Aortic Dissection. People always wanna blame someone else.

[Faebinder]

---

Members do not see this ad.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/14/ritter.trial.ap/index.html

Gosh I get sick of these cases.

Lotysch has testified he did not judge that the aorta was enlarged. But he said he did warn the actor that he had calcification in three coronary arteries and was at risk for heart disease. He said he told Ritter to consult a cardiologist or an internist. Other witnesses said Ritter never followed up.

Another plaintiffs' attorney, Michael Plonsker, reminded jurors of testimony from television executives about the millions Ritter could have made if his show had been renewed for seven seasons. Plonsker also said Ritter could have had additional millions in income from other theatrical appearances.

Well maybe you should pay attention to your health instead of your millions.😡

 

[tibor75]

Great news. I'm glad that greedy *itch went home empty handed.

 

[Faebinder]

Doctors cleared in actor Ritter's death

 

[Dr McSteamy]

she still got 14 million in settlements.

that's enough for her to live comfortably for the rest of her life.

these hoes are so pampered and spoiled. they should learn to live with 14 million.

if that aorta were repaired, and it burst open again years later, she'd be suing another company of doctors. 👎

 

[Jman35]

I'm glad to hear this outcome. When I first read about this trial, most of the defense's arguments were along the lines of..."he would have made $xx millions....he was a great father....his children are sad...the wife is widowed..." Nothing I read in the trial reports spoke of why the death was the doctors' fault. Now I think Ritter was a great guy too, but that doesn't mean that because he died someone needs to pay.

I swear the five stages of grief have become Denial-->Anger-->Sue Doctor-->?--->Profit. Glad to see they found a jury with some mental aptitude.

 

[McDoctor]

Actually, this does not sound like an unreasonable lawsuit. A chest X-ray was ordered but not performed. The diagnosis of MI was applied without ruling out a dissecting aneurysm with an appropriate imaging study. Most likely, the patient was given heparin and dual antiplatelet therapy, all of which could have conceivably added more harm to a patient with an impending aneurysmal rupture.

This lawsuit is very reasonable and appropriate.

 

[southerndoc]

Actually, this does not sound like an unreasonable lawsuit. A chest X-ray was ordered but not performed. The diagnosis of MI was applied without ruling out a dissecting aneurysm with an appropriate imaging study. Most likely, the patient was given heparin and dual antiplatelet therapy, all of which could have conceivably added more harm to a patient with an impending aneurysmal rupture.

This lawsuit is very reasonable and appropriate.

A chest x-ray is not an appropriate imaging study for aortic dissection. Less than 50% of patients with an aortic dissection have the classic widened mediastinum.

 

[docB]

Actually, this does not sound like an unreasonable lawsuit. A chest X-ray was ordered but not performed. The diagnosis of MI was applied without ruling out a dissecting aneurysm with an appropriate imaging study. Most likely, the patient was given heparin and dual antiplatelet therapy, all of which could have conceivably added more harm to a patient with an impending aneurysmal rupture.

This lawsuit is very reasonable and appropriate.

I disagree. The current standard of care for acute MI (which is what the docs in the suit thought Ritter had, and he did but it was due to the dissection) is door to balloon up in 90 minutes. It is very difficult and often impossible to get a definitive imaging rule out for dissection and still make that cut off for those ruled out who are having an MI. Since the AMI is much more common sending the patient to the cath lab was the appropriate thing to do.

 

[McDoctor]

I was not arguing that the doctors were negligent or that I personally disagree with the outcome. I'm just saying that in this scenario, wherein an x-ray was ordered, not carried out (even if for good reason), and the patient in the end had an acute condition which may have been detected by that very x-ray (although in less than 50% of cases) and perhaps changed the course of action...the lawsuit is not ludicrous to the lay person. That's all I'm saying, that in this case it's a reasonable lawsuit.

 

[docB]

I was not arguing that the doctors were negligent or that I personally disagree with the outcome. I'm just saying that in this scenario, wherein an x-ray was ordered, not carried out (even if for good reason), and the patient in the end had an acute condition which may have been detected by that very x-ray (although in less than 50% of cases) and perhaps changed the course of action...the lawsuit is not ludicrous to the lay person. That's all I'm saying, that in this case it's a reasonable lawsuit.

I see your point. It's a tough aspect of EM and the more time critical issues of EM like AMI, CVA, testicular torsion, ect. that often a lot of stuff gets ordered and is not done or interpreted.

For example as soon as a chest pain patient hits the door we have a protocol that orders a CXR, EKG and labs. If the EKG shows a STEMI it's off to the lab without the results of any of the other stuff.