This post is for lawyers who are getting stroke misdiagnosis cases but do not know whether the claim is viable.
There are common threads that run through most successful stroke misdiagnosis/failure to treat cases. Cases that result in a settlement or a jury verdict for the plaintiff are usually are one of these two breeds: Failing to prevent a stroke and failing to treat a stroke once it has occurred.
Failing to prevent a stroke
These kinds of stroke cases involve patients who are at high risk of stroke because of high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, etc. Many of these patients should be on Coumadin, Plavix, or Heparin. When evaluating a stroke case, you always want to ask if the patient was on one of these medications before the stroke and if the medication was altered in any way before stroke. For instance, for certain dental procedures, some dentists will tell a patient to stop taking Coumadin 5 days before the procedure. This subjects the patient to a higher risk of stroke. This might be a case. Some patients have to be bridged, meaning they need to stop Coumadin 5 days prior to the procedure and take a dose of heparin and then titrate back on Coumadin following the procedure. If the stroke happened during this period of time, it might be a case, if the proper bridging protocol was not followed. Keep in mind, just because a stroke occurs doesn’t mean there was malpractice. Sometimes the protocol is correct and a stroke occurs anyway.
Failing to treat a stroke once it has occurred
Once a stroke is occurring, there is a very short window for treatment. Many malpractice cases involving a failure to treat a stroke are won by doctors and hospitals; not because there was no negligence, but because the jury finds that even if there was negligence, it was too late to save the patient from harm or death.
Successful treatment depends upon the location of the clot. Certain locations in the brain, for instance, are not easily reached, even with the best clot buster medication. Once a stroke is occurring, Coumadin or Heparin cannot dissolve the clot. It can merely prevent future clots. Clot busters sometimes are effective, sometimes not. As a result, these cases are difficult to prove.
A typical fact pattern you might see from a caller is a patient who had a stroke, got to the hospital, and was administered a clot buster. For a period of time, it looked like they were getting better, but then the next morning they decompensated and now cannot walk or talk. You have to be careful with cases like these. The damage from a clot sometimes does not completely manifest itself until several hours after the damage has occurred. Therefore, it might seem like the patient is better when they really are not. These kinds of cases are very rarely malpractice. Also, sometimes there are cases where a patient is having multiple clots. Sometimes these cases are not preventable, even with Coumadin and/or Heparin.
If you are a Maryland lawyer and are still struggling to figure out if you have a claim or if you are a victim with a potential lawsuit, call me at (410) 779-4600 or get a free on-line consultation here.