After the dental procedure, Michael had been given a fentanyl patch for pain.  Two problems with that:  It shouldn’t have been prescribed in the first place and, even if it had been a proper medication, it was given at a poisonous dosage — the highest dose possible.  Fentanyl is a strong narcotic, most often used for intractable pain associated with severe conditions such as cancer.

This is a tragic story, one that no parent ever wants to experience.  But, as someone who sues health care providers in Virginia, the next part of the story is surprising to me.  Seattle Children’s Hospital admitted its mistake!  It issued a statement and admitted that “a thorough investigation revealed that this was not the fault of any one individual.  Our detailed root cause analysis identified that this occurred because our processes failed at multiple points.  We have since changed the way we prescribe and administer fentanyl patches.”

Nevertheless, my friend  Chris Davis, a great trial lawyer in Seattle, sued the hospital and the dentist.  Why?  Because they still need to be held accountable for what they did to Michael and his family.  Just becaue the hospital apologizes and changes it policy doesn’t mean that it and the dentist can skirt their responsibility to Michael’s family for taking him away from them.

Children should not die from drug overdoses because of the carelessness of the health care providers who are supposed to do no harm.  Anyone whose child has died because of the negligence of a doctor or hospital should get accurate information and advice from a lawyer who handles such cases. 

If you have questions about whether carelessness killed a child, or need other information about medical malpractice, give me a call at 703-273-9500, or send me an email at srohrstaff@WRSattorneys.com.  You can also contact me through my firm’s website, www.WRSattorneys.com.  Medical malpractice lawsuits are difficult and costly, and I never advise a family to sue a health care provider needlessly.  I’ll answer your questions for f ree.

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-20.1

Every motion for judgment, counter claim, or third party claim in a medical malpractice action, at the time the plaintiff requests service of process upon a defendant, or requests a defendant to accept service of process, shall be deemed a certification that the plaintiff has obtained from an expert witness whom the plaintiff reasonably believes would qualify as an expert witness pursuant to subsection A of § 8.01-581.20 a written opinion signed by the expert witness that, based upon a reasonable understanding of the facts, the defendant for whom service of process has been requested deviated from the applicable standard of care and the deviation was a proximate cause of the injuries claimed. This certification is not necessary if the plaintiff, in good faith, alleges a medical malpractice action that asserts a theory of liability where expert testimony is unnecessary because the alleged act of negligence clearly lies within the range of the jury’s common knowledge and experience.

The certifying expert shall not be required to be an expert witness expected to testify at trial nor shall any defendant be entitled to discover the identity or qualifications of the certifying expert or the nature of the certifying expert’s opinions. Should the certifying expert be identified as an expert expected to testify at trial, the opinions and bases therefor shall be discoverable pursuant to Rule 4:1 of the Rules of Supreme Court of Virginia with the exception of the expert’s status as a certifying expert.

Upon written request of any defendant, the plaintiff shall, within 10 business days after receipt of such request, provide the defendant with a certification form that affirms that the plaintiff had obtained the necessary certifying expert opinion at the time service was requested or affirms that the plaintiff did not need to obtain a certifying expert witness opinion. If the plaintiff did not obtain a necessary certifying expert opinion at the time the plaintiff requested service of process on a defendant as required under this section, the court shall impose sanctions according to the provisions of § 8.01-271.1 and may dismiss the case with prejudice.

Virginia has required a certificate of merit since 2005, and I don’t know of any constitutional challenges to the law since it was enacted here.  Many medical malpractice lawyers in Virginia have not been strongly opposed to the law because it is a way of validating the claim.  But, what is an injured person to do when the doctor or hospital personnel either leave out or put things into the medical records that are not true?  If the contents of the medical records keeps an injured person from getting a certificate of merit, and facts could be discovered in the legal process to show the errors in the medical records, then the law protects the health care provider from defending a legitimate claim.  Is that fair?