It would appear that a good case could be made for an intentional tort against the perpetrator, and those who were responsible for supervising him, and doing a background check. If they knew, or should have known, along with the confession by the guy seems like a slam dunk for the plaintiffs. But as we know, there are many a slip between the cup and the lip.

http://lawmedconsultant.com/1921/nurse-anesthetist-faces-possible-life-sentence-guilty-of-molestation

English Common Law always avoided the issue of assigning rights to the unborn with good reason.

The issue was under the jurisdiction of the Church Courts. Violations were handled with some kind of penance, and not a criminal penalty. Actually, abortion was never a big issue in medieval times. They were more concerned with infanticide, which had always been a big problem. With the collapse of the Church Court system in England, the Common Law assumed jurisdiction for abortion and infanticide. It is not equipped to handle these issues. In the middle ages, a person committing infanticide would be given some kind of penance. Under Common Law, they would be sent to prison or executed.

And there were always problems with determining causation in the unborn. As I wrote, the Common Law avoided these issues.

Multiple studies, including studies conducted by physicians without any funding from “interest CRNA groups”, have failed to show any difference in morbidity or mortality when either a CRNA or anesthesiologist alone, or working as a team, administer the anesthesia. In other works there is no change in patient outcome or safety when a CRNA alone administers the anesthetic. If study into the premise that patients were harmed or put at risk by CRNA alone practice could find this to be true, anesthesiologists would have performed it. Over and over. But, despite attempts to produce any evidence supporting such an allegation, every study has in fact found the premise to be false.

Your claim that you “have personally been in attendance and helped, if not salvaged hopelessly dying patients from some of my own CRNAs”, while dramatic tells us little. It is not a claim based in science or evidence. Obviously the patients were NOT “hopelessly dying” since they were ‘salvaged’ as you say. Just what difference your attendance made we cannot say. I would point out that there simply are NOT many instances where patients are ever hopelessly dying in the operating room due to a failure on the part of an anesthesia provider. It simply does not happen with any regularity. Anesthetic deaths are quite rare and anesthesia is one of the safest specialties in medicine or nursing, as you certainly know. It is the envy of all of the other specialties in this regard. Either your patients account for the majority of these catastrophes, or your claim is, well, exaggerated.

Anesthesiologists have a problem when it comes to claiming concerns over patient safety are the motivation for their assertion that a physician should supervise a CRNA. They do not care what the qualification or experience of the physician is. ANY physician will do.Yet they cannot assert that an anesthesiologist should supervise every CRNA since there are not, and never have been, enough anesthesiologists to do so. So, since they must avoid the untenable, patient harmful, and without evidence to sustain it, position of having to say tens of thousands of surgery patients should not receive their operations every year rather than have a CRNA put them to sleep, they ignore this fly in the ointment.

In todays liability and multi-million dollar malpractice settlement conscious health care industry, hospitals, surgeons and other exposed entities are not ignoring quality of patient care and patient safety in lieu of ‘cost savings’ in the practice of anesthesia. If patients were dropping like flies as you claim they are when you, or other anesthesiologists are not present, there would be an out-cry that could never be silenced.

Anesthesiology, according to U.S. supreme court is both the practice of medicine and nursing.

http://www.aapcc.org/FinalizedPMGdlns/diphenhydramine.pdf

University of Rochester Medical Center, New York 14642, USA.
Abstract

QT interval prolongation and torsades de pointes ventricular tachycardia have been reported after therapeutic doses and overdosage of second generation antihistamines, such terfenadine and astemizol. Diphenhydramine (DPHM), a first generation H1 antagonist, is the most frequently used antihistaminic drug. Despite its widespread use, there are no data about cardiac action and electrocardiographic consequences of DPHM overdose. The 12-lead electrocardiograms of 126 patients (mean age 26 +/- 11 years) who had DPHM overdose were evaluated. The ingestion of large doses of DPHM (in majority of cases the dose was >500 mg) was primarily suicidal. Repolarization duration, dispersion, and morphology were evaluated in DPHM overdose patients and compared with those of healthy subjects. Mean heart rate of DPHM overdose patients was 103 +/- 25 beats/min. The QTc duration was significantly longer (453 +/- 43 vs 416 +/- 35 ms, respectively, p <0.001) and mean T-wave amplitude significantly lower (0.20 +/- 0.10 vs 0.33 +/- 0.15 mV, respectively, p <0.001) in DPHM-overdose patients than in control subjects. Dispersion of repolarization was significantly lower in DPHM-overdose patients than in control subjects (42 +/- 25 vs 52 +/- 21 ms, respectively; p = 0.003). None of the DPHM-overdose patients experienced torsades de pointes. In conclusion, DPHM overdose is associated with a significant increase in heart rate and a significant but moderate QTc prolongation. None of the studied patients, including those who had apparent QTc prolongation, experienced torsades de pointes ventricular tachycardia.

