On March 5, 2018, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a $22 million verdict in a medical malpractice case, finding that the trial court had erroneously charged the jury on ordinary negligence. On March 5, 2018, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a $22 million verdict in a medical malpractice case, finding that the trial court had erroneously charged the jury on ordinary negligence.
On September 16, 2008, patient Ms. Brown had an epidural steroid injection administered by an anesthesiologist at a surgery center. Ms. Brown was given the sedative Propofol prior to the procedure. Her blood oxygen level was 100 percent when the procedure began.
Shortly after the procedure began, a pulse oximeter used to monitor the patient’s blood oxygen level sounded an alarm, indicating a drop in Ms. Brown’s oxygen in her blood. Technicians and nurses in the room made efforts to increase the oxygen level. The anesthesiologist stated that the machine was malfunctioning and that Ms. Brown’s true oxygen saturation level and breathing was fine.
Ms. Brown failed to resuscitate following the procedure, and EMTs responded to the practice’s 911 call for help. The anesthesiologist told Ms. Brown’s daughter-in-law and the physician who admitted her to the hospital that the procedure had gone fine and Ms. Brown was simply having complications coming out of the anesthesia. The anesthesiologist gave no indication that Ms. Brown might have experienced respiratory complications during the procedure.
Plaintiff’s counsel asserted both medical malpractice and ordinary negligence claims, including that the anesthesiologist improperly administered Propofol without positioning another anesthetist at the head of the table, failed to respond appropriately when the patient experienced respiratory distress and failed to contact emergency medical services promptly.
The trial judge charged the jury on both ordinary negligence and medical malpractice.
The Court of Appeals had concluded that the trial court charged correctly on ordinary negligence because a lay person would not need expert testimony to understand the meaning of data provided by pulse oximeters and blood pressure monitors and how best to respond to that information in the midst of a medical procedure.
The Georgia Supreme Court accepted certiorari and framed the issues as: 1) whether the trial court’s instruction on ordinary negligence was proper, and 2) if not, whether that error was harmful to the defendants. The Supreme Court concluded that the ordinary negligence charge was improper and harmful to the defendants, ordering a retrial. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ finding that responding to medical data from medical devices did not require medical judgment.
The case is Southeastern Pain Specialists, P.C. v. Brown, et al., Georgia Supreme Court No. S17G0733, decided March 5, 2018.