New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Dennis Quaid Sues Baxter Healthcare Over Heparin Label Mixup for Twins

Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, New York, NY  

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

 

Dennis Quaid Sues Baxter Healthcare Over Heparin Label Mixup for Twins

Actor Dennis Quaid has brought suit against Baxter Healthcare. Last week I wrote of the medical malpractice that had been committed against his hospitalized newborn twins and the labelling issues, when an adult dose of the blood thinner Heparin was used instead of an infant dose. There was a 1,000x difference in the dosages. The labels are similar, the adult dose was apparently stored in the pediatric area, and someone didn't look close enough at the vials.

Now, according to TMZ, Quaid has sued. But only sued Baxter, and not the hospital. The Complaint is here: Quaid-Complaint.pdf. There are two causes of action: One for strict liability and one for negligence.

A few thoughts on this:
  • Quaid's kids presumably don't need the money from any suit, so it isn't "just about the money." This makes life much more miserable for Baxter;
  • The twins, while critical for awhile, are apparently OK now. So it really isn't about the money;
  • By not also suing the hospital where it happened (Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles), the defense has the "empty chair" defense easily at hand. That is, you point the finger at any party that is not in the courtroom. (That's why so many people often get sued after an incident. To make sure the empty chair defense isn't available to defense counsel.)
  • The case was brought in state court in Illinois, not out in Los Angeles. Illinois is the location of Baxter's corporate office. Since California has tort "reform" that provides immunities for many defendants (or at least they do in med mal) this might be the rationale for the choice of court. (I'd like to see what California attorneys have to say on that.)
So why wasn't the hospital sued? My guess is that it's because they apologized. While many doctors/hospitals still cover-up mistakes (see: Medical Malpractice and The White Coat of Silence) others have come to realize that the simple human acknowledgement of error goes a long way. On the subject of apologies, I wrote back on April 11:
I've always believed, based on the manner in which calls come in to my office, that poor communication (bad bedside manner) is the primary reason patients call attorneys. They are angry, or confused, or both.
Now, from an AP story, we find that the hospital had acknowledged the error and apologized. But what did Baxter do? Well, it seems they issued a warning letter to healthcare workers earlier this year. But starkly missing appears to be the human elements of accountability, contrition and acknowledged wrongdoing. And I'm guessing that the Quaid family will start pushing till they get that. Publicly. Because that's one of the best ways to see that it doesn't happen to someone else's kids.

(hat tip: TortsProf)

Labels: ,


Comments:
Check out the Sorry Works Coalition info included in my HealthBlawg post on medical apologies from earlier this year.

-- David Harlow
 
On the surface this seems like an easy one, but not so if you take the time to think about it a bit... Given the number of different drugs, dosage forms, different manufacturers, etc. out there, expecting to be able to color code all of these is insane. And actually, color coding indirectly encourages the nurses, pharmacy technicians, etc. to use color as a flag or short cut, rather than reading the label every time. I'd argue that perhaps Baxter should use the EXACT SAME COLOR SCHEME for every one of its injectable products, because that way the healthcare provider would be forced to read the label and pay attention to what drug/strength they were about to administer, thereby INCREASING patient safety....

Thanx for thinking
 
Post a Comment



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

 


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog does not accept advertising banners, pop up ads or other distractions from its content. But since The Turkewitz Law Firm is the sole sponsor, it may be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.)

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.

 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?