Sample Case Report
(
names have been changed
)
Case :
Estate of Edward Smith v. Maxwell Jones, M.D.
(24 jurors have responded)
SUMMARY OF FACTS: Fifty-one year old male decedent, who suffered from swallowing/breathing disorder, died in his sleep two days after a visit to defendant, his long-time physician. Patient had complained of flu-like symptoms, for which he had previously been hospitalized. On the date in question, physician did not take patient's temperature or sputum culture or initiate hospitalization. Plaintiff estate alleged malpractice. Defense expert support contended that taking tempurature or sputum culture was not indicated and that decedent's death was due to choking due to swallowing disorder unrelated to acts of the defendant. Jurors listened to fifteen 15-20 minute case descriptions on each side of the case and responded to the following questions. Juror responses helped establish risk of trying the case and built consensus for settlement.
Tips and Viewing Options
- Click numbered buttons next to essay responses to view all responses for that juror.
- Compare Juror Responses by:
Gender
|
Verdict Preference
|
Juror Age
|
Juror Household Income
1.
Who do you think should win this case?
The plaintiff, Estate of Edward Smith 15 (62.50%)
The defendant, Maxwell Jones, M.D. 9 (37.50%)
Total Respondents
24
2.
How much, if anything, do you feel should be awarded to the plaintiff in this case?
Response
Percent
Response
Total
$ 0
37.50%
9
$ 100,000
4.17%
1
$ 172,000
8.33%
2
$ 200,000
4.17%
1
$ 250,000
4.17%
1
$ 300,000
4.17%
1
$ 500,000
12.50%
3
$ 622,400
4.17%
1
$ 650,000
4.17%
1
$ 1,500,000
8.33%
2
$ 3,000,000
4.17%
1
$ 12,000,000
4.17%
1
Total Respondents
24
Mean Damage Award =
$
915,267
|
Median Damage Award =
$ 186,000
CLICK HERE TO VIEW VERDICTS SORTED BY GENDER, AGE AND FAMILY INCOME
3.
What was the primary reason for your verdict decision?
Plaintiff Jurors
Defense Jurors
Juror #
Defence did not disprove Plaintiff's contention that mixing drugs was inappropriate. Just saying that children are regularly given the same medication does not translate to it being appropriate to mix it with methedone. I know that if my husband or loved one was as ill as the plaintiff I would have expected them to be hospitalized.
A doctor has a moral obligation to his patient, the fact that this gentlemen relied on this doctor for his continued care and trusted his opinions and the doctor whether he uses the excuse that the symptons did not warrant further treatment or tests, still should have had them preformed as a precaution knowing his past health problems.
Negligence and liability.
I believe Dr Jones was negligent in caring for Mr Smith. He ordered antibotics and didn't follow up with further testing when his condition worsened. Had he hospitalized Mr Smith and aggressively treated the pneumonia I feel Mr Smith would not have died.
Because no matter what mr.smiths temp should have been taken, and i belive that if he did have a high fever that would have made a difference and he should have sent him back to the hospital in stead of saying ok come back in a week.
Patient removed feeding tube AMA, but the physician continued to treat the patient. In view of the aspiration episodes, alternative medical specialist should be consulted for a second oponion on case management. Oral antibiotics were repeativly ineffective.
I do not believe the defendants theory.
I do not feel that the doctor gave him the treatment that he needed. If the doctor had placed him in the hospital and then he had died, I would feel that he had done everything possible for him. But, since he did not place him in the hospital to get more intensive treatment, I feel that he did not do his best to save him.
Dr did not admit patient to hosp on 1/19 nor take temp nor take xray nor monitor oxygen level.
Mainly because of the defenses theory that he could have aspirated due to the fact that he'd taken his feeding tube out. He wasn't eating at the time, he was sleeping.
The CHF continues to be a concern in that the Dr. seemed to disregard that finding on the x-ray. Also, if, in the long-term, the underlying condition that had a part in the pneumonia was recognized by the Doctor as the main cause of death, why did he list Pneumonia as the cause of death? The Doctor seemed to not be as concerned about this as I would like him to be concerned about me.