Office of the Medical Investigator, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-0001, USA. jnine@salud.unm.edu
Abstract

As an antihistamine, diphenhydramine (DPH) is well known for its use in allergy treatment. Since its introduction in 1946, it has been marketed under various trade names, the most popular being Benadryl. Three years after its introduction, the first fatality due to DPH toxicity was reported in 1949. To better understand the incidence of fatalities due to DPH monointoxication, we reviewed deaths that were reported from 2 data sources: (1) the English-language literature using PubMed, from 1946 through 2003; and (2) the Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (ARAAPCCTESS), from 1983 through 2002. The results were then tabulated using age, gender, clinicopathologic findings, and toxicology results. Combined results from both data sets show the following mean (and range) for age and DPH levels: Adult, 35.6 years (18-84) and 19.53 mg/L (0.087-48.5); pediatric, 8.6 years (1.25-17) and 7.4 mg/L (1.3-13.7); infant, 31 weeks (6 weeks-11 months) and 1.53 mg/L (1.1-2.2), respectively. Most deaths were certified as accident or suicide; however, 6 infant homicides were reported. The most common symptoms for all cases were cardiac dysrhythmias, seizure activity, and/or sympathetic pupil responses. The most common autopsy finding was pulmonary congestion.

As for burns, your little gray cells will enjoy the workout.

Also, I have requested my medical records from this same physician. I have sent two requests -both through Certified Mail. I know this is a HIPAA violation and have filed a complaint with the OCR, but am wondering if I could sue privately for civil penalty money?

Thank you!

If you want to go forward with it, it would be best to discuss it with a lawyer who has experience with HIPAA complaints and invasion of privacy lawsuits. Filing a HIPAA complaint and a complaint with the state board might be a good place to start if you want to do something. If the information obtained by those agencies can be accessed, that may give you a better read on whether you have a case or not. However, that information is likely to be confidential. A lawyer may not be able get access to it. But they could try.

Another thing to consider is the costs. They may become prohibitive without any real promise of getting anything. You might spend several thousand dollars simply to find you don’t have much of a case.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/complaints/index.html

How do you know she looked into your son’s medical records?

And now that the MDAs realize that they’ve inadvertently committed professional and financial suicide, they are trying to recall the Frankenstein monster they themselves created.

This last-gasp appeal has NO chance of succeeding, and is the legal equivalent of calling 911 after you’ve intentionally sliced your own carotid arteries….

I wonder if this is one of the countries that has been reported to have a lower infant mortality rate than the US?

Oh well, don’t worry. Medical authorities are investigating. I feel better now.

Consider this hypothetical: A person posts on Facebook, “I just saw a patient with AIDS.” There is no identifying information shown.

Another person comes on the Facebook page and says, “Hey, I was just at that doctor’s office. I have AIDS! They are releasing my private information!”

That would be considered “self publication.”

However, if the medical situation is so unique that it is apparent that publishing the information can reasonably be traced back to a specific person, then that is a different set of facts.

An example: “I just saw a patient who was involved in the motor vehicle accident today in our town, and they have a serious brain injury.” And there was only one MVA in the town that day, then the information posted can reasonably be traced back to a specific person in the accident.

Under any circumstances, it is poor form to publish specific medical information. If nothing else, it makes it uncomfortable for the patient.

I post cases all the time on closed medical blogs. But I am careful to fictionalize the facts so it can’t be traced back to a specific individual, while keeping the medical aspects intact for discussion purposes.

As for finding legal counsel you might try looking for an attorney who specializes in Health Law. You may need to contact a larger law firm.

Also were you identified? Or identifiable from the information posted?

But CSA and CMA can never let this be decided by an appellate court. This was always going to the state supreme court no matter who won the appeal. At least the lawyers are happy $$$$.

Thank you for your help on this matter.