You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Farley ex rel. Farley v. United States

Citations: 98 F. Supp. 3d 299; 2015 DNH 064; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44191; 2015 WL 1523091Docket: Civil No. 13-cv-261-LM

Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire; April 3, 2015; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a medical malpractice claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, filed by the wife of a Navy veteran who suffered a massive second stroke resulting in 'locked-in' syndrome due to alleged inadequate care at the Veterans Administration Medical Center. The court assessed whether the doctors met the standard of care in diagnosing and treating the patient's initial stroke. It focused on the failure to prescribe appropriate medication and ensure timely diagnostic procedures. Despite expert testimonies suggesting the patient's stroke was cardioembolic, the doctors did not prescribe Coumadin, which the court found would likely have prevented the second stroke. The court rejected the government's comparative negligence defense, which argued that the patient's history of noncompliance and substance abuse excused the prescribed treatment. Ultimately, the court awarded over $21 million in damages, including costs for past and future medical care and non-economic damages. It also ordered the establishment of a reversionary trust to manage the medical care award, ensuring it serves the patient's interests.

Legal Issues Addressed

Comparative Negligence under New Hampshire Law

Application: The court rejected the government's comparative negligence defense, finding that the plaintiff's alleged non-compliance did not negate the malpractice committed.

Reasoning: The court ruled against the government's comparative negligence defense.

Damages Calculation in Medical Malpractice

Application: The court awarded substantial damages for past and future medical expenses, as well as non-economic damages, based on expert testimony.

Reasoning: The court awarded $1,368,710.62 for past medical expenses, contracture surgery, and home modifications, alongside $12,000,000.00 for future medical care.

Medical Malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act

Application: The court found that the doctors at the Veterans Administration Medical Center committed medical malpractice by failing to adhere to the standard of care, leading to the patient's second stroke.

Reasoning: The court found that two of Farley’s doctors committed medical malpractice by not preventing the second stroke.

Proximate Cause in Medical Negligence

Application: The court concluded that the failure to prescribe Coumadin was a proximate cause of the patient's second stroke, as it would have likely prevented the event.

Reasoning: The court found that this failure directly caused Mr. Farley’s second stroke, supported by substantial evidence indicating that Coumadin would have likely prevented it.

Standard of Care for Diagnosis and Treatment of Stroke

Application: The court determined that the standard of care required immediate and thorough diagnostic evaluation and coordination among specialists, which was not met in this case.

Reasoning: The standard of care for treating ischemic stroke patients includes secondary stroke prevention, which aims to reduce the risk of subsequent strokes.