A doctor has a moral obligation to his patient, the fact that this gentlemen relied on this doctor for his continued care and trusted his opinions and the doctor whether he uses the excuse that the symptons did not warrant further treatment or tests, still should have had them preformed as a precaution knowing his past health problems.
Mr. Smith had a history or re-occurring pneumonia. Even though he decided not to use the feeding tube that does not mean that the doctor doesn't still have the responsibility to treat the condition aggressively. Because of this and Mr. Smith's history, Dr. Jones should have treated his condition more aggressively especially since his symptoms were worsening. Being the primary physician who had treated him for an extended period of time, Dr. Jones had a greater degree of responsibility in handling the case.
The Dr. Smith's side is not taking any fault and has socalled experts saying his death could not be prevented. But he has no proff of his claims if he had died in a hospital receiving proper care it my have been no bodys fault.
Personally knowing someone with Myatonic Dystrophy I know what to expect, they have played on this mans disease although it can EVENTUALLY lead to death evidence does not support that Mr. Smith died of MD but that he did indeed die from a poor continuous routine of bad advise and actions by Dr. Jones.
Juror #
Mr. Smith removed the tube which had proven in the past that it could eliminate blockage and allow normal breathing. And the failure of the wife to have an autopsy performed. Also, the death certificate showed pneumonia and the myatonic condition, which I believe the myatonic condition prevailed because of the tube removal.
It is very hard to tell in this. There are points for both sides. I think that a big part of it was due to MR. Smith's Choice to stop using the Gastrotube that caused the recurrences of Pneumonia due to the food going to the Lungs. Weighing everything out that is what I relate the cause of death too.
I THINK WHEN THE GUY PULLED HIS FEEDING TUBE OUT IT CAUSED HIS OWN DEATH.
No autopsy - no proof. Just becuase you feel sympathy doesn't mean there's proof.
I THINK MR. SMITH WAS GIVEN ADEQUATE CARE BUT HIS PROLONGED ILLNESS CAUSED HIS DEATH.
Dr. Jones did all in his power, and made judgments based on what he was presented with. The severity of Mr., Smith's sickness will never be fully known, due to lack of an autopsy.
The defendents statement regarding Mr. Smith improvement withe the feeding tube and decline without the feeding tube. Plue the primary condition that was not treatable.
No proof that Dr. Jones caused or contributed to death.
The decision to remove the feeding tube was against doctors advice and the Smith family knew the potential problems this could cause.
4.
How did you decide the amount of damages you awarded, if any?
Plaintiff Jurors
Defense Jurors
Juror #
I feel the family should be compensated for the loss of the husbands SSI and the cost of childcare in addition to whatever would be reasonable for wrongful death.
I figured the amount of the loss of the disablity benefits the patient had been receiving, considering the fact that the children would be receiving a children's benefit from their fathers disability from the time he became disabled until they turned 18 years of age. So they would continue to have the same amount of income in the home until the youngest child became 18. The fact that the family is getting counciling because of the loss of their father is commendable, but the sessions should be covered by medicare in these situations, and i hate to be cold, but many families deal with the loss of someone every day and they do not have this privilage. The balance of the award is for the fact that the patient in his live may have been able to help his children with college. And in this way the opportunity is still there. The wife had lost the support of her husband, and the children their father, but the fact remains that if he had died in any other circumstances she would have to survive on a lot less and would not have this option.
What reasonable cost could be awarded.
It is hard to put a value on life so I took into considersation that Mr Smith had small children left behind and he would no longer be there to help his wife not only by not having his contribution of money any longer but also she will have to have day care. I feel the amount will help them to at least live above poverty level
Well the money that mr. smith brought into his family over a 40 year period would have been about 336,000, money obviously need and the rest in emotional damages, to take care of the familys emotional needs.
Age, suffering, income lost, lost of consorsium, loss to children of a parent.
You have to take into consideration Mrs. Smiths inability to work full time, plus her loss of income and companionship.
If he had lived to be 70 years old his family would have received at least $700 a month for that time. Plus I add addition money for the pain and suffering that they have gone through.
1- $252,000 for loss of social security income 2- $270,400 for reduction in wife's income 3- $100,000 for conseling for children.
