Pt. in hosp. for 'infected finger' dies: $3 million verdict.

MANY FEAR BE ING ADMI'ITED TO HOSPITALS BECAUSE, CORRECTLY OR INCORRECTLY, THEY FEAR THAT TOO MANY PATIENTS' DEATHS RESULT FROM INAPPROPRIATE CARE AND TREATMENT RENDERED BY HOSPITALS. Who would have expected a patient who was admitted to one Connecticut hospital for treatment of an infected finger

to die in another Connecticut hospital to which he had been transferred in the expectation that the second hospital was better able to rendered the necessary care and treatment the patient required? Yet, that is exactly what happened in this extraordinary case. Consequently, after a jury trial, a jury rendered a multi-million dollar verdict against the hospital and others who were found liable.

ON FEBRUARY 24, 1992, PHILLIP CARRANO WAS ADMITTED TO BRIDGEPORT HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENT OF AN INFECTED FINGER. While at Bridgeport Hospital, the patient began to experience painful complications from a pre-existing condition of Crohn's Disease, an inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract. On March 11, the patient was transferred to Yale-New Haven Hospital. Thereafter, on March 20, Dr. Garth Ballantyne, the patient's attending physician, performed a colonoscopy on the patient to determine whether and to what extent surgery would be an appropriate next step in treating the patient's Crohn's Disease. At about that time, the patient developed peripheral edema, or swelling of his arms and legs, caused by excess fluid. On March 21, despite the peripheral edema the patient was discharged from the hospital. The patient died at home early the next morning. The cause of death was pulmonary edema, or excess fluid in the lungs. The patient's wife, as administratrix of her husband's estate, brought suit against the hospital, Dr. Ballantyne, and Mary Harris, a registered nurse, for the wrongful death of the patient. After a jury trial the jury returned a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages in the amount of $3,386,177.85. The trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict. The defendants appealed. The Appellate Court of Michigan reversed the judgment entered by the trial court and remanded the case back to the trial court for a new trial. Because the issue was likely to recur at retrial, the Appellate Court also addressed the defendants' claim that the plaintiffhad presented insufficient evidence of economic damages. The Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiff's claim "merit[ed] little discussion" because "[t]he plaintiff's evidence of economic damages was inadequate as a matter of law." The Appellate Court declined to address the defendants' claim that the plaintiff had presented insufficient evidence of causation because it already had determined that a new trial was required. A certified appeal followed.

THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECIICUT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE COURT IN PART AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT. The court directed that the judgment in the amount of $3,386,177.85 be entered in the amount of $2,653,124.85. The court held, inter alia, that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendants' improper treatment of the patient caused the patient's death. Specifically, the jury reasonably could have found that but for the defendants' improper administration of excess fluids to the patient, improper provision of a low potassium high sodium diet, failure to prescribe diuretics, and improper treatment of the patient's infection and sever anemia, the patient would not have developed a fatal case of pulmonary edema.

A DISSENTING OPINION WAS FILED BY TWO JUDGES. One judge filed a concurring opinion. The dissenting judges acknowledged that the majority opinion correctly and adequately set forth certain facts relative to the supernumerary peremptory challenges to the plaintiff: However, the dissenting judges concluded that the issue constituted prejudicial error to the detriment of the defendants, and was not "harmless error" as the majority opinion had concluded. Editor's Note: It is' interesting to note that there was" no genuine dispute as to whether or not the defendants' were guilty of medical malpractice and/ or negligence which resulted in the death of the patient, who if properly treated by both hospital staff and the patient's attending physician, would not have died. The quality of care expected from the hospital to which the patient was transferred was anticipated to be among the best available to the patient. Yet, the patient in this case unnecessarily lost his life as a direct and proximate result of what a trial judge and jury, as well as the Supreme Court of Connecticut, concluded was the negligent care and treatment of the defendant hospital, attending physician, and attending nurse, all of whom were named defendants'. One has to wonder what, if any new protocols or other appropriate steps have been taken by the defendants to ensure that what happened to this patient will never happen to any other patient admitted to the hospital. Anything less would be unacceptable! Carrano v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 904 A.2d 149, 279 Conn. 622 (2006) -CT