Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P was an 81-year-old who fell in her apartment and broke her right hip. When she was discovered two days later, she was transported to emergency care. D was an orthopedic surgeon who prescribed bed rest rather than surgery. D reviewed the X-Rays and decided against pinning P's hip as that would have involved four steel screws, and P was elderly, frail, and in a weakened condition and such a surgery would be risky. P also suffered from osteoporosis meaning her bones were too porous to hold the screws and had suffered a stroke from a mismatched blood transfusion forty years before. D felt that bed rest, although controversial could heal P's fracture and restore the right leg to limited functionality. Before the fall, P was independent but is now confined to a nursing home. P sued D for malpractice. P's expert testified that bed rest was inappropriate and that it should only be done when the patient is terminally ill or in a vegetative state as the danger is that the fracture could dislocate; in fact, that is what happened to P. P's right leg then shortened, and she was never again able to walk. D's expert even admitted that pinning P's leg would have decreased the risk of displacement but agreed with D that the bones were probably too brittle to withstand insertion of pins. P asserts that she would not have consented to bed rest if D had told her of the probable effect of the treatment on her life. P got the verdict and D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co