hi, folks!
I have emailed her the statutes of limitations for medmal in her state. She has until the child's 20th birthday to file a medmal claim.
No plastic surgeon of merit is going to repair a scar until the child is fully grown. To do so before the child is grown is inappropriate. The body will fill in these scars during normal growth and development and the discoloration will fade. Only when the child is grown can plastic surgery provide the desired outcome.
There is a common misconception that unexpected, or poor results, or damages, are always caused by malpractice. That is a simply just not true. Have you ever made a mistake in your checkbook that resulted in an overdraft, maybe even one that you had to go and pick up from the provider to whom you wrote the check? If we apply the same 'law' that you apply to medmal, you should have been sentenced to prison for intentionally writing a 'bad' check. Would you just have said "OK; send me to prison for 10 years"?
There is another common misconception that medmal cases are easy to pursue and easy to win. The media is responsible for that. The media only reports the sensational cases; they don't tell you of the thousands that do not make it to court or in which the plaintiff loses. By the way, the courts did not allow the suit about 'getting fat at McDonald's'; and, the McDonald's coffee spill did not settle for those mega-millions and was not based on the woman getting burned by hot coffee, but was based on McDonald's being repeatedly cited for their coffee's being too hot and their failure to take corrective actions, which is intentional negligence.
Medmal claims are difficult to prove; difficult to win, and often drive the plaintiff to near insanity during the process.
I don't think medmal occurred in this situation. This infant probably had 1:1 nursing care, or very close to that. Neonatal intensive care is not just a name; it is the description of the amount of care that an infant receives.
I don't have the time or the space to describe to you the physical 'condition' of a newborn with conditions such as this woman's child had. Suffice it to say that what would not have damaged a healthy newborn would damage this infant because of the physical condition in which it was born.
For this infant to have peripheral IVs as opposed to an umbilical catheter indicates that it occurred several days, maybe weeks, after birth. This child was born with its tissues already compromised and because of its already physically challenged status, and because of the stress of the treatments needed to save its life, the tissues became even more compromized.
I'll share with you an instance from my own experience as an RN in Neonatal Intensive Care. I had two infants to care for on a particular shift. One of the infants had a peripheral IV, a scalp vein IV. The other infant coded. During the code, the infant with the scalp IV did what infants do; it wiggled around and its hand caught the IV tubing right at the scalp. Before any of us could get to the IV, it infiltrated. It looked awful and made the mother cry; it made me want to cry. If it had had calcium or another tissue damaging drug in the IV, it would have caused more than tissue infiltration; it would have caused a scar. Is that negligence? Is that malpractice? No. It was not an intentional or conscious act to deny this infant proper maintainance of an IV. It was just an unfortunate incident. Had I been watching the infant intently, it still would have happened, though the amount of fluid in the tissue would have been less.
There is no medical or nursing procedure that carries a 100% potential for no undesirable outcome. The only responsibility that a medical professional is expected to meet, or can possibly meet, is to minimize risks. No one can prevent each and every unfortunate outcome. It is not humanly possible. It is not possible in healthcare or in any aspect of life.
Those of you with no hands-on medical or health care experience can not understand what I am saying, but you have a duty to accept that the best of medical or health care does not always produce perfect results.
Why should an RN or a physican pay exhorbant malpractice insurance just in case they are sued? They are paying it because the media has made the American public believe that medmal suits settle or end in million dollar awards. That couldn't be further from the truth.
The trend of lawsuits is destroying the medical and healthcare profession. Insurance companies are refusing to issue malpractice insurance and professionals are leaving or restricting their practices in droves. These malpractice suits are taking income from the healthcare workers and their families. Maybe you think, well, the doctor makes enough and he or she can afford it. That, too, is a misconception. There will always be people who make more money than you do, or than I do, unless you are Bill Gates or J. K. Rowlings. You do not deserve part of their income just because they make more than you do.
I do hope IAAL comes here, or that any attorney comes here and jumps in. Lord knows, I wish I had not offended vrzirn to such a degree or that mrjb had not offended vrzirn to such a degree that he does not daily answer these posts.
It would be sheer disappointment to me if everyone agreed with me; I would have no opportunity to learn and no opportunity to grow and no opportunity to stamp my feet and make a fool out of myself. I would be lesser for the experience.
I agonize over returning to hands-on nursing. I have decided it is not worth it for me to commit my time, my knowledge, my experitise, my emotions, and my soul to such a suit-happy public. I value my family and I would not subject them to loss brought on by such accusations as I have seen here and through consulting. Do you people not realize that to defend oneself and be found innocent costs the caregiver nearly as much as if the caregiver is found negligent?
So thanks for calling in IAAL or any other attorney; they read this section every day; and I welcome someone to share my corner of hell with me.
EC