Since his death appeared to be premature,it's only fair that they should be compensated for loss of income. Obviously they shouldn't have to pay for the lack of care & professionalism the doctor displayed. But had they had an autopsy that supplied the plaintiff with a definite cause of death, I'd have voted for punitive damages.
In total there are 18 years that these children will be without a dad. The wife lost 20% of her earnings, which I guessed at being $50,000/year. She needs help at least until the children are of age.
I figured the amount of the loss of the disablity benefits the patient had been receiving, considering the fact that the children would be receiving a children's benefit from their fathers disability from the time he became disabled until they turned 18 years of age. So they would continue to have the same amount of income in the home until the youngest child became 18. The fact that the family is getting counciling because of the loss of their father is commendable, but the sessions should be covered by medicare in these situations, and i hate to be cold, but many families deal with the loss of someone every day and they do not have this privilage. The balance of the award is for the fact that the patient in his live may have been able to help his children with college. And in this way the opportunity is still there. The wife had lost the support of her husband, and the children their father, but the fact remains that if he had died in any other circumstances she would have to survive on a lot less and would not have this option.
I feel medical costs are always fair. The latter part is more difficult because you don't know what income Mr. Smith was generating or whether Mrs. Smith worked. I feel a certain amount of money is in order until Mrs. Smith can get it together and move on.
I would take acount his income and household duties for fifteen to twenty years and average it.
You cannot really put a number on a persons life and that of those left to carry on. However, I felt that with the gross negligence of the Doctor, this man's wife and children will lose out on more than what they should have. I have decided that 1 million each will cover some of their heartache, and suffering and will help with education and everyday living. You cannot replace the happiness that COULD have come if Mr. Smith had been treated appropriately.
Juror #
None apply.
I do not feel any damages are merited.
I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD GET ANYTHING. I THINK DR. JONES DID WHAT HE COULD FOR THE PATIENT.
n/a
n/a
I don't know that any damages should be awarded to the Smith family.
None.
No proof means no award.
None apply.
5.
How strong is you desire to see the plaintiff win this case?
Response
Percent
Response
Total
1 - Very Weak
20.83%
5
2tte
0%
0
3 - Weak
8.33%
2
4tte
8.33%
2
5 - Neutral
4.17%
1
6tte
0%
0
7 - Strong
29.17%
7
8tte
12.50%
3
9 - Very Strong
16.67%
4
Total Respondents
24
(skipped this question)
0
6.
How strong/weak is your desire to see the DEFENDANT, Maxwell Jones, M.D., WIN this case?
Response
Percent
Response
Total
1 - Very Weak
29.17%
7
2 -ê
16.67%
4
3 - Weak
16.67%
4
4tte
0%
0
5 - Neutral
4.17%
1
6tte
0%
0
7 - Strong
20.83%
5
8tte
8.33%
2
9 - Very Strong
4.17%
1
Total Respondents
24
(skipped this question)
0
7.
What were the two strongest points in favor of the plaintiff, Estate of Edward Smith?
Plaintiff Jurors
Defense Jurors
Juror #
Lack of treatment and mixing the patients medication.
The doctor failing to follow up on his patient care. Not ordering the obvious (if not required) tests.
Liability and complacency.
That Mr. Smith kept returning to the doctor and kept doing what the dr said. Even though he wasn't getting better
That the plaintiff was not properly taken care of by the dr. if the dr. would have taken a little more time he would have seen that the plaintiff was sicken that thought, and he should have not given the plaintiff more medication on top of his already prescribed meds.
The test results with progressive damages related to pnemonia. prior knowledge of the patients debility status and poor response to treatment except IV antibiotic.
Drs. failure to properly treat Mr. Smith on 1/19/99. Drs. failure to assess the deteriorating condition of Mr. Smith on 1/19/99.
That the doctor did not place the plaintiff into the hospital. That the doctor did not seem to think that his illness was serious and told him to get another xray next week and come back and see him in two weeks.
Dr did not take temperature nor monitor oxygen Dr did not order xrays.
1. That Mr.Smith had been improving enough that he was able to take care of the kids & household while his wife was working. That's in direct contrast to what the defense made his condition out to be. 2.Obviously Mr. Smith felt positive about the improvement in his condition, or he wouldn't have made the effort to get a grip on his drug addiction.
