Howland v. Wadsworth (Summary)

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Howland v. Wadsworth, No. A13A0927 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2013)

The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed a lower court’s finding that a physician, a physician’s assistant, and an emergency department physician group were liable for ordinary negligence and owed a patient damages of $5 million.

The patient sued the providers for ordinary negligence and gross negligence, claiming that the providers failed to provide her with appropriate medical treatment while she was in the emergency department of the hospital.  The patient was admitted to the emergency room as a “non-urgent” patient; however, she was experiencing a medical condition which included symptoms of significant pain and coldness in her feet, and the inability to walk.  The physician’s assistant ordered exams on the patient, and ruled out the possibility of deep vein thrombosis and acute arterial occlusion, and concluded that the patient had cellulitis which can be treated with antibiotics on a nonemergency basis.  After discharge from the emergency room, the patient had to be taken to the emergency department again the next day, where it was determined that her arteries behind both knees were completely blocked and she had to have both legs amputated below the knees.

The patient filed a medical malpractice lawsuit and, at trial, the providers moved for a directed verdict, claiming that since the lawsuit arose out of the provision of emergency medical care, she had to prove gross negligence, instead of ordinary negligence, pursuant to a state statute, and that she failed to do so.  The patient argued that the treatment was not emergency medical care, and that the jury should be allowed to consider ordinary negligence.  The trial court denied the providers’ motion, finding that whether it was ordinary negligence or gross negligence, or whether the care provided was emergency medical care, was up to the jury, and the court so instructed the jury.  The jury applied the ordinary negligence standard and awarded the patient $5 million.

The appeals court, in affirming the trial court, held:  the issue of whether a medical malpractice lawsuit involves emergency medical care is not solely a matter of law for the trial court; whether a medical malpractice claim involved emergency medical care is a question for the jury; and jury instructions did not unduly emphasize the ordinary negligence standard, and any perceived confusion in those instructions with regard to the applicable standard of care was resolved by verdict form.