Two registered nurses, one patient care provider and one expert witness changed the course of a lawsuit in the case Stubblefield v. Morristown-Hamblen Hospital Association.
A patient underwent a cardiac catheterization in a hospital and remained for routine post-operative care. The physician’s order was for the patient’s assigned nurse to administer nitroglycerin intravenously throughout the night.
The patient complained to the nurse the nitroglycerin was causing “an unbearable headache and nausea.” She begged the nurse to stop the nitroglycerin. Later, a hematoma and psuedoaneurysm in the patient’s groin at the catheterization site was discovered.
The hematoma continued to enlarge, despite treatment provided by the hospital nursing staff. The on-call physician was notified and he obtained the help of a vascular surgeon who immediately performed emergency surgery to repair the femoral artery.
The patient filed a medical malpractice action against the hospital, the nurse who provided her care, the hospital consultants and the on-call physician.
A separate battery count against the nurse also was included in the suit on the basis she continued the nitroglycerin after the patient objected to its administration.
The defendants denied the allegations and filed a motion for summary judgment. The nurse’s statements were that the patient consented to the administration when told it was medically necessary. Had the patient objected, the nurse continued, she would have called the treating physician for orders.
The nurse also attested the care and treatment rendered by herself and the other nursing staff was in accordance with the standard of care for RNs in the community in which the hospital was located.
The patient asked for more time to respond to the defendants’ motion. She also disclosed two expert witnesses to support her claim, one being a nurse who was “expected to testify, within a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that [the hospital’s] nurses breached the applicable standard of care in their treatment.”
The second expert witness, a physician, was expected to testify in support of the nurse expert’s testimony, opining the cause of the patient’s hematoma and pseudoanaeurysm.
Patient alleges witness intimidation of nurse expert
The patient again requested a continuance of the summary judgment motion, claiming the hospital had unlawfully coerced the nurse expert to withhold her testimony by threatening her with the loss of her job.
The hospital “strongly objected” to the allegations, and stated the nurse expert was not an employee of the hospital in its network where the alleged threatening of the loss of her job took place. It did concede, however, that the nurse expert was an employee in another hospital in its network.
After the hearing, the court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion because the patient had failed to file support in response to the motion.
An additional request by the patient to amend or alter the grant of the summary judgment motion also was denied by the court. So, the patient appealed.
Appellate Court decision about witness intimidation
The Appellate Court held the lower court’s denial of the patient’s motion for a continuance and an evidentiary hearing on the witness intimidation …read more
Read full article here: nurse.com