Same as before, the fact that they did in fact consult on a regular basis with Dr. Jones. they trusted his judgement. They have the medical x-ray to back up their claims and the seemingly non-concern of the doctor when CHF was noted.
The doctor failing to follow up on his patient care. Not ordering the obvious (if not required) tests.
The fact that he was prescribed a narcotic that doesn't work well with his existing medication is a strong point. Even small doses would be bad for someone in Mr. Smith's condition. Also the fact that Dr. Jones didn't seem to treat his symptoms more aggressively given Mr. Smith's history.
He was not sent to a hospital, the doctor was aware he was not useing the feeding tube, and he gave him cough meds.
Their evidence and their presentation.
Juror #
I saw only one. The failure to take the deceased temperature. But this was done by the emergency room, which the doctor did refer the patient too.
I still believe the Methadone should have been a warnig sign to the Doctor and that the Cough Syrup should not have been given I also think even though the Defense Poo-poo'd off the fact that the Temperature was not taken, its starts to put some doubt in your mind if the doctor's office misses some of the little things. I have never been to a doctor's appointment where all my vital signs are taken Pulse TEmp, BP and O2 as well as Respiration. So it the office didnt take them there what else could they have missed.
LOSING INCOME AND COMPANIONSHIP WITH HIS FATHER.
not admitting to hospital and mixing medication (before I knew the Dr side)
None - sorry.
1. The doctor did not do everything in his power. 2. Mr. Smith should have had his temperature taken and been sent to the hospital.
1. Dr. should have admitted to hospital 2. Mixture of medicines
Narcotic prescribed Lack of thorough exam on the 19th at Dr. Jones office.
The fact that Mr. Smith was not admitted to the hospital and given aggressive treatment for the pneumona and the fact that a narcotic cough medication was perscribed while the patient was taking methadone.
8.
What were the two strongest points in favor of the defendant, Maxwell Jones, M.D.?
Plaintiff Jurors
Defense Jurors
Juror #
Can't see any.
None.
Good attorney skills and presentation.
there wasn't any I could see
That in reality it is inevitable that the plaintiff would not have lived a normal life and that he was chronically ill. and that death could have came at any time.
Diagnosis of CHF admission of special needs for the patient care needs.
The Dr. did not supply the minimum standard of care to Mr. Smith on 1/19/99. Dr. Jones did not recognize the deteriorating condition of his patient ( and order hospitalation) on 1/19/99.
That the plaintiff had a serious illness that had caused him to get sick over and over again. Sorry, that is the only strong point that I feel that he has.
per their medical experts, treatment was proper pt died as act of God not as a result of malpractice.
!. The lack of a request for an autopsy by the plaintiffs. 2. The reason the Dr. lacked concern over Mr. Smiths seemingly worsening condition was that to the Dr., his condition was improving because now Mr. Smith had a productive cough.
That the pneumonia is a result of the long-term illness. That Mr. Smith removed the tube on his own.
None.
Mr. Smith did have an existing condition that made him prone to pneumonia and the fact that Mr. Smith discontinued use of the feeding tube.
That the docter did not send him to the ER and also he did not check hir blood O2 level on his last office visit.
The autopsy not being done would be the only one.
Juror #
Plaintiff removed tube twice, which he died after the second removal. The wife failed to have the autopsy performed.
The biggest factor is in the case right here, The Patient by his own choice and against doctors recomendations stopped using the Gastro tube and I believe that this was a major cause of his recurring Pneumonia and ultimately his death. In the beginning i had said I was upset that the doctor did not consult anyone else besides himself. The plaintiffs lawyer did a good job omitting that fact. In reality Doctor Jones used the resouces he had available to him at the time. To figure the best possible means of treatment.
PATIENT TOOK TUBE OUT ON HIS OWN WHICH CAUSED HIS PNEUMONIA. HE ALREADY HAD A LIFE-THREATENING CONDITION.
no autopsy removing feeding tube
THE SCARRING IN THE LUNGS AFTER MANY EPISODES OF PNEUMONIA. THE SWALLOWING DISORDER THAT MR. SMITH HAD BEEN FIGHTING FOR YEARS.
1.Dr Jones did everythig he was medically trained to do. 2. Mr. Smith was sevrely ill, and was inhaling food.
