Some Advice : Medical, Law and Personal

[Pho3nix]

Hi all,

A friends father (honestly so ) is going through some trouble so figured I'd get some advice for him. 3 years ago the father got his thyroid removed as it had grown 3 sizes too big for some unexplained reason. After the thyroid was removed the father was not put on "thyroid therapy" which is apparently supposed to assist the body in keeping on without a thyroid. A year later, it was found out that the father's kidneys were also failing and thus started going to dialysis etc. Now his kidneys specialist didn't put him on the donor waiting list for another year even though he had progressed to Stage 3 kidney failure. Kidney specialist was changed and everything was sorted but he recently found out that the thyroid removal could have been the main cause of the Kidney failure.

Now that you have the background, some questions. Can any of the Doctors be sued or anything of the sort? Is this even worth fighting seeing as this happened 3 years ago? My google-fu is terribly lacking today so if RiaX could share some knowledge on if it's possibly true about the thyroid removal causing renal failure.

Questions are welcome. Advice would be appreciated.

 

[supersunbird]

Theres lawyers for it: Joseph's Incorporated Attorneys, they deal with medical malpractise.

 

[Pho3nix]

Theres lawyers for it: Joseph's Incorporated Attorneys, they deal with medical malpractise.

So it can actually be actioned upon?

 

[supersunbird]

So it can actually be actioned upon?

Well, I'm no expert lol, I would suspect that having a thyroid removed would need some kind of medication afterwards, it not like the thyroid is unnecessary. Maybe contact them and ask.

 

[Griz]

These sound like public service doctors.

Yes?

 

[Pho3nix]

Private hospitals and doctors actually. Johannesburg based.

 

[RiaX]

Dont waste your time or money. The Drs mustve made him sign a document protecting them against medical mishaps, its a requirement before you go to theatre in case you die on the table.

Also you need to understand the following:

1) the surgeon is not the treating Dr you cant sue him for not putting the patient on chronic therapy, his job is to cut nothing else

2) You would need to prove that the Dr left it out due to a lack of care and there must be NO logical reason to leave treatment out. If the Dr had reason to omit chronic therapy then thats the call he made under the circumstances. Medicine isnt guaranteed like a sale of goods therefore you cant penalize the Dr, its not like they left a piece of metal inside after surgery.

3) You cant sue the Dr because your friend's DAD developed kidney failure a year later. That can be due to anything, even if its likely that the lack of treatment might have caused it you would need to prove that its a DIRECT cause with no other way of this happening.

You could still seek legal advice but legal advice isnt cheap and the Drs will protect the name of their practice and their reputation as specialists, so you will be in for a costly affair in time and money. You need to decide whether its worth it to burn those resources now because in any case you cant reverse what has been done.

My advice is to keep everything documented and attempt it after the medical issue has been resolved and then decide whether there is any cause to do so.

 

[Hosehead]

Ask the HPCSA. One of their legal Advocates might give an opinion.Gratis. I'm still waiting for mine since 2009 so fair warning and all that you know before you pick a magazine and take a seat.

 

[Humberto]

Dont waste your time or money. The Drs mustve made him sign a document protecting them against medical mishaps, its a requirement before you go to theatre in case you die on the table.

The indemnity form only indemnifies the hospital, not the doctors working at the hospital. For example, if a patient is dropped on the floor by the hospital's nurses when moving the patient to a different bed, then the hospital cannot be sued. Still, these indemnity clauses can be challenged in cases of gross negligence by the hospital.

 

[Griz]

The indemnity form only indemnifies the hospital, not the doctors working at the hospital. For example, if a patient is dropped on the floor by the hospital's nurses when moving the patient to a different bed, then the hospital cannot be sued. Still, these indemnity clauses can be challenged in cases of gross negligence by the hospital.

First intelligent post by Humberto.

 

[RiaX]

The indemnity form only indemnifies the hospital, not the doctors working at the hospital. For example, if a patient is dropped on the floor by the hospital's nurses when moving the patient to a different bed, then the hospital cannot be sued. Still, these indemnity clauses can be challenged in cases of gross negligence by the hospital.

yes and no. You can die for adsolutely no reason in theater its a volitile situation that carries risk. The Dr makes you sign this so that you understand that fact, like most people they dont read it. Though it depends on what you doing there, certain doctors have different ones.

