Patient Died After Aquiring Infection at Hospital

Ben Glass

Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 320

0 CommentsPrint ArticleSubscribe

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Virginia means that a plaintiff filing suit over a family member’s death now has increased flexibility in advancing his claim against medical providers.

The decision, which was made on January 16, addresses a suit alleging that the mistreatment of a patient caused both personal injury and wrongful death. Due to Virginia law allowing only one recovery for an injury, a patient’s family is able to win damages for either the personal injuries or the death, but not both. Circuit courts have been inconsistent on when and under what circumstances the plaintiff has to choose his path.

Defense attorneys have typically been able to force a plaintiff to elect a remedy, making the choice between the wrongful death claim and the personal injury claim before trial. However, the Supreme Court approved the decision of a lower court to allow the jury to decide on the basis of medical testimony, even though the jury heard evidence of both the suffering of the patient and the emotional loss of the family.

The patient in Centra Health Inc. v. Mullins (VLW 009-6-016) died after acquiring an infection at the defendant hospital. His family filed suit on both the injury and death theories. The jury rejected the wrongful death claim and awarded the family $325,000 in damages for the personal injury claim.

The Supreme Court held that allowing the two mutually exclusive claims to go to the jury was proper because the evidence had failed to show before trial whether the death was caused by the alleged improper care.

The court decided that a plaintiff in such a case does not have to decide between the two remedies until enough evidence is in the record to show that the injuries and death were the result of the same cause and that point may not come until the end of a jury trial. The court upheld the $325,000 judgment.

Defendants in such cases, usually hospitals and nursing homes, have argued that it is unfair for the jury to be allowed to hear evidence of both physical suffering by the patient and emotional loss by the family when they are able to award damages for only one of those elements. But Justice Lawrence L. Koontz Jr., writing for the court, said that the remedy is to split the trial into separate proceedings for determining liability and damages.