.jpg)
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Legal Newsline) – A couple’s reliance on a pharmacist for expert testimony in their medical malpractice lawsuit was a bad idea, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled.
Justice Peter Maassen wrote the April 23 opinion for the court, which ruled a Fairbanks judge was right to toss the case of Marcie and William Beistline. A doctor’s decision to discontinue a medication caused a seizure, the Beistlines claimed, but the pharmacist was unqualified to back those accusations, the court ruled.
Defendants Bruce Footit and Fairbanks Memorial Hospital argued the Beistlines needed to find a doctor who was board-certified in the appropriate field to meet med-mal requirements passed by the state legislature.
Defendant Footit is board-certified in internal medicine who struggled to diagnose the myriad problems Marcie Beistline was experiencing in 2016. He ordered a hold on her “chronic outpatient medications” and herbal remedies while monitoring her progress.
She tested positive on an initial opiate screen but did not appear to have any prescriptions. But a surgeon removed an implanted port and found her change in mental status was likely due to sepsis/bacteremia.
She suffered a seizure on Feb. 9 and filed a lawsuit blaming it on Footit for the hold on her medications, including benzodiazepines. The Superior Court found Footit and the defendants were entitled to summary judgment when the Beistlines couldn’t find an appropriate expert.
Dr. Gregory Holmquist, a pharmacist and college professor, testified:
“[G]iven the risks of abruptly discontinuing benzodiazepines and Z-drugs in a patient with long-term physical dependence on these medications, following proper protocols for weaning and discontinuing medication is the standard of care. This standard of care should be general knowledge to a board-certified internal medicine physician, but, if not, then there should have been a consult between the internist and the hospital’s pharmaceutical department.”
Holmquist’s affidavit did not answer whether he had a basis in training or experience for knowing if the withdrawal protocols performed by Footit were general knowledge to internalists, while a defendants’ expert with more relevant qualifications testified that Footit’s actions were appropriate.