So yeah you can contest it but you have honestly no chance especially after a year.

 

[HavocXphere]

I am not an expert by any means, but I'd be surprised if thats actionable. Sick people often get sicker - such is life. You'd need to prove negligence and I don't think the admin screwup with the list will count.

 

[Sinbad]

First intelligent post by Humberto.

/waits for topic headed "I wanna drop a patient on the floor at a hospital. Can they sue me after?"

 

[ToxicBunny]

yes and no. You can die for adsolutely no reason in theater its a volitile situation that carries risk. The Dr makes you sign this so that you understand that fact, like most people they dont read it. Though it depends on what you doing there, certain doctors have different ones.

So yeah you can contest it but you have honestly no chance especially after a year.

If there is gross negligence then no form that the doctors make you sign will protect them, period.

 

[Pho3nix]

1) the surgeon is not the treating Dr you cant sue him for not putting the patient on chronic therapy, his job is to cut nothing else

2) You would need to prove that the Dr left it out due to a lack of care and there must be NO logical reason to leave treatment out. If the Dr had reason to omit chronic therapy then thats the call he made under the circumstances. Medicine isnt guaranteed like a sale of goods therefore you cant penalize the Dr, its not like they left a piece of metal inside after surgery.

3) You cant sue the Dr because your friend's DAD developed kidney failure a year later. That can be due to anything, even if its likely that the lack of treatment might have caused it you would need to prove that its a DIRECT cause with no other way of this happening.

You could still seek legal advice but legal advice isnt cheap and the Drs will protect the name of their practice and their reputation as specialists, so you will be in for a costly affair in time and money. You need to decide whether its worth it to burn those resources now because in any case you cant reverse what has been done.

My advice is to keep everything documented and attempt it after the medical issue has been resolved and then decide whether there is any cause to do so.

Well to your first point, I agree but on your second, he was the consulting doctor who recommended surgery and did the job from my understanding. Would their be any reason NOT to be on chronic thyroid treatment when the thyroid is a fairly important "organ" ?

As too the cause of the renal failure, I'm asking as he and his entire family have had numerous tests to find out if the issue is genetic or environmental but no links could be found to either.

Thanks for the advice though RiaX, I'll definitely pass it through.

 

[Pho3nix]

Ask the HPCSA. One of their legal Advocates might give an opinion.Gratis. I'm still waiting for mine since 2009 so fair warning and all that you know before you pick a magazine and take a seat.

Noted.

Will update as I get more info but any advice would still be appreciated

 

[Humberto]

yes and no. You can die for adsolutely no reason in theater its a volitile situation that carries risk. The Dr makes you sign this so that you understand that fact, like most people they dont read it. Though it depends on what you doing there, certain doctors have different ones.

So yeah you can contest it but you have honestly no chance especially after a year.

Doctors don't make you sign an indemnity form; they cannot do that. At most they make you sign a form where you acknowledge that you understand the risks of the procedure you are having. This will partially protect the doctor in that the patient cannot afterwards claim they weren't aware of the possibility that they could develop a given complication. Doctors cannot indemnify themselves against malpractice. When you check in at a hospital for a medical procedure, the hospital makes you sign an indemnity form that protects the hospital. This indemnity would cover injuries that are not the result of gross negligence by the hospital - things like patients being injured when slipping in the shower or nurses dropping patients when moving them to a different bed.

Suppose a patient dies under anaesthesia and it turns out the death occurred because the anaesthesia machine had not been working properly as a result of the hospital failing to have the machine correctly serviced. In such a case the hospital can definitely be sued with a high probability of success.

Suppose a patient dies under anaesthesia and it turns out the death occurred because the anaesthetist administered penicillin to the patient after the patient had already declared to the hospital upon checking in that they are allergic to penicillin. Suppose the anaesthetist then argues that they weren't aware of the allergy in part because they didn't conduct a pre-surgical consultation with the patient to assess their medical condition (gross negligence by the anaesthetist) and because the hospital didn't furnish the anaesthetist with the patient's medical information (gross negligence by the hospital). In such a case both the anaesthetist and hospital can definitely be sued with a high probability of success.

