Re: Disturbing MA Court Decision against physicians

[Guest guest]

In theory then every patient we see in the ambulance we would have to

warn of the possible side effects of not only what we administer but

also any meds they tell us they are taking. Am I getting to far from

reality?

Renny Spencer

EMT-I

Paramedic student

>

> In Coombes v. Floria, 877 N.E.2nd 567 (Mass.2007) the Supreme

Judicial Court

> of Massachusetts extended the duty to warn patients of side effects

of

> prescriptions to foreseeable third parties.

>

> Coombes was killed in an accident when hit by Sacca, a patient of

Dr.

> Florio. Sacca was 75 and suffered from asbestosis, chronic

bronchitis, emphysema,

> high blood pressure, and metastatic lung cancer. In the past

Florio had warned

> Sacca not to drive during cancer treatments, but when treatment

ended, said

> that it would be safe for him to drive again. Potential SEs of the

prescribed

> drugs were drowsiness, dizziness, lightheadedness, fainting,

altered

> consciousness, and sedation.

>

> The Court found that Coombes' claim was NOT A MALPRACTICE CLAIM,

BUT A COMMON

> LAW NEGLIGENCE CLAIM (and thus would not be covered by malpractice

> insurance).

>

> It also found that a finding of negligence against Florio would not

require a

> direct physician-patient relationship. The Court found that the

duty to warn

> extended to Coombes because his injury was a foreseeable

consequence of that

> negligence.    The Court said that when side effects are likely to

impair the

> patient's mental capacity, the foreseeable risk of injury in a car

accident is

> not limited to the patient, and that it is irrelevant whether the

defendant

> did foresee, or should have foreseen THE PARTICULAR PLAINTIFF in

the particular

> circumstances even if there is an intermediary actor.

>

> My comment: This effectively makes the physician the insuror of

the

> well-being of any driver on the highway with a patient who is

taking drugs prescribed

> by a physician. The Court did not mention Florio's prior warning

about

> driving or whether or not Florio even knew that Sacca was still

taking the drugs at

> the time of the accident. Can anyone think of ways this decision,

if

> followed by other courts, could affect paramedic practice? For

example, what if a

> patient refuses care, but later is found to have been mentally

impaired and

> kills somebody? The patient expresses what a paramedic SHOULD

HAVE KNOWN to be

> suicidal/homicidal ideaology and kills someone. Could the

paramedic be

> liable to the 3rd party killed for failure to warn?

>

> However, the Court sent the case back to the trial court to

determine whether

> or not Dr. Florio breached his " duty " to Coombes.

>

> This case appears to go even further than Tarasoff v. Regents, in

which the

> California Court held that a psychiatrist owed a duty to a

patient's intended

> victim of harm. The MA case would seem to extend the duty to ANY

person who

> might come into contact with the patient.

>

> GG.

>

>

> **************

> Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car

listings at AOL

> Autos.

> (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)

>

>

> **************

> Need a new

> ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL

Autos.

>

> (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)

>

>

>