Deposition of Defendant Pediatric Emergency Room Doctor

This is the deposition of the defendant pediatric emergency room physician in a medical malpractice case in Montgomery County, Maryland. Miller & Zois, LLC filed this wrongful death and survival action against the pediatric emergency room physician and several others. [This is the opening statement in this case: https://www.millerandzois.com/malprac...] The victim was a 12-year-old boy with no significant medical history. He developed a recent onset of a severe headache with nausea, vomiting 10 times a day, dizziness, fatigue, and the inability to move his neck. We argued at trial that this headache was different in nature and quality than any prior headaches. Concerned about her child, his mother took him to the pediatrician who immediately sent them to the emergency room to rule out more serious causes of the headaches. In the emergency room, the resident diagnosed the boy with migraines. The attending physician, whose video deposition testimony is posted here, diagnosed the boy with unspecified headaches. No imaging studies were performed. We argued at trial that based upon the boy's recent onset of headaches that the standard of care required a CAT scan and that if one had been performed, it would have shown bleeding from an aneurysm and his life would have been saved before it completely ruptured. Over the next two days, the mother called the pediatrician’s office twice to report that her son was still having headaches. The pediatricians prescribed stronger medication and recommended the mother take her son back to the emergency room if his headaches failed to improve. The mother did just that. On Easter Sunday, she took her son back to the emergency room at the same hospital. Once again, the emergency room physicians diagnosed the boy with unspecified headaches and sent him home. Based upon the boy's presentation and history, we argued at trial that the standard of care required an emergency room physician to rule out more serious causes of headaches. That could easily be done with a CAT scan, but no imaging studies were performed. Instead, the emergency room physician referred the patient to a pediatric neurologist to let them make the call on ordering a CAT scan. At trial, we also argued that it didn't make any sense for an emergency room physician to wait and let a pediatric neurologist order a CAT scan when one was readily available a few minutes down the hall. It did nothing but further delay the diagnosis. The next day the boy and his mother went back to the pediatrician complaining of the same symptoms and a new symptom: pain preventing sleep. The pediatrician gave a referral to see a pediatric neurologist. The boy and his mother saw the pediatric neurologist two days later. Even though the mom reported he was having trouble moving his neck, the pediatric neurologist never examined the boy’s neck (there are no notes in the medical chart that she examined his neck). Moreover, as you can imagine, a patient's history of headaches is important in determining if this new headache was a worrisome headache. At trial, we argued that the pediatric neurologist failed to elicit any information from the patient or his mother regarding his headache history. Had she done so, we argued that she would have quickly realized that these were new headaches, unlike any others he ever had. Perhaps most concerning, the pediatric neurologist stated in her deposition that she was concerned the boy might be suffering from a serious condition such as a brain tumor. As a result, she ordered a head CAT scan, but told the mother to wait in getting it. Ultimately, we argued that the child had a brain aneurysm that was causing his headaches. Two days after seeing the pediatric neurologist, the aneurysm ruptured causing the boy’s death. This case was tried to a Montgomery County jury. After hearing all the evidence, the jury found the emergency room physicians breached the standard of care. They found the pediatric neurologist: 1) breached the standard of care in failing to order an emergency CT scan; and 2) breached the informed consent requirement. So the jury did find the doctor negligent. Unfortunately, the jury also found that even if a CT scan was performed it would have been difficult to save the child’s life given the size and location of the aneurysm. Therefore, Plaintiff was unable to prove the causation necessary to receive an award of damages. Our firm poured our hearts, efforts, and money into this case. And we lost. If you are a plaintiffs' lawyer handling malpractice cases who have not lost cases, you are not trying many cases. But we did everything we could do for this wonderful mother who graciously agreed to allow us to put this video online to help others. This doctor filed a motion after this video was posted to take down the video. We won that motion. Here is our response: https://www.millerandzois.com/motion-...