3 7
N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 | O U T P A T I E N TS U R G E R Y. N E T
stool, and told the patient she thought she had a urinary tract infec-
tion. The assistant didn't convey the patient's complaints to a doctor,
but instead advised the patient to take 800 mg of ibuprofen. Court
records showed the doctors at the practice instructed the assistant to
give this advice to any patients who called complaining of abdominal
pain.
A few days later, the patient went to the emergency room and was
admitted into the ICU. A surgeon, along with physicians from the OB-
GYN's office, performed exploratory laparoscopic surgery and found
that her uterus was "very boggy" with a "dark, mottled" appearance.
The physicians decided not to remove the patient's uterus, thinking
she would not survive a hysterectomy.
Eleven days later, the patient died. Her husband sued the OB-GYN's
practice. However, he filed an ordinary negligence suit instead of a
medical malpractice one, insisting that the front desk's poor advice
directly led to the woman's death. While a lower court ruled that the
suit must meet the more-strict medical malpractice standard, the
appellate court agreed with the husband that the suit should instead
be adjudicated as an ordinary negligence case.
Ordinary negligence
That last part is very, very important. Medical malpractice is typically
a hard standard for patients to meet in lawsuits, whereas ordinary
negligence cases are much easier for them to try and win. There are
several key differences between the 2, including:
• Demanding testimony. To successfully try a medical malpractice
case, the patient must secure very meticulous — and consequently
expensive — expert testimony verifying the plaintiff's complaints.
There is no such requirement in regular negligence cases.
• Timely filing. Unlike negligence cases, medical malpractice cases
