Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
A Beaumont woman is suing the podiatrist who operated on her foot, claiming the doctor failed to warn her of the risks of surgery.
Court papers say Tammy McDaniel is suffering from Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, a condition she alleges is the result of foot surgery performed more than two years ago by Dr. Christopher Browning, podiatrist.
McDaniel's medical-malpractice suit was filed July 11 in Jefferson County District Court.
Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome is a condition that features symptoms including pain, tenderness and swelling of an extremity. Events that can trigger the condition include trauma and surgery.
In her suit, McDaniel says Browning performed decompression surgery on her left foot May 26, 2006.
During the course of her surgery, McDaniel claims she suffered Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy and pain "attributable to defendant's failure to maintain the standard of care for surgery."
"McDaniel's own conduct did not contribute to the injuries in any way, and but for the negligence of the defendant, she would not have been injured," the suit states.
McDaniel accuses Browning of negligently failing to "warn her of the dangers resulting from (his) incompetent treatment," court papers say.
"Dr. Browning, as a member of the medical community, had a duty to the plaintiff to sufficiently disclose any and all risks and hazards incident to the decompression surgery recommended by defendant, in order to permit the plaintiff to make an informed choice and give informed consent to the procedure," the suit says.
"Plaintiff would show that defendant was negligent in failing to disclose that the decompression surgery involved risks and hazards that would have influenced a reasonable person in making a decision to give or withhold consent," the lawsuit continues.
McDaniel is seeking damages for past and future medical expenses, pain, mental anguish, impairment, lost earnings, loss of household services, disfigurement and fear of future disease as well as exemplary damages and fear of future disease or condition.
Re: Patients lawsuit for RSD following foot suregry
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPod
Surely, this complication should have been covered in the consent? Does the case have any merit?
My understanding of the consent form is that it covers usual complications. This is an unusual complication.
RSDS (now called Regional Pain Syndrome) can occur in any foot surgery, so do you have this in your hammer toe surgery consent form?
Re: Patients lawsuit for RSD following foot suregry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley
My understanding of the consent form is that it covers usual complications. This is an unusual complication.
RSDS (now called Regional Pain Syndrome) can occur in any foot surgery, so do you have this in your hammer toe surgery consent form?
Regards,
Stanley
Stanley;
I could not agree more. RSD, or CRPS as it is known now is not something seen everyday by most physicians.
I happen to see 10-12 or more cases of this problem on a yearly basis. I am not sure why that is, but I do.
Whether or not it was a cause of the surgery will likely not be the point in this case, but rather when it was identified and treatment was initiated.
Beware patients on long term anti-depressive medications, especially multiple pills. These patients seem to be at the highest risk for RSD for some reason. Just always keep it in your thought process as the presenting symptoms are pretty obvious after ruling out the usual suspects for post-operative pain.
Re: Patients lawsuit for RSD following foot suregry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley
My understanding of the consent form is that it covers usual complications. This is an unusual complication.
RSDS (now called Regional Pain Syndrome) can occur in any foot surgery, so do you have this in your hammer toe surgery consent form?
Regards,
Stanley
I have seen RSDS/CRPS secondary to a 'simple' nail chemical matrixectomy. Hence I include this as a risk for ALL procedures, now matter how minor they may be considered.
I have even heard of cases of DVT/PE secondary to similar nail procedures done by podiatrists, so I feel that you cannot go to far on your consent form - up to and including death. Over the top? Thank you to the legal profession once again...
LL
__________________
***************************************** Remember, it's just a foot.
Re: Patients lawsuit for RSD following foot suregry
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLisfranc
I have seen RSDS/CRPS secondary to a 'simple' nail chemical matrixectomy. Hence I include this as a risk for ALL procedures, now matter how minor they may be considered.
I have even heard of cases of DVT/PE secondary to similar nail procedures done by podiatrists, so I feel that you cannot go to far on your consent form - up to and including death. Over the top? Thank you to the legal profession once again...
LL
What the law is and what happens in court may be two different things. So I will be changing my consent forms to include CRPS. Since according to the lawyers, the patient has to understand what they are signing, how would you explain this in layman's terms; or the way it was explained to me, how could you explain this so a fifth grader would understand it?
I am enclosing a link to a very good resource that explains CRPS very well.
Re: Patients lawsuit for RSD following foot suregry
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLisfranc
I have seen RSDS/CRPS secondary to a 'simple' nail chemical matrixectomy. Hence I include this as a risk for ALL procedures, now matter how minor they may be considered.
