When patients have an operation or procedure at a teaching hospital, isn't that stated in the forms that patients have to sign that medical students, residents, ect. may be involved in their care? If she signed a paper stating that, I'm not sure how well her suit will hold up in court.
from;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/indianastatecases/app/06300506jgb.pdf
On the day of her surgery, Ruth met with her anesthesiologist, Dr. Carboneau,
before the procedure had begun. According to Ruth, she asked Dr. Carboneau if she
would personally be handling the anesthetic procedures, and the doctor answered, Yes.
Appellants App. p. 352. Dr. Carboneau denies ever telling Ruth that she would be
personally performing each separate task leading up to and involved during the
administration of anesthesia agents. Carboneaus Br. p. 3. Ruth signed Dr. Carboneaus
consent form, which stated that only Dr. Carboneau or a physician privileged to practice
anesthesia would administer anesthesia to Ruth. Appellants App. p. 357. Dr.
Carboneaus consent form does not mention the presence or participation of learners, and
she admits that during their meeting, she never mentioned that possibility to Ruth.
Ruth was under sedation and unconscious when VanHoey, a student studying for
certification as an emergency medical technician (EMT) at St. Francis, entered the
surgical room. As a part of her certification program, VanHoey was required to
successfully complete several intubations2 on living patients. Although VanHoey had
previously practiced the procedure on mannequins, the day of Ruths surgery was the first
time that VanHoey had ever attempted live intubations.
St. Francis and Parkview had contracted with each other for St. Francis students to
be trained in various medical procedures, including intubations, while under the
supervision of a Parkview employee. Per their agreement, St. Francis provided medical
malpractice insurance for students and faculty, and Parkview retained ultimate
responsibility and authority for each patients care. Appellants App. p. 412-14, 429.
Generally, the Parkview employee, called a preceptor, walked into an operating suite
prior to the start of a surgical procedure and asked if the patient was a candidate on which
the student could practice the intubation technique. If the anesthesiologist agreed, the
preceptor and the student learner entered the operating room, where the student would
attempt the intubation procedure. The patient was unaware of the students presence in
the room and participation in the procedure. While performing the procedure, the student
was supervised by the anesthesiologist, not the preceptor or any other Parkview
employee.
When VanHoey entered Ruths operating room, she was accompanied by her
preceptor, Colin White. White asked Dr. Carboneau if VanHoey could practice the
intubation procedure on Ruth, Dr. Carboneau consented, and Dr. Eastlund, who was
present in the operating room, voiced no objections. VanHoey made two attempts to
intubate Ruth using a laryngoscope. After her second attempt, both Dr. Carboneau and
Dr. Eastlund saw blood on the type of the laryngoscope, but apparently, the presence of
blood on the laryngoscope following intubation is not unusual, and neither doctor was
alarmed at the time. After VanHoey failed to intubate Ruth successfully, Dr. Carboneau
performed the procedure and completed Ruths anesthesia.
On December 6, 2000, two days after Ruths hysterectomy, the attending nurse
noticed that Ruths face and neck were beginning to swell. After running some tests, Dr.
Carboneau, Dr. Eastlund, and Dr. John Csicsko, a cardiovascular surgeon, met with Ruth
to explain that VanHoey had lacerated Ruths esophagus when she attempted to perform
the intubation procedure. The doctors explained to Ruth that she needed to undergo
another surgical procedure to repair the damage to her esophagus. Although Ruth was
reluctant to undergo another surgical procedure because she had just undergone the
hysterectomy, the doctors strongly encouraged her to have the procedure that day because
waiting until the next day could have been fatal. Thus, on the same day, Ruth had
surgery to repair her esophagus, and as a result of this second procedure, she had to
remain in the hospital for over a month until her dismissal on January 5, 2001.
On December 3, 2002, Ruth filed a complaint against the appellees-defendants,
alleging that they went beyond the scope of her informed consent, that they failed to
comply with the appropriate standard of care, and that their negligence was the proximate
cause of her injuries. A medical review panel (MRP) was convened pursuant to the
Indiana Malpractice Act, and on June 7, 2004, it concluded that Dr. Eastlund, Dr.
Carboneau, and Parkview complied with the appropriate standard of care.
