Airman Loses Legs in Botched Gallbladder Surgery

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
There are a lot of sad stories in military medicine and civilian medicine, but does any one honestly think that allowing military members to sue the government is somehow going to change the care they get?
Yep. If the government was doing payouts, they might find the shortcuts they take in staffing and whatnot aren't financially worth it anymore.
#1) I don't know a doctor (and I know a lot) who is motivated to provide better care by lawsuits.
Nope. But the beancounters they work for are. Empowering the customer usually leads to a better product.
#2) Why would a suit against the government affect the way a military doc practices? It doesn't cost a military doctor anything.
Making the military own up to the health care it provides, like every other health care provider in the country, will force it to up its standards to civilian levels in the areas it has shortfalls. Coverage, allied health, staffing, etc.

Members don't see this ad.
 
#3) These are all mostly a case of someone trying to capitalize on a bad event happening. Well, I lost my legs. Might as well try to make a couple mil off it. The money isn't going to give him his legs back. It isn't going to make this less likely to happen to the next guy. All it is going to do is give the family some money. While I suppose that's nice to have, why would we give someone who died in the OR more money than someone who died on the street in Baghdad?

You cannot trivialize the loss of two legs under any circumstance... especially for someone so young.

There is an inherent risk with military service... we are not blind to that when we raise our right hand. It's a decision that places us in a position where we may have to close with the enemy; any variety of factors could lead to permanent disfigurement or death in combat and it's very tragic in every case.

However, a CONUS operating room is hardly a battlefield and a surgeon is hardly your enemy. His legs are gone because something obviously went wrong. You cannot use a battlefield casualty as a precedence for a botched surgery in garrison.

Who knows, maybe combat casualties are a convenient mask for malpractice happening overseas that results in amputation or other possibly avoidable disfigurement... of course, it's all circumstantial.
 
Nope. But the beancounters they work for are. Empowering the customer usually leads to a better product
You're blind, deaf, and at least mildly ******ed if you think that empowering the customer to sue civilian doctors for punitive damages has led to a better product. It's led to care that costs an order of magnitude more than it otherwise would have, is fragmented over a dozen specialists perscribing conflicting therapies, documented on thousands of forms in triplicate, and which disregards all clinical judgment in favor of legal cowerdice. You think this is better?​

Now I agree that military medicine, like civilian medicine, should be responsible for all costs associated with their errors. But this serviceman has that: he'll be 100% disabled, which means the government will have him on full pay for the rest of his life, provide for him and his family's healthcare for the rest of his life, and they'll even help him put his kids through college. What's left is 'punitive damages', meaning money that they take, not because it's judged that he needs it, but because it will teach the doctor/government a lesson. Well, at least in the civilian sector it has taught a pretty strong lesson: Turf, test, document, and only treat if you're absolulty sure they can't pin the blame on you if something goes wrong. I don't think we need more of that.​

However, a CONUS operating room is hardly a battlefield and a surgeon is hardly your enemy. His legs are gone because something obviously went wrong. You cannot use a battlefield casualty as a precedence for a botched surgery in garrison.​

I think you could make an argument that the military's staffing issues in their civilian clinics, and therefore some of the errors that occur, are a result of the enemy forcing high volumes of medical staff to deploy. Can you really hold military medical care in the US to the same standard as its civilian counterpart when their physicians are either absent because of, or recovering from, a war that the civilian docs have nothing to do with?​
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
I am extremely fortunate to have the option of choosing primary care from either Johns Hopkins, Bethesda, Walter Reed, or some smaller military clinics in the area. From your position, it seems my best option would be Johns Hopkins because their docs are less stressed than military docs due to deployments.

Considering deployments, it's no question that it's a different working environment than civilian counterparts but that obviously comes with the territory. I don't consider that an excuse to provide substandard care as a military physician, nurse, physicians assistant or other support personnel (admin, etc). If docs and support personnel are becoming too stressed to perform, then obviously there is a flaw that is causing more potential harm than necessary. From a professional stand-point, I'm not going attribute that to unskilled or unknowledgeable docs, but rather the conditions that seniors in the medical corps and the military allow to persist.

