary artery disease.
- · He was referred to Dr. O'Neill, a cardiovascular thoracic surgeon, who recommended surgery.
- · Bradford was admitted to Humana Hospital and, during his preoperative workup, reported that he had a history of previous abdominal surgery with peptic ulcer disease
- which was entered into his medical records.
- · The fact that Bradford had undergone previous abdominal surgery was subsequently confirmed by a gastroenterologist who performed an endoscopy which revealed a "post-operative stomach with Billroth II anastomosis."
- · Mr. Bradford underwent a three vessel coronary by-pass
- · The surgeries were performed by Dr. O'Neill
- · Dr. O Neill surgery was assisted by general surgeon Dr. McClanahan. Part of the procedure for the bypass required the placement of pacemaking wires.1
- · Following the surgery, Mr. Bradford began to experience postoperative complications requiring exploratory abdominal surgery.
- · It was discovered that the cardiac pacing wires were in an area directly above the colon which was found to be perforated.
- · The injured portion of the colon was removed and a temporary double colostomy was performed.
- · After this surgery, Bradford continued to suffer severe nausea and vomiting for which he was hospitalized three times. He then was hospitalized again to have his colostomy closed.
- · As a result of his injuries, Bradford sued Drs. O'Neill and McClanahan alleging that they had improperly inserted the pacemaker wires which resulted in the perforation of his.
b. Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion?
- Were there any other medical conditions that could of assisted this issue.
Issues.
a. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court?
- · Negligent
- · Vicarious Liability
- · Independent Liability
- · Medical Malpractice
b. Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues?
Yes,
Holding.
a. What is the court’s precise holding (decision)?
- I. Dr. O'Neill was not liable for Mr. Bradford's injuries
- II. Dr. McClanahan, was found not negligent, for the passed the pacemaker wires.
b. What is its rationale for that decision?
- For the jury to find Dr. O'Neill 100% liable and Dr. McClanahan 0% liable under the theory that the passage of the wires was the basis for finding negligence, the jury must have concluded that Dr. O'Neill had passed the wires
- Considering that there was no jury charge that Dr. O'Neill could not be held vicariously liable for Dr. McClanahan's negligent passing of the pacemaker wires, it is possible that the jury found Dr. O'Neill guilty of medical malpractice for this reason. However, to hold Dr. O'Neill vicariously liable under the facts at hand is legal error. Additionally, since the jury found that Dr. McClanahan was not negligent, then it had no foundation for finding Dr. O'Neill vicariously liable..
c. Do you agree with that rationale?
Yes
Implications.
a. What does the case mean for healthcare today?
- With the continous suits for the same issues, healthcare officals are implementing new policies and procedure to reduce such issue.
b. What were its implications when the decision was announced?
c. How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these implications?
- Failure to assess and monitor, including failure to
- Complete a shift assessment.
- Implement a plan of care.
- Observe a patient's ongoing progress.
- Interpret a patient's signs and symptoms.