Suit Requesting Court Order Compelling Physician to Perform Surgery Dismissed
An Illinois appellate court affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a claim brought by a patient diagnosed with diverticulitis against a physician and a hospital. The patient sought an order requiring the physician and hospital to complete the second part of her two-part surgical procedure. The physician wanted the patient to have a heart procedure to address a heart murmur before undergoing the second part of the surgical procedure. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the appellate court observed that the courts are reluctant to override a physician’s medical judgment without evidence that the physician’s judgment violates the standard of care. Norville v. Woodard
Suit Related to Unauthorized Disclosure of Medical Records Moves Forward
The Superior Court of Connecticut denied a motion for summary judgment filed by a health care entity and others in a suit brought by a patient asserting a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress related to the unauthorized disclosure of her medical records. An employee of a medical practice that had access to the patient’s hospital medical records accessed and publicized information from the medical records. This resulted in another individual learning of information from the medical records and, subsequently, calling the patient and leaving a threatening voicemail. In denying the health care entity’s motion for summary judgment, the court concluded that even though the entity maintained policies and procedures related to the safekeeping of protected health information, there were questions about whether these policies and procedures were sufficient. Dittman-Green v. Yale New Haven Health Services Corp.
Anesthesiologist’s ADA Claim Dismissed
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a hospital’s motion for summary judgment in a suit brought against it by an anesthesiologist whose employment was terminated after an audit revealed discrepancies in his controlled substance access and a non‑negative test for dilaudid (one of the drugs that had discrepancies in the audit). The anesthesiologist claimed that the dilaudid was a metabolite of his prescribed hydrocodone. The hospital’s medical review officer determined that this explanation was not supported by medical evidence. Following his termination, the anesthesiologist sued claiming that the hospital discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by basing its employment action on his disability (i.e., his prior substance abuse disorder). The court disagreed, finding there was no evidence of pretext or discrimination, as the medical review officer was unaware of the anesthesiologist’s past substance abuse disorder. Carter v. Johnson Mem’l Hosp.