1. History of untreatable condition that lead to pnemonia, 2. Mr. Smith elected to not use the feeding tube.
No autopsy Other experts stating the treatment was correct.
The patient removed his feeding tube against doctors advice with knowledge of what the risks were and that the amount of narcotic in the cough medication was such a small amount that it is regularly perscribed for children.
9.
Do you think it was malpractice for the doctor not to take Mr. Smith's temperature on the May 20th visit? Please explain. . .
Plaintiff Jurors
Defense Jurors
Juror #
Not sure. I don't believe it was technical malpractice but showed a level of complaceny on the Dr's part.ie. this patient is always suffering from the same illness and it is always resolved.
Not sure. I visit my doctor on a regular basis,to monitor my medications, on each occasion by blodd pressure, temperature, height and weight are documented. I take a mild pain medication, my doctor monitors this medication very closely. I understand that the above was stardard practice and was required.
Yes. This is standard procedure everywhere.
Yes. I do believe that with Mr Smith being so sick I do believe he shiuld have had his tempture taken.
Yes. In every doctors appt I've ever been to the first thing they did was take all my stats, temp, bp, weight. this should have been done. especially with a sickness to see if his temp was any different from the day before since his sickness had worsen.
Not sure. Vital signs are the cardnal signs of the body state at a specific time. The temperature absence is not always a good indicator of illness. Tha total presenting signs and symptoms should be viewed to map out a effective plan of care.
Not sure. I do not know if elevated temperature and Bilateral pneumonia go hand in hand. The excuse that the Dr. would have known if Mr. Smith had elevated temperature by appearence is hard to believe.
Not sure. I'm not sure that it would have made a difference.
Not sure. I don't know whether the treatment would have been altered if there was a moderate to high fever.
No. For the most part, a Dr. can usually tell if a patient is feverish. Nobody ever said he was feverish any time after he left the Dr. either. So really that had nothing to do with the case.
Yes. It should be common practice for an office visit when the patient is ill to take a temperature.
Not sure. I visit my doctor on a regular basis,to monitor my medications, on each occasion by blodd pressure, temperature, height and weight are documented. I take a mild pain medication, my doctor monitors this medication very closely. I understand that the above was stardard practice and was required.
No. The issue of the temperature didn't bother me as much as the fact that and 02 test wasn't ran.
Not sure. The temperature would have been evedent if it was excesive to cause any concern.
Yes. Everytime I go to the Doctors whether I am sick or just in for a routine checkup, they always take my temperature. Temps whether High or low can say alot about what is going on with the person.
Juror #
No. Because the doctor immediately referred him to the emergency room, where it is automatically taken.
No. I do believe that the Medical assistant should have been the one taking the Temp or the RN. A temperature at this point probably would not have changed anything. The doctor treated the symptoms of the pneumonia and what was in his chart. If they were concerned about the temperature all Mr. Smith would have to do is ask.
NO. I THINK IF HE HAD MUCH TEMPERATURE THEY COULD HAVE FELT OF HIM.
Not sure. I thought a fever is the sign of infection I think temperature is a Dr. need to know
No. His call.
No. As his lawyer, it was a red herring issue. It had nothing to do with the issue at stake.
No. I don't think that is a REQUIREMENT in the medical profession. Should be a judgement call as to whether temp should be taken.
No. Dr. Jones considered it but saw no need. He was not negligent in not taking the temp.
No. It would not have made any difference in the plan for treatment and a slight temperature is to be expected with pneumonia. The patient did not show any indication that an abnormally high temperature was present.
10.
Do you think it was malpractice for the doctor not to admit Mr. Smith to the Hospital on May 20th, 2001? Please explain . . .
Plaintiff Jurors
Defense Jurors
Juror #
Yes. With the plaintiffs worsening symtoms and past history, it would seem necessary to me as a layperson that he would be admitted for tests and more aggressive medication trials.
Yes. Considering the patients back ground, he showed total disregard for his health when it was obvious his condition had deteriated.
Yes. The symptoms required immediate attention.
Yes. I think he should have been admitted since other treatments were not working.
Yes. if his symptoms had worsen and he was complaing about pain, to be on the safe side the dr should have admitted him.
