Conn v. United State

880 F.Supp.2d 741 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was suffering from chest pains. He first visited the Stone County Hospital but soon transferred to the G.V. 'Sonny' Montgomery V.A. Medical Center. By the time he arrived at the V.A., his chest pains had subsided, but he 'had a troponin I value of 0.17 and some nonspecific EKG changes.' An EKG showed an 'incomplete right bundle branch block.' The V.A. kept P overnight, His 'troponin I began to trend down, and he had no episodes overnight on telemetry monitoring.' P advised the V.A. that had undergone a stress test the prior year, and he 'was placed on omeprazole 40 mg po for possible GERD.' The V.A. discharged him as he was 'asymptomatic.' He never underwent an ECHO test. P had a 90 percent blockage in a left artery and two days later and had another heart attack and almost died. Ps sued D for malpractice. Ps engaged Dr. Mark Strong, who reviewed the records and submitted an expert report. The report indicated that from the elevated troponin levels and irregular EKG readings there was 'no question that P suffered an acute myocardial infarcation that first morning. He stated that the V.A.'s course of treatment was 'not appropriate.' P 'did not receive any type of beta-blocker therapy, anti-platelet therapy or thrombin inhibitor' at the V.A., nor any type of vasodilator therapy/nitrate therapy.' Even after the V.A. confirmed the elevated troponin level, Dr. Strong contends that P 'was not treated with what the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association recommend for an acute myocardial infarcation.' Strong stated his recommendation would have been to proceed with diagnostic coronary angiography. Dr. Strong opined that 'the failure of the medical staff to appropriately diagnose, treat and risk-stratify P following his admission for an acute myocardial infarcation left him with an unacceptably high risk of recurrent symptoms and complications of angina/myocardial infarcation and death.' He stated that P’s condition was clearly evident and should have been diagnosed. D moved for summary judgment.