I don't know how the government can express to its troops that one of the greatest benefits of military service is the health care when it comes with the caveat: *your personal experience may differ due to stressed medical personnel

"When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen." - George Washington. My rights as a US citizen should not be limited because I am wearing a uniform. Colton Read and his family should be allowed to pursue any course of action a non-servicemember is guaranteed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...it's no question that it's a different working environment than civilian counterparts but that obviously comes with the territory. I don't consider that an excuse to provide substandard care as a military physician, nurse, physicians assistant or other support personnel (admin, etc). If docs and support personnel are becoming too stressed to perform, then obviously there is a flaw that is causing more potential harm than necessary. From a professional stand-point, I'm not going attribute that to unskilled or unknowledgeable docs, but rather the conditions that seniors in the medical corps and the military allow to persist.

My experience in Navy medicine was most everyone acknowledged staffing and other problems. The senior leaders would shrug their shoulders and say "it's not logistically possible". Sometimes they would say it to avoid having to take a stand but there is a hard reality to that argument. If you are in the middle of nowhere you may have no choice but to practice medicine in a suboptimal environment, without sufficient staffing or with the wrong equipment. By and large we all had a "can-do attitude" to make the best with the resources we had. I think that mentality captures the ethos of military which is to go into a battle and find a way to win no matter what the situation. The pitfall I think is that you can find yourself so focused on getting it done you can forget to say "hey wait a minute" when things are out of whack.
 
Last edited:
"When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen." - George Washington. My rights as a US citizen should not be limited because I am wearing a uniform. Colton Read and his family should be allowed to pursue any course of action a non-servicemember is guaranteed.

Citizens generally can't sue the government due to sovereign immunity. I agree with the above posters that malpractice lawsuits are the wrong idea. I suspect the end result would be a dramatic increase in costs.
 
My experience in Navy medicine was most everyone acknowledged staffing and other problems. The senior leaders would shrug their shoulders and say "it's not logistically possible". Sometimes they would say it to avoid having to take a stand but there is a hard reality to that argument. If you are in the middle of nowhere you may have no choice but to practice medicine in a suboptimal environment, without sufficient staffing or with the wrong equipment. By and large we all had a "can-do attitude" to make the best with the resources we had. I think that mentality captures the ethos of military which is to go into a battle and find a way to win no matter what the situation. The pitfall I think is that you can find yourself so focused on getting it done you can forget to say "hey wait a minute" when things are out of whack.

I think I have mis-represented what I was writing. My intent wasn't a jab at care provided in a combat zone because of limited access to equipment and other resources; rather the stress experienced by medical corps personnel as a result of deployment stress upon their return to a CONUS assignment.
 
I think I have mis-represented what I was writing. My intent wasn't a jab at care provided in a combat zone because of limited access to equipment and other resources; rather the stress experienced by medical corps personnel as a result of deployment stress upon their return to a CONUS assignment.

Are you a military physician or in the training pipeline? I had a feeling that our department barely had enough personnel to meet the peacetime mission then the repeated deployments started. Recently things have improved due to the hiring of contractors but its still a pretty frustrating situation in my humble opinion.
 
You're blind, deaf, and at least mildly ******ed if you think that empowering the customer to sue civilian doctors for punitive damages has led to a better product.​

When you take a controversial topic in which you can make a pretty good argument for either side, when your go-to is "You gotta be ******ed if you don't think what I think", you come across as someone who hasn't given it much thought.
It's led to care that costs an order of magnitude more than it otherwise would have, is fragmented over a dozen specialists perscribing conflicting therapies, documented on thousands of forms in triplicate, and which disregards all clinical judgment in favor of legal cowerdice. You think this is better?
Does threat of litigation lead to higher costs? You betcha. Does threat of litigation lead to a lot of pain in the okole for practitioners? You betcha. Does threat of litigation lead to a lot more care taken to follow protocol and best practice? Oh hell yes.

Does your average doc practice sloppier medicine in an environment where they can't be sued? Nope. But are corners cut and more risks taken by institutions in which there is no recourse against them? Absolutely. It ain't a medicine thing, it's just a business thing. Welcome aboard...
 
Last edited:
But this serviceman has that: he'll be 100% disabled, which means the government will have him on full pay for the rest of his life, provide for him and his family's healthcare for the rest of his life, and they'll even help him put his kids through college.
If you think that sounds like a good deal financially, I've got some land to sell you.