Yes. Signs and symptoms had change and needed more investigation and follow up care especially with the CHF.
Yes. Mr. Smiths condition was worse on the 19th then when he left the hospital on the 17th. Giving him cough medicine and sending him on his way shows the low level of care given to Mr. Smith.
Yes. Yes, I feel that he did not give him the care that he needed. When this had happened in 1997 the doctor placed him in the hospital and he improved. He should have done this again.
Not sure. Without the additional tests I can't tell. There has been no testimony about whether the dr should have monitored the oxygen level at that time.
Not sure. It just depends on how a person evaluates the symptoms. I would imagine that different Drs. would evaluate symptoms differently.
Yes. The CHF had been noted in the x-ray. He didn't respond to that information other than giving him cough syrup and more oral anti-botics.
Yes. Considering the patients back ground, he showed total disregard for his health when it was obvious his condition had deteriated.
Yes. I think Mr. Smith's worsening symptoms warranted admission to the hospital for further testing and treatment. With his history problems like the ones he was having should be treated more aggressively.
Yes. He was showing signs of getting worse.
Yes. There is clearly evidence of him deteriorating and past treatment of admission and IV antibiotics and that options should have been taken and explored further.
Juror #
No. No, the referral to the emergency room, should have provided a more detailed analysis of Mr. Smith's condition. Also, the complications that seem to have bought about the death of Mr. Smith, seem to come with the second removal of the tube which activated the myatonic condition, unfortunately to a fatal level.
Not sure. This I am not sure about. Not knowing the medical proffession as much. As a patient if i feel like I need to be admittied or think i should, I would get a second opinion and go from there. As for Malpractice, on the 19th I am not sure if the symptoms were bad enough to warrant Hospitalization. The plaintiffs lawyer did not really prove this point.
NO. NO THEY SAID HIS CONDITION DIDN'T WARRANT IT.
Not sure. I need to know a little more like what the Dr said to Mr Smith and Mr Smith to the Dr.
No. Not needed.
No. The doctor made a judgment call based on his symptoms.
No. Hospital emergency room personnel determine that admission not necessary
Not sure. Possibly it could have helped if he was admitted to hospital.
Not sure. Since Mr Smith's condition had not improved since his evaluation in the e.r. it would have possibly been better to admit him to the hospital where he could have been more closely monitored but since his cough had become productive that was an indication that the infection in his lungs was breaking up. Mr. Smith had had pneumonia enough times to know that the physical therapy that would have been administered in the hospital was necessary and could have done that at home.
11.
Do you think it was malpractice for Dr. Jones not to order a sputum culture on May 20, 2001? Please explain. . .
Plaintiff Jurors
Defense Jurors
Juror #
Yes. The patient's condition was not improving the production of sputum is important to clearing the lungs but is also an important place to look for what type of virus is causing the illness in the first place.Definition of cause could have led to whole different medication being used.
Yes. Especially when the patient had indicated he was feeling worse
Yes. This is standard procedure.
Yes. I believe if he would have collecte a sputum culture he could have taken a different approch to Mr Smiths illness.
Yes. If the color changed and the symptoms worsed he should have played it safe to make sure what it was, if it was an infection or not.
Yes. Need to know etiology of the bacteria being treated or you could be giving the wrong drug to kill the bacteria causing the pnemonia.
Yes. Because of the sudden change in Mr. Smiths condition he should have ordered a culture, at the very least, since he was Not going to hospitalize Mr. Smith.
Not sure. I feel that I did not receive enough information to decide if this test would have given him results that would have made a difference in the outcome of his illness.
Not sure. This is the first mention of htis. I don't know what the results of this would indicate and how the results might have changed the course of treatment.
Not sure. I don't know what good a culture would do. He already knew an infection was present.
Not sure because Dr. Jones didn't take the patient's temperature... I think one should have been a result of the other. He knew he had pneumonia. He just didn't react to the CHF.
Yes. Especially when the patient had indicated he was feeling worse
No. They had already established the fact that Mr. Smith had pneumonia.
No. If the two are taken properly it should note cause any real problems.
Yes. The culture would have revealed more into what was the problem. Instead we will never know and a man is dead and his family without him.
