Court says doctor can be sued over death of child struck by his patient
By Liz Kowalczyk, Globe Staff
The state Supreme Judicial Court today ruled that a doctor can be sued over a car accident caused by his patient, greatly expanding potential liability for the medical profession.
A divided court said that the mother of a boy who was hit by a car and died, can sue the physician who prescribed numerous medications to the driver, including narcotics that can cause drowsiness. The mother's attorneys alleged that the physician, Dr. Roland Florio, who practices in Brockton, failed to warn his patient about the side effects of the medication and the potential danger of driving while taking them.
The patient, David Sacca, passed out and drove off the road on March 22, 2002, hitting 10-year-old Kevin Coombes, who was standing on the sidewalk with a friend.
Justice Roderick L. Ireland, who wrote the lead opinion, likened the actions of a doctor who fails to warn a patient about a drug's side effects that could endanger others to a bartender who serves an intoxicated customer.
Other states have ruled on whether a doctor's liability extends beyond his patients, and the decisions have been mixed. Two previous Superior Court rulings in Massachusetts said that a doctor can be held liable after one patient hit a biker and another, a pedestrian. But this is the first time Massachusetts' highest court has made such a ruling, which could make it easier for plaintiffs in similar circumstances to sue doctors.
"Absolutely the case has precedent setting value," said Reni Gertner, editor of the Massachusetts Medical Law Report.
The decision upset the medical community.
"This is one more straw on the backs of practicing physicians who feel the liability challenges out there are being broadened," said Dr. Dale Magee, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, which represents most of the state's doctors. "Now they're being held responsible for things that happen beyond the physician patient relationship."
Magee said it's reasonable to require doctors to warn patients about common side effects of medications. But he said if doctors are required to relay a litany of possibilities and rare potential problems, they could scare off patients from taking their medications. "They may do more harm than good," he said.
Sacca, 75, according to the court's ruling, had a number of serious medical problems, including emphysema, high blood pressure and metastatic lung cancer. At the time of his accident, he had prescriptions from Florio for oxycodone, Zaroxolyn, prednisone, Flomax, potassium, Paxil, oxazepam and furosemide -- drugs with side effects that include drowsiness, dizziness and fainting. He reported no side effects in the months before his accident.
"Very simply, when a doctor treats a patient and prescribes medication and other services, the doctor has a duty to warn that patient of the side effects of those treatments, and if he fails to warn the patient of those side effects and they result in an accident that injures or kills a third party, that he can be responsible to that third party," said Peter Eleey, an attorney for the plaintiff, Lyn-Ann Coombes.
A lower Massachusetts court had upheld the doctor's motion for "summary judgment," or to dismiss the case before trial. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed that decision, allowing Coombes' mother and her attorneys to proceed with a trial to decide whether the physician was negligent.
Florio's attorney, Edward Mahoney, did not return a phone message left at his office. A secretary for Florio said he would not comment on the case.
Two dissenting justices said they worried the ruling would drive up medical malpractice rates, among other concerns.
This "introduces a new audience to which the physician must attend -- everyone who might come in contact with the patient," wrote Justice Robert J. Cordy.
Let's just sue everyone! Let's sue the plastic maker who made the bottle of drugs easy to open. Lets sue Goodyear for making tires that this person used to drive over a 10-year-old. Lets make laws requiring Doctors to perform breath and blood tests prior to prescribing meds to 'victims' like this driver who CHOSE to drive under the influence of narcotics.
I guess the fact that this 75-year-old guy, someone who's been on narcotics for quite some time, just didn't know about the side effects of the drugs. He's had cancer and high blood pressure. Surely this is not the first time he's taken narcotics? Note that the Doctor didn't actually give this guy the drugs - CVS Pharmacy did... Let's sue them too!
Finally, let's complain about the 'high cost of health care'. Our politicians will fix that too!
It is hard enough to practice medicine in the state of Massachusetts when there is such aweful insurance coverage. Now we are trying to sue these poor physicians who are just trying to do their job. The guy was 75 years old. Unfortunately, these kinds of things happen with all drivers young and old, but to blame a physician, it is just plain ridiculous.
You guys are completly ridiculous. Yea, they do have the right to sue the doctor. The doctor did proscribe the 75-year-old man the medication. Its to bad that the 10-year-old boy has deid because of the doctor.
When you get cancer after having too many unnecessary Cat Scans that were ordered so your doctor doesnèt get sued, you can thank Lawyers like Peter Eeley if you live in Massachusetts. I left the State to avoid practicing in such a ridiculous environment.
There isn't a pharmacy around that doesn't have warnings and dosage instructions on the bottles of medications or that do not distribute written materials and also give patients an opportunity to ask questions every time a scrip is picked up.
It's also the patient's responsibility to educate himself on what he is taking everyday and any possible side effects since most drugs have them, especially pain meds, along with multiple other medications in combination.
And if a patient doesn't absolutely know the answers, he, or his care giver, needs to have a conversation with the Primary Care, prescribing doctor, or pharmacist.
The physician might want to retain his own attorney as med/mal is a business like any other - they collect premium. I'd bet there was something different about that 75 yo patient's routine or condition that particular day,unfortunately.
It is shocking to see how no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions. Surely this elderly man knew that he was crtically ill and had to take precautions to protect himself and others before he got behind the wheel of his car considering the heavy duty meds he was taking... but let's pass the buck to someone else with the so called deep pockets!!
Susan, an attorney in RI
This is absolutely pathetic! If you take a medication, YOU are responsible for what happens. You are responsible to get the information about the medication, to ask the doctor, to listen to the pharmacist, to read the list of possible side effects that is printed on the paperbag in which you receive your medication.
Have you heard about the difficulty of finding a primary care doctor in Massachusetts? Well, this way it is certainly not going to get better, just worse and worse.
Who are these lawyers that sue anybody regardless of causality? It's passing the buck to the deep pockets, exactly as Susan, the RI attorney said.
Very sad, one more reason to leave Massachusetts. Another pathetic step too far...
One of the worst things I've ever read. What a totally ridiculous case. How can the doctor be held liable for a poor decision by the patient like this? Another win for the trial lawyers that are slowly scuttling our country, though ...
Once again this appears to be an overaction to the court's decision. The case was decided on a summary judgment motion. The ruling simply means that the doctor can be sued, not necessarily that he will be held responsible. Each side is now able to present evidence and a factual determination can be made as to who is responsible. The doctor can present evidence of the driver's negligence and in the end the doctor may be exonerated. However, summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no factual issues in dispute. Here there appears to be several factual issues in dispute and the Court felt that summary judgment was not warranted. Liability has not been determined. That is what the next phrase of the case will determine.
I would be willing to bet that all of the people with the negative comments surrounding this case would be thinking differently if it was their child.
I would be willing to be all of the people who support this would think differently if the next time they are in severe pain, they are unable to find a doctor willing to treat them with the necessary pain medications because of the potential liability.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Contributors
blogger
Boston Globe Health and Science staff:
browse this blog
by categoryrelated links
INside Boston.com