Legal Aspects Of Health Care Administration 11th Edition by George Pozgar

تمرين 2

Facts
The plaintiff, Jane Doe, had been exposed to HIV as the result of sexual contact. The plaintiff consulted her defendant-physicians, but they failed to diagnose her condition as being positive for either HIV or AIDS. The disease weakened her immune system, and she developed pneumonia and was admitted to a hospital. The patient was eventually diagnosed with AIDS. The patient's infectious disease expert, Dr. Hill, claimed that proper diagnosis prior to her acute episode would have provided greater opportunity for improved long-term treatment. The defendants admitted that they negligently failed to timely diagnose the patient's condition.
The defendants' expert witness, Dr. Lutz, testified from his review of the patient's medical record that the patient's diagnosis could not have been determined based on the symptoms as described in the record. Lutz never examined the patient and based his determination on the documentation contained in the medical record. Lutz did, however, agree that if the patient's immune system had not been totally destroyed, preventive treatment could have resulted in a longer life span.
The civil district court entered judgment on a jury verdict of $700,000 in general damages, which included pain and suffering, mental anguish, disability, and the loss of the enjoyment of life, and $314,000 for medical and special damages. The defendants appealed.
Issue
Did the defendants' failure to timely diagnose the plaintiff's condition shorten her life span?
Holding
The Louisiana Court of Appeal held that the evidence supported the jury's finding that the defendants failed to timely diagnose the plaintiff's condition.
Reason
The medical defendants agreed that they negligently failed to timely diagnose the patient's condition. The plaintiff's expert witness testified that within the "reasonable medical probability" standard and the "more-likely-than-not" standard, if the plaintiff had been properly diagnosed and treated no later than August 18, 1990, which was the date the medical defendants should have diagnosed and treated the patient, then she would not have contracted pneumonia. She would have worked, as well as lived, for another year.
Discuss the importance of a thorough history and physical examination.