Juror #
Not sure. It's hard to second guess the professional judgement of a doctor.
No. If I remember correctly the fact that his cough was producing phlegm this was a good thing that the infection was being released from the body. Although i dont think it would have hurt any to take a culture.
NO. NO BECAUSE DR. SMITH ALREADY KNEW HE HAD PNEUMONIA.
Not sure. If Mr Smith died because of what the Dr may not have done than any one of these could be malpractice but without and autopsy to give cause than no these are not malpractice.
No. I DON'T THINK THE CULTURE WOULD SHOW ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT MR. SMITH HAD BEEN EXPERIENCING IN THE PAST. I THINK DR. JONES WAS TRYING TO TREAT THE RECURRING PNEUMONIA BUT MR. SMITH'S MYOTONIC DYSTROPHY WAS INTERFERRING WITH ALL TREATMENT.
No. One had been done a few days before, as well as a few weeks before in Mr. Smith's hospital visit.
Not sure. I don't know much about that sort of thing.
Not sure. It's hard to judge after the fact.
No. My understanding of sputum is that it is the mucus coughed up from the lungs, so what would be the point of the culture? What would he be looking for?
12.
Why/How do you think Mr. Smith actually died (physically or medically)?
Plaintiff Jurors
Defense Jurors
Juror #
I believe Mr Smith died of improperly pneumonia of which the congestive heart failure was a by- product.
Mr. Smith was allowed to die after a long illness because his doctorr failed to provide the necessary care needed.
Negligence of the doctor.
Complications from his condition - not treated right.
I think his body was worn down, the medication inhibited him from breathing proporly and caused him to stop breathing normally
Breathing stopped probably.
I believe Bilateral Pneumonia complicated by the narcotic cough medicine caused Mr. Smiths death.
Hard to judge the very immediate reason.
It seems that he died from pneumonia that was a result of his dystrophy. Don't know if congestive heart failure was also a contributing factor.
I think he lacked sufficient oxygen to keep his body functioning properly.
Based on the information presented I would say that the heart probably failed. Pneumonia, I know, does damage to the heart. coughing all the time is tough on the body of a healthy person. My guess is heart failure.
Mr. Smith was allowed to die after a long illness because his doctorr failed to provide the necessary care needed.
I think Mr. Smith probably died due to pneumonia.
I would say it was from lack of O2 due to his lungs that should have been treated in the hospital.
I think Mr. Smith died due to the negligence of Dr. Jones properly treating Mr. Smith. I DO NOT believe at all that his death was caused by the myotonic dystrophy.
Juror #
Physically, from choking on the tube removal which allowed his breathing passageways to become clogged by foreign matter.
By the amount of Food and water that actually made it into his lungs and ended up drowning him in his own fluids.
I THINK HE PROBABLY DIED FROM PNEUMONIA AND HIS TOTAL ILLNESS WEAKENED HIM.
He stopped breathing - beyond that we really can't know.
PHYSICALLY, HIS HEART JUST GAVE OUT.
Mr. Smith was extremely ill. It was his time to go.
Results of Mr. Smith not complying wiht Dr. Jones treatment and the lung specialist in using the feeding tube to avod the aspiration.
Conjestive heart failure.
Since the time of his last meal was not stated, it is possible that he could have choked on food or he may have choked on mucus. The congestive heart failure may have caused his death but I don't think the CHF was caused by the pneumonia but rather the other medical condition he had.
13.
What else do you find yourself wanting to see or hear to help you make the best decision in this case?
Plaintiff Jurors
Defense Jurors
Juror #
More financial information.
Nothing.
Better reasons for failing to take temperature,and drug interaction.
more extensive medical background on Mr Smith
I'd like to hear the er doctor give a testimony on how he feels.
Who, what, where, when and how the events would be managed by a GI or Pulmonary specialist.
Nothing.
Not much really.
can't think of anything else.
The doctors history with patients. Has he had questionable patient deaths in the past?
More medical explanations.
Nothing.
How the disease he had progresses and the longevity of a person who has it and the cause of death.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Juror #
The time frame between the emergency room examination, and the actual death. Also, what symptoms did he exude from the time of the doctors checkup, up until his death.
