Lawrence v. MountainStar Healthcare (Summary)

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/APOLOGY LAW

Lawrence v. MountainStar Healthcare, No. 20120352-CA (Utah Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2014)

The Court of Appeals of Utah affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a hospital in a patient’s medical malpractice case, finding that the hospital’s breach of the standard of care was not the cause of the patient’s injury.

The patient had visited the emergency room, seeking treatment for an allergic reaction to Tylenol 3.  A physician had prescribed three medications, epinephrine to be administered subcutaneously and the other two medications to be administered intravenously.  However, a nurse administered all three medications intravenously.

The patient experienced negative side effects from the epinephrine, crying out in pain, vomiting, experiencing heart palpitations, and more.  Later, the physician spoke with the patient about the erroneous epinephrine administration, acknowledging that a mistake had been made.  Hospital administrators and risk managers also met with the patient and acknowledged the error.  The patient remained in the hospital for about a week.

Subsequently, the patient filed suit against the hospital, claiming that the intravenous administration of epinephrine caused her to suffer anoxic brain damage, cardiac damage, thoracic outlet syndrome, headaches, depression, anxiety, cognitive defects, and neck, shoulder and back pain.  The hospital agreed that the incorrect administration of epinephrine was a breach of the standard of care.  However, the hospital asserted that the breach was not a “direct, proximate, or contributing cause of any damages allegedly sustained” by the patient.

Following a trial in which multiple experts testified on behalf of both sides, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the hospital, finding that the hospital’s breach of the standard of care did not cause the patient’s injuries.  The patient appealed, challenging a number of the trial court rulings, including the exclusion of evidence pertaining to comments made by the physician, nurse, and administrator following the medication error.

The appellate court found that most of the statements which had been excluded were, in fact, inadmissible under the state apology rule, which covered statements of apology, sympathy, condolence, or general sense of benevolence.  However, the appellate court found that other statements, including “we messed up” and “there’s been an incident, accident,” could be viewed as statements of fault or complication and were not covered by the apology statute.  Although the statements of fault were erroneously excluded, the appellate court found that the patient was not prejudiced by this exclusion and the jury verdict was upheld.