The kid is 20 years old. He's making, what, $1,800/month? At BEST he'll get $1,800 for the rest of his life. You don't have to be a statistician to realize that's getting hosed. Who reaches their earning peak at 20 in the MILITARY? If he wasn't hurt, putting his kids through college and covering healthcare would not be much of an issue.
What's left is 'punitive damages', meaning money that they take, not because it's judged that he needs it, but because it will teach the doctor/government a lesson.
No, in the civilian sector, he can sue for what money he could have made in his life, not what he's making now.
I think you could make an argument that the military's staffing issues in their civilian clinics, and therefore some of the errors that occur, are a result of the enemy forcing high volumes of medical staff to deploy. Can you really hold military medical care in the US to the same standard as its civilian counterpart when their physicians are either absent because of, or recovering from, a war that the civilian docs have nothing to do with?​
Yes. If you can't handle your volume safely, refer out. If you can't handle taking out someone's gall bladder, send him to an ER like everyone else without insurance. Rolling the dice and saying, "Hey, we're understaffed, what are you gonna do?" is unethical, irresponsible, and a disservice.

The military apologists really make me glad I have a rich life outside the military. If folks honestly think they can explain away how the military shouldn't take any ownership over negligence because, hey, we're the military and we're special, then they're part of the problem. It's exactly that kind of logic that causes $hit like this to happen in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna make a shameless attempt to get this thread back on topic (Airman Reed's situation):

Now here you have a young surgeon who graduated med school in 2000, trained there at that program, and is listed as a pediatric surgeon, which puts her out of training and fellowship at max 2-3 yrs, and she makes one of the most horrific mistakes for what should be routine access for any general surgeon in this day and age, in a hospital that seemingly has no capacity to take care of such a terrible complication.

Galo, thanks for this info (that it was a young ped surgeon). Do we know anything else: Did she actually make the mistake? Or a resident? Of course, only 2-3 yrs out of training isn't much time at the helm, but still this shouldn't have happened. Was this her first lap gallbladder removal?

Would love to know more details if anyone can provide. The media blitz and the kid's blog are very stunning.
 
However, a CONUS operating room is hardly a battlefield and a surgeon is hardly your enemy. His legs are gone because something obviously went wrong. You cannot use a battlefield casualty as a precedence for a botched surgery in garrison.

You've apparently never heard of friendly fire. Should you be able to sue the A-10 pilot who mistakenly strafed your platoon? We're certainly killing as many soldiers that way as we are with surgical misadventures.
 
My 2 cents.. I did an article search through PubMed and aortic injuries are not unheard of in cholecystectomy with placement of the insufflation trocar. I plead ignorance on the events in the ensuing 7 hours following the injury; so I can only second that those hours seem like minutes.

It was driven home to me that there are NUMEROUS "dumb" errors made in civilian hospitals after sitting through a Radiology-led M & M today at my institution (a top 20 school) ...like going to CT after it was clear there was an aortic dissection on CXR leading to multiple strokes and loss of one kidney because of the delay going to the OR. CT images of tension pneumothoraxes, NG tubes in every other place but the stomach, etc. Bad things happen even to the young, it is the nature of medicine and I'm not ready to write-off this surgeon until I know her record more fully.

Of course I feel this family should be afforded the ability to reasonable compensation and whatever else can be done to help him continue/pursue a new career.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
When I was a resident at Wilford Hall Medical Center, an active duty 4 star general came to get some sort of spine surgery. Everyone in the orthopedics department was ordered to get a haircut. There is no resident involved in the case... two staff do the case... the best two...

now when Colton Read gets his surgery does he get that same treatment?
My guess is that a pediatric surgeon who has recently done a peds fellowship and is deployed occasionally and graduated from a low volume surgical center doesn't have the qualifications and numbers. This is not the person you would cherry pick to have do your case. You certainly wouldn't ask for a july resident to be putting the trocars in.

travis is the AF second largest medical facility... no vascular surgeon. hmmm... what does that tell you about military medicine training and care?
a lot of cholecystectomies are done in the AF with a lot less back up resources than travis...

At other hospitals there is a lot more safety net... but due to money, attrition, and very bad quality of life who would want to stay?
the vascular surgeon taking care of this patient at UC Davis is a former vascular surgeon in the AF. Not really an old guy by any stretch but why would he ever stay in the Air Force?
 
When I was a resident at Wilford Hall Medical Center, an active duty 4 star general came to get some sort of spine surgery. Everyone in the orthopedics department was ordered to get a haircut. There is no resident involved in the case... two staff do the case... the best two...