Testimony from the Radiologist and teh Internal medicine doctors that Dr. Jones consulted with. Last but not least, as painful and unfortunate as it is, an autopsy would have to be done to find out the exact cause of death.
IF THE MAN HAD NOT TAKEN THE TUBE OUT, AND STILL GOT THAT SICK AND WAS NOT TREATED WHAT WOULD BE HIS PROGNOSIS.
I'd like to hear more about the conversation between Dr. Jones and Mr Smith.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY MRS. SMITH DID NOT TAKE HER HUSBAND TO ADDITIONAL DOCTORS IF SHE THOUGHT ADEQUATE CARE WAS NOT BEING PROVIDED. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY AN AUTOPSY WAS NOT PERFORMED SO THAT THE CAUSE OF MR. SMITH'S DEATH WOULD BE MORE CERTAIN. HE COULD HAVE DIED FROM MANY OTHER CAUSES THAT NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW. MAYBE HE HAD A STROKE, WE WILL NEVER KNOW.
nothing. my mind is set.
Nothing other than an autopsy report.
It would help the defense to state why patient was not sent ot hospital on the 19th. It sounds in this presentation that hospital might have helped. If there is a good reason why he was not sent to the hospital it sould be brought out.
I would like more information on the severity of the interaction of the cough medication perscribed and the methodone. I also would want to know the time Me. Smith ate his last meal. I would want an explination of why there was no autopsy done.
14.
What would you have to see or hear for you to change your verdict in this case?
Plaintiff Jurors
Defense Jurors
Juror #
Proof that Dr Jones would not have treated Mr Smith differently if he had not been chronically ill. Proof that the mixing the medications would not cause more respritory problems in this patient. Strong evidence that Mr Smith would not have been helped by being in the hospital.
Nothing, it is pretty obvious this doctor is responsible for his death.
More from the defense that the Dr. takes into account normal and customary practices.
I would have to see proof that Dr Jones did everything possible to help Mr Smith (medical records to this effect).
I would have to see an autopsy, or at least some proof that he had this disease and not just chronic pnemonia.
Documentation of information conveyed related to the patient about the untoward or potential harmful affect in removal of the feeding tube. Ensuring the patient was well informed of the consequences.
I can't imagine anything.
Only unless there is evidence that the doctor TRIED to put him in the hospital and he refused.
More about chronic mytonic dystrophy and the type of lives normally led by people with it and what are normal cuases of death and average life spans.
An autopsy report.
If the plantiff would want more money, she/her attorney would have to show that the damages were beyond just child care and love and support. Bad things happen to people. Why do we have to always respond by throwing money. From the doctor, his attorney should have explained the medical issues at hand more thoroughly.
Nothing, it is pretty obvious this doctor is responsible for his death.
I would have to know for sure the cause of death.
To have a autopsie done.
The autopsy to show that he didn't die of Pneumonia.
Juror #
The facts of an autopsy report which were not available and that the patient did not remove the tube by his own doing, but by the doctor or doctor's permission.
I would like to see Mr. Smiths medical chart for that day and the previous 5 other episodes of pneumonia. Also Prescription records as to what the doctor did and did not know that the patient was taking. Something in the doctors handwriting that allowed the patient to stop using the Gastro Tube.
IF THE PATIENT'S SYMPTOMS WERE BAD ENOUGH THAT NIGHT THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AND WAS NOT DUE TO A TIMELINE OR CARELESSNESS OF THE PHYSICIAN.
Autopsy, period.
THAT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WAS DONE BY DR. JONES TO TRY AND HELP MR. SMITH WITH HIS VERY SERIOUS ILLNESS.
I would have to see very clear evidence and not just allegations that the patient was not as sick as he really was and that Dr. Jones neglected to treat him as best as he could.
I would have to see an autopsy report for the cause of death that the plantiff failed to have performed.
I would need to see autopsy stating that something directly caused by Dr, Jones caused death...or something that Dr, Jones could have prevented.
The plaintiff would have to have an autopsy done to prove the actual cause of death was due to CHF or something else caused by the madication Dr. Smith perscribed.
Welcome to JuryTest Networks
Press F-11 for screen fit
©Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. JuryTest Networks. Patent Pending.