MEJIA v. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Procedure.
a. Who are the parties?
- · Maria Del Carmen Mejia (Plaintiff and Appellant), v.
- · COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF SAN BERNARDINO (Defendant and Respondent)
- · The ER Physician (Defendant)
- · Radiologist and his employer MSB Radiology Medical Group (Defendant)
- · Emergency Physicians Medical Group (Defendant)
b. Who brought the action?
- · Maria Del Carmen Mejia, the plaintiff
c. In what court did the case originate?
- San Barnardino
d. Who won at the trial-court level?
- The defendants, The ER Physician, Radiologist and his employer MSB Radiology Medical Group, Emergency Physicians Medical Group
e. What is the appellate history of the case?
- The case proceeded to trial, where respondent successfully moved for a nonsuit immediately after the close of the plaintiff’s case. Regarding the remaining defendants, the jury found that the radiologist and his employer, MSB Radiology, were negligent, but the ER physician and his employer, Emergency Physicians Medical Group, were not.
a. What are the relevant facts as recited by this court?
- · In April 1997, plaintiff heard something pop in her neck when she bent over to move some boxes.
- · Her neck immediately became stiff, and she suffered neck pain and stiffness off and on for a couple of weeks.
- · Nevertheless, plaintiff went about her business, using acetaminophen to control the pain.
- · May 3, 1997, when she awoke with severe neck pain and her head was twisted to one side.
- · That night, plaintiff's mother convinced plaintiff to go to the emergency room (hereinafter sometimes ER).
- · A neighbor took plaintiff, her mother, and her cousin to the ER at respondent hospital and dropped them off.
- · After one hour of her arrival the Hospital triage nurse sees her first
- · Around 3:00 a.m., plaintiff was examined by an ER physician.
- · The ER physician prescribed hydrocodone and acetaminophen for the pain and a tranquilizer to relax the muscles, and ordered X-rays of plaintiff's neck. (Ordered cervical neck x-ray by Dr. Bower)
- · The ER physician sent at least one X-ray to the on-call radiologist for an evaluation. (Sends one x-ray MSB then to Dr. Handler @5am)
- · The radiologist reported that he saw a congenital fusion, but nothing else.
- · Based in part on the radiologist's report, the ER physician discharged plaintiff, telling her that she had a twisted neck, but was otherwise all right.
- · When a nurse came in to escort plaintiff and her family out, plaintiff began to feel nauseous from the medication and vomited several times.
- · The last time she vomited, her family had to lift her head out of the toilet and put her in a wheelchair.
- · Begin to feel nausea while on a commode chair; she didn’t make it to the chair
- · Vomited several times on the wheel chair and in the bathroom while at the hospital (plaintiff’s family had to pull her head out of the toilet
- · When they left respondent hospital, plaintiff tried to get into her sister's car, but was unable, so her family lifted her into the car.
- · After taking plaintiff home, her family put her in bed. Plaintiff slept all day and all night. When she awoke the next morning, she could feel the pain in her neck again, but could not move her arms or legs and felt numb throughout her body.
- · She woke up completely paralysis and clenched fist.
- · Plaintiff was taken by an ambulance to another hospital, where it was determined that her neck was actually broken and she was paralyzed
a. Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion?
- Did he miss a procedure
- Did the plaintiff previous ever attend this facility
- Was the hospital prejudice?
- Was the family educated on what home care procedures to follow after discharged
- Why wasn't further step taken after client continuously vomiting?
- How was the x-ray misinterpret?
- Have this issue ever occur in clients medical history?
Issues.
a. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court?
- Liability
- Negligence
- 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)?
* The court decided that they agreed with Mejia that the hospital should held liable for the action of its physicians.
* Community hospital of San Bernardino, The ER Physician, Radiologist and his employer MSB Radiology Medical Group, Emergency Physicians Medical Group are all held liable for negligence of Maria case
- What is its rationale for that decision?
- 2. Do you agree with that rationale, and why or why not?
Implications.
a. What does the case mean for healthcare today?
- "Failure to diagnose" is only of the most common reoccurring issue in healthcare today. This means that doctors does not completely overlooked your illness or condition that he should have been able to diagnose if he/she had followed the proper standard of care. It can also mean that a delayed diagnosis caused delay in treatment, thereby increasing the patient's risk. Failure to diagnose and misdiagnosis are common grounds for malpractice claims.
b. What were its implications when the decision was announced?
- If all of the x-rays were sent the radiologist would more then likely had came up with a different conclusion
- There also were questions such as at what point can a rogue medical professional no longer be liable to the hospital.
- Before hiring an employee the policy and procedure must be given the the employees acknowledge and monthly required training should be implemented to help[ reduce such reoccurring medical errors.
- The Hospital will more likely be held liable for such instance the
- The physician would of more than likely lost his license.