I've seen stuff like that before at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. Someone taught me to treat VIPs the same as everyone else to prevent mistakes. I think that is sound advice.

My guess is that a pediatric surgeon who has recently done a peds fellowship and is deployed occasionally and graduated from a low volume surgical center doesn't have the qualifications and numbers. This is not the person you would cherry pick to have do your case.

Is that routine for a pediatric surgeon to operate on adults? I know child psychiatrists sometimes treat adult patients but IMHO that is different. I worked at an academic medical center that had a pediatric hospital. I can't imagine the ped surgeons coming to the adult hospital to do procedures.
 
of course,
pediatric surgeons do lap choley in kids
and I am sure many pediatric surgeons are very good at doing them. Likely not much difference between 15 yr old cholecystectomies vs a 20 year old man.

I hope that the hospital commanders... a couple of whom just left... are forced to take accountability for the unsafe environment and LACK of excellence in all they do rather than just roll the surgeon. I am sure the multiple spin doctor committees will come up with a bunch of factors and problems in their root cause analysis. The culture at Travis has been Can't Do for about 7-8 years and it is deep-seated.

many travis alum feel this way.
 
I hope that the hospital commanders... a couple of whom just left... are forced to take accountability for the unsafe environment and LACK of excellence in all they do rather than just roll the surgeon. I am sure the multiple spin doctor committees will come up with a bunch of factors and problems in their root cause analysis. The culture at Travis has been Can't Do for about 7-8 years and it is deep-seated.

many travis alum feel this way.

In the Navy my experience was that if the ship runs aground regardless of the cause an Admiral fires the CO, XO and others. Obviously we don't know the details of this situation but you gotta wonder if something like that should happen. Does the Air Force have events like that?
 
i honestly think there are three tiers in AF Medicine.

1) hardworking doctors dedicated to learning their craft and working hard to do the right thing... they usually separate due to the shortfalls, crappy pay, callous nature, and aim low expectations of the AF

2) doctors who are, for the most part, competent but have no real drive. They don't want to see a lot of patients or do a lot of operations for example. Underachievers who want to stay in for 20 years and retire... they typically have found ways to work the system, see few patients, fly under the radar, and create no problems... they typically are good at fixing the younger guys to deploy and are good at digging in to their assignment. We had colonels at travis who had never deployed or PCS'd and where at year 16-18. They have no command aspiration. They are too lazy to work hard and make a lot more money. They typically aren't very patriotic either.

3) Command oriented climbing doctors. these people typically want to progress in rank and want the power over other people. They will never call you doctor but by your rank. They are a nurse colonel and you are a major... not a doctor. If they are a doctor, they answer their phone by saying Colonel Irrelevent,,, rather than Dr. Irrelevent. they have completely bought in. they strive to make rank early. They learn not to care about patients or colleagues but to manage money, put spin on situations, and most importantly, NETWORK and apprentice to other command type. Typically these doctors have little to know clue about real medicine. At any given moment, they would miserably fail any impromptu board exam of their specialty. Often, they have some flight time and love to talk about their days in T-38s or some super irrelevant topic. They have completely bought in. These guys protect each other and when some event like this happens
they are good and dodging blame and responsibility. They move around a lot to other commands and are hard to pin down because they never are around much. they are either fresh on the scene or off to another base or command. More and more, these aren't really doctors but pharmacists, physical therapists, nurses, flight surgeons who have never done a residency.

None of these people have any real leadership or management credentials. Few to none have MBAs like you would see in real corporate leadership. They, instead, do military professional education like Air War college. Great... you studied Linebacker II of the Vietnam war and wrote a term paper on it.

Our surgical commander at Travis was a physical therapist. he had never been in an OR before his assignment. Prior to my arrival at DGMC, there was a pharmacist as the hospital commander.. or as he was called, Colonel Motrin.
Leadership represents the worst of the worst... people who aren't really good doctors or good managers. They do, however, have the extreme skill of self preservation. That is why nobody of any leadership consequence will get fired or demoted.
 