I have even heard of cases of DVT/PE secondary to similar nail procedures done by podiatrists, so I feel that you cannot go to far on your consent form - up to and including death. Over the top? Thank you to the legal profession once again...
LL
Patient's rarely file suit for a "bad result" or because they were not informed of a potential negative outcome.
They will file suit against a physician who has no empathy or who loses their ability to feel compassion for that patient.
This is not to say that there won't ever be frivolous lawsuits no matter how good you supposed relationship is with a patient.
That said, at what point do we cease to inform of any and all potential outcomes adn even if we do what truly makes the difference?
I'd rather quit practicing then to even attempt to list every potential negative outcome. I will just continue to do the best I can for my patients and let them know the most common complications.
Re: Patients lawsuit for RSD following foot suregry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Williams
Patient's rarely file suit for a "bad result" or because they were not informed of a potential negative outcome.
They will file suit against a physician who has no empathy or who loses their ability to feel compassion for that patient.
This is not to say that there won't ever be frivolous lawsuits no matter how good you supposed relationship is with a patient.
That said, at what point do we cease to inform of any and all potential outcomes adn even if we do what truly makes the difference?
I'd rather quit practicing then to even attempt to list every potential negative outcome. I will just continue to do the best I can for my patients and let them know the most common complications.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce,
As someone who practices in the most litiginous county in the US, I am sorry I can't agree with you. There are some people who will sue just for the money.
There are people who don't know if anything was done wrong, so they consult an attorney looking for answers, and the attorney hunts until he finds an expert who will say anything for money.
Remember, the legal system is all about the lawyers making money. It is not about right and wrong, it is about winning.
That is why I like medicine, where the goal is to do the right thing. As a result, our discussions are about what is the right thing, and we do get worked up over it.
Imagine an attorney's listserve: My client was a serial killer who killed 37 grandmothers in their sleep, and not only did I get him off, but he countersued the state for wrongful imprisonment and got a three million dollar settlement. From my cut, I bought a condo in Florida.
As my mother used to say, "Even if you trust the one you are playing cards with, still cut the deck".
Even though the consent form only protects you from assault and not negligence, I will still add CRPS (when someone tells me how to explain it in fifth grade language) to my consent form.
The reality is someone did get sued for not having CRPS as a complication, and I don't want to be the second.
Re: Patients lawsuit for RSD following foot surgery
One can't help but wonder will our future consent forms be like the encyclopedia Brittanica?
Rather than explain every possible complication would it not just be advisable to include an explanation of all 'frequently occurring'' risks of a procedure & include a list of those complications although rarely encountered should also be considered? In a similar way that medications provide a list of possible side effects.
Am I oversimplifying or should all clinicians indeed provide a medical reference book as part of any consent?
Regards,
__________________
:)
twirly
Mandy Brooks
Brooks Podiatry
S64 0DE
Suffering a fondness for odd things.
Re: Patients lawsuit for RSD following foot surgery
It is my understanding that under the Common Law interpretation of Statute Law in the UK it is now accepted that informed consent means informing patients about ill-effects that have a "reasonable" likelihood. This is taken as anything that has at least a 1 in 100 chance of occuring.
But its different in the UK and commonwealth countries, as opposed to the US, here the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff not the Defendent.
Re: Patients lawsuit for RSD following foot surgery
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence Bevan
It is my understanding that under the Common Law interpretation of Statute Law in the UK it is now accepted that informed consent means informing patients about ill-effects that have a "reasonable" likelihood. This is taken as anything that has at least a 1 in 100 chance of occuring.
But its different in the UK and commonwealth countries, as opposed to the US, here the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff not the Defendent.
Lawrence,
As I said in Post #4, informed consent requires discussing normal complications.
Regarding the burden of proof, it is the same here in the US. However, when there is a jury involved, they sometimes go with emotion, and not with what is right. They see the poor patient, and the "rich doctor's insurance company". The patient will have to fend for themself while the "rich doctor's insurance company" will not miss the money. This happens less and less, especially when doctors move away from highly litiginous areas. The jurors now realize if they continue to find in the plaintiffs behalf when there is no merit, they will have no doctors to take care of them in the future.
Patients lawsuit for RSD following foot surgery
This happens less and less, especially when doctors move away from highly litiginous areas. The jurors now realize if they continue to find in the plaintiffs behalf when there is no merit, they will have no doctors to take care of them in the future. 
Linear Mode
