DALLAS (Legal Newsline) - A woman who argued improper jury instructions were to blame for her loss in a malpractice lawsuit stemming from the death of her husband lost her bid to revive the case, as a Texas appeals court ruled the trial judge’s decisions were correct.
Angelina Arredondo sued Dr. John T. Tracy, Baylor Health Care System and others after her husband Daniel died of sepsis from an infection with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. Daniel went to a Baylor emergency room in January 2016 complaining of severe pain in his shoulder.
A nurse examined him, including screening him for sepsis, but found his vital signs were stable. Arredondo’s wife asked the staff to X-ray his shoulder, but Arredondo refused, saying it was too painful to move his arm into position. After a few hours he was discharged with a prescription for muscle relaxants and instructions to see his primary care physician.
Three days later he returned to the emergency department with labored breathing, an elevated heart rate and chest pain. The physician there suspected pneumonia, congestive heart failure, or a pulmonary embolism and transferred him to the hospital. Once there, doctors suspected sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis, and the following day he died.
Angelina Arrendondo sued the hospital and others for malpractice and the first trial ended in a mistrial. After a second trial, a jury in October 2019 ruled for the defense. The plaintiff appealed, arguing the jury was improperly instructed to treat the case as one involving “emergency care,” which requires the higher standard of finding “willful and wanton negligence” on the part of the defendants. She also appealed the judge’s decision to exclude evidence a physician assistant didn’t have the proper credentials.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals, in a Jan. 13 decision, rejected both arguments.
In her appeal, the plaintiff argued the jury should have been asked to decide first whether emergency care had been given, and then whether willful and wanton, or merely ordinary negligence was the cause of his death. The judge asked a single question: whether willful and wanton negligence was to blame.
The plaintiff argued the hospital employees refused to treat her husband’s condition as an emergency, but the legal definition of emergency care includes severe pain, the appeals court ruled. The triage nurse also evaluated him for sepsis, a condition that could – and in this case unfortunately did – lead to severe negative consequences, the court observed.
The trial court also properly excluded evidence Brendan Baird, the physician assistant who treated Arredondo, didn’t have authorization to prescribe medicine. Whether or not the assistant had a prescription authorization agreement is irrelevant to the plaintiff’s claim, the appeals court ruled, “which is that her husband was misdiagnosed with muscle spasms, instead of sepsis, not Mr. Baird’s prescription of drugs or devices.”