The prescription period for a malpractice claim is three years after the malpractice has become known (not necessarily after the malpractice was actually committed). The Medical Protection Society (the malpractice insurance provider used by most doctors in private practice) settles hundreds of malpractice suits every year. These cases usually don't get much publicity because the patient is required to sign a confidentiality agreement that prohibits them from discussing their case.

 

[RiaX]

Well to your first point, I agree but on your second, he was the consulting doctor who recommended surgery and did the job from my understanding. Would their be any reason NOT to be on chronic thyroid treatment when the thyroid is a fairly important "organ" ?

As too the cause of the renal failure, I'm asking as he and his entire family have had numerous tests to find out if the issue is genetic or environmental but no links could be found to either..

Yeah I dont know if there is any reasont to NOT im not a specialist.

As for the kidney failure there isnt always a reason an organ goes into failure. It can be age or it can be a combination of many little things.

 

[Billy]

Just take note that you will be dealing with an insurer not the doctor.

 

[Friedpet]

Doctors don't make you sign an indemnity form; they cannot do that. At most they make you sign a form where you acknowledge that you understand the risks of the procedure you are having. This will partially protect the doctor in that the patient cannot afterwards claim they weren't aware of the possibility that they could develop a given complication. Doctors cannot indemnify themselves against malpractice. When you check in at a hospital for a medical procedure, the hospital makes you sign an indemnity form that protects the hospital. This indemnity would cover injuries that are not the result of gross negligence by the hospital - things like patients being injured when slipping in the shower or nurses dropping patients when moving them to a different bed.

Suppose a patient dies under anaesthesia and it turns out the death occurred because the anaesthesia machine had not been working properly as a result of the hospital failing to have the machine correctly serviced. In such a case the hospital can definitely be sued with a high probability of success.

Suppose a patient dies under anaesthesia and it turns out the death occurred because the anaesthetist administered penicillin to the patient after the patient had already declared to the hospital upon checking in that they are allergic to penicillin. Suppose the anaesthetist then argues that they weren't aware of the allergy in part because they didn't conduct a pre-surgical consultation with the patient to assess their medical condition (gross negligence by the anaesthetist) and because the hospital didn't furnish the anaesthetist with the patient's medical information (gross negligence by the hospital). In such a case both the anaesthetist and hospital can definitely be sued with a high probability of success.

The prescription period for a malpractice claim is three years after the malpractice has become known (not necessarily after the malpractice was actually committed). The Medical Protection Society (the malpractice insurance provider used by most doctors in private practice) settles hundreds of malpractice suits every year. These cases usually don't get much publicity because the patient is required to sign a confidentiality agreement that prohibits them from discussing their case.

Doctor's make you sign an 'Informed Consent' form stating that you as patient acknowlegde that there are risks involved in said procedure/therapy and that you have been made aware of them and that you give permission for the doctor to continue with said procedure/therapy. The patient can decline to sign the form and in effect decline the said procedure/therapy.
If the form was signed, and any of the mentioned complications do occur, the doctor is safe because the patient was aware of the risks yet agreed to continue. Now obviously an orthopaedic surgeon can't have a female patient sign an Informed Consent stating that she might lose her uterus, the form has to make sense and be relevant to the said procedure/therapy. (On a side note: During a thyroidectomy, severing the Recurrent laryngeal nerves causing the patient unable to speak for the rest of his life is most likely not negligence)

Assuming that the form is relevant and makes sense, and the doctor was negligent, then he the form doesn't help him much.
The problem comes in proving a doctor negligent. He has MPS that he pays a few thousand rand per month and MPS has some of the best trained lawyers around. Negligence isn't a set-in-stone standard that can easily be measured. Negligence will be determined by looking at what the average doctor would be able to do in a similar situation.

His best bet would be to go and talk to Attorneys specializing in Medical Negligence (CP van Zyl). They'll listen to his story and decide whether it's a worthy case. If not they will kindly turn him away.

My guess is, that even if he wins, he won't make millions out of it.