Leadership represents the worst of the worst... people who aren't really good doctors or good managers. They do, however, have the extreme skill of self preservation. That is why nobody of any leadership consequence will get fired or demoted.
Well said. The same goes for the Navy. Somebody (had to be one of my colleagues who feel the same way I do) nominated me to be a part of the Ward Room (social club for MSC's who want to be Captains). I have never campaigned harder for somebody else. Fortunately I didn't win the election. I can't think of a bigger waste of time. Some of us actually have to work at our real job.
 
the AF times article (see attached) reveals some interesting facts (was a resident's mistake, pt never signed a release allowing for residents to be involved, vasc surgeon billet there is gapped).
 

Attachments

  • page01.pdf
    404.6 KB · Views: 89
  • page02.pdf
    672.1 KB · Views: 92
  • page03.pdf
    69.4 KB · Views: 109
the AF times article (see attached) reveals some interesting facts (was a resident's mistake, pt never signed a release allowing for residents to be involved, vasc surgeon billet there is gapped).
I'm curious about the three hour delay from decision to delivery to Davis, which is about 40 miles away.
 
Now the good (bad?) stuff is coming out...

A few thoughts:
1. I don't think its the norm for every community hospital to have a vascular surgeon waiting in the wings to rescue patients from rare catastrophic errors.

2. I bet the consent he signed did include permission for trainees to be involved in his care (its not like anyone actually reads the consents we hand them). Now, whether that is coercive given his rank, the fact that the trainee who consented him was probably an O3 or O4, and the amount of paperwork he was asked to sign rapid fire is a separate question. A patient of mine actually wanted to read a consent prior to a relatively high risk procedure <gasp> recently and the nurses reacted like he was the biggest pr1ck.

3. I'm always bothered by inbred programs. Trained at Travis, attend at Travis, etc.
 
I don't think its the norm for every community hospital to have a vascular surgeon waiting in the wings to rescue patients from rare catastrophic errors.
Pardon my ignorance, but how does that work? I can see a community hospital not having specialists waiting on-hand, but if you're a community hospital performing surgeries, wouldn't you have protocols to transfer your mistakes to the big dogs in case of catastrophic error?

Without protocols (and fast ones) it seems to me that the message would be to avoid community hospitals, because if a screw up happens there, your chance of death is much higher than if you had the surgery performed at an academic.
 
Pardon my ignorance, but how does that work? I can see a community hospital not having specialists waiting on-hand, but if you're a community hospital performing surgeries, wouldn't you have protocols to transfer your mistakes to the big dogs in case of catastrophic error?

Without protocols (and fast ones) it seems to me that the message would be to avoid community hospitals, because if a screw up happens there, your chance of death is much higher than if you had the surgery performed at an academic.

Things like this are so rare, there may be "protocols" sitting in a binder somewhere but they probably have never been used at most facilities.

As for where to get your gallbladder out, I'll take the community surgeon who does 10 a week, regardless of back-up, over the academic center where there is a vascular surgeon to save me if the R2 gets me with a trochar. Of course, this case had neither the high-volume surgeon or the back-up.

Along the same lines, there are many hospitals with cath labs that don't have CT surg back up.
 
Pardon my ignorance, but how does that work? I can see a community hospital not having specialists waiting on-hand, but if you're a community hospital performing surgeries, wouldn't you have protocols to transfer your mistakes to the big dogs in case of catastrophic error?

Without protocols (and fast ones) it seems to me that the message would be to avoid community hospitals, because if a screw up happens there, your chance of death is much higher than if you had the surgery performed at an academic.
Welcome to Medicine

No center can prepare for every potential catastrophe. If you live in rural America and need a neurosurgeon or an interventional neuroradiologist for your bleed, you are toast. Hard reality but true. As I have stated before, you can't transfer a patient actively hemorrhaging their aorta. You either fix it in place or the patient dies. Medicine is a high risk business and a set percentage of patients will be on the losing end of that proposition. Unfortunate but true.
 
Welcome to Medicine

No center can prepare for every potential catastrophe. If you live in rural America and need a neurosurgeon or an interventional neuroradiologist for your bleed, you are toast. Hard reality but true. As I have stated before, you can't transfer a patient actively hemorrhaging their aorta. You either fix it in place or the patient dies. Medicine is a high risk business and a set percentage of patients will be on the losing end of that proposition. Unfortunate but true.

As I mentioned above, some of the senior Naval officers described psychiatrists as being "redlined". To me that implies a deficit in terms of staffing. Having looked at the Air Force surgery PowerPoint I'm curious what the staffing numbers were like. Having better staffing might not prevented the adverse outcome but it may be a small factor worthy of consideration.
 
Top