As society returns to normal after two years of pandemic-induced quarantine, the return to civil lawsuits in medical malpractice cases has experts wondering about the impact of a new type of jury, one which has heightened awareness of medical conditions and patient responsibilities of health care providers and medical practices.
Conventional wisdom states that juries in civil medical malpractice cases would have less tolerance for delayed patient communications, repeated misdiagnosis and overall operational inefficiencies in the health care system.
These potential jurors have watched an unidentified virus go from untreatable to a handful of highly effective vaccines in less than two years, heightening their awareness of the potential effectiveness when the health care, medical and pharmaceutical industries all work together.
Is Rhode Island an indicator?
The northeast region of the United States often sets trends for civil lawsuit trends in awarding judgements, which is why the industry paid attention to an October ruling in the northeast that may be an indicator for future civil jury rulings in a post-COVID era.
The October trial in Providence, R.I., of a woman severely injured in a botched gallbladder removal surgery was the first civil jury trial to take place in Rhode Island since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.
Argued by attorney Michael P. Quinn, Jr., shareholder of the trial law firm of Decof Barry Megan & Quinn, there were several case details that a post-COVID civil jury obviously sided with the plaintiff.
So what elements of this case were decided by this new post-COVID jury?
- Immediate diagnosis – The jury responded to the immediate diagnosis of the plaintiff, while understanding the complications of the procedures
- COVID complications – The immense gray areas in the medical and pharmaceutical treatment of COVID-19 seems to make juries more understanding of the complications and consequences of medical procedures
- No medical margin for error – The general surgeon’s error during the surgery was not immediately addressed, as the patient was sent home the same day without the error being addressed. Upon return, the patient was hospitalized for over a month, even having to drink bile as part of bile replacement
The jury seemed to hold the medical practice to strict liability, with real-time medical diagnosis much more part of the public lexicon than two years ago. The civil jury came to a unanimous verdict of $1.2 million for the plaintiff, a total that grew to $2.136 million with interest.
Will new civil juries have a heightened expectation of medical guidance and health care delivery? Only time will tell.
13,889 Comments