Legacy of Charles Boustany: Malpractice for unnecessary, debilitating heart operation on 2 year old

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Did You Wonder Why 'Lord' Boustany Gave The Republican Rebuttal? Maybe Because He's Been Sued For Malpractice So Many Times.
By Susie Madrak Thursday Sep 10, 2009 6:00am

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/did-you-wonder-why-boustany-gave-repu

(John Amato: Wow, this might even top Bobby Jindal for lunacy.

His plan for reinvigorating the economy of his district is known as the Prescription for Prosperity. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC reports he attempted to purchase a "Lordship Title" from British scam artists.)

I think "Doctor" Boustany (as he prefers to be called) is an interesting choice for the GOP rebuttal. After all, not only does he seem to enjoy seeking legal redress for some colorful problems, he's also been the defendant in at least eight malpractice suits. From the DCCC:

Congressman Charles Boustany’s more colorful lawsuits suing con artists who told him he could become a British Lord and suing a construction company for “mental anguish” over a pool resurfacing job shouldn’t overshadow the fact that Boustany has been sued for medical malpractice by eight patients.

Boustany was found at fault by the Louisiana Medical Review Panel twice – including a two-year old child Boustany performed an unnecessary and debilitating heart operation on and a woman whose right leg was amputated as the result of complications from surgery – and patients were awarded damages totaling nearly $2 million.

Since 1992, Boustany has been sued for malpractice by eight separate patients. Boustany was found in fault by the state Medical Review Panel.

* Boustany was sued for medical malpractice for surgery performed on a child and found in fault by the state medical review board. The plaintiff received $600,000 in compensation as a result.

Melanie Malagarie sued Boustany for medical malpractice stemming from surgery performed on her young daughter, Leonette. When Leonette was an infant she underwent heart surgery for a condition called Tetrology of Falot. The surgery was described as being a “good result,” according to court documents. Shortly before Leonette turned three, Boustany recommended surgery described as a “complete repair of Tetrology of Falot.”

After surgery, Leonette was reported to have suffered multiple severe damages including acute renal failure, acute respiratory failure and evidence of post-operative infections.

In 1992, the court dismissed the case because Malagarie failed to file a complaint with the state’s medical board.

[brendan120678]

1. I remember reading somewhere that...

well over half of all doctors are sued for malpractice at least once in their careers.

But 8 times??

[ret5hd]

2. I remember reading somewhere that...

something like 80% of malpractice suits are brought against something like 5% of doctors.

I think he might fall into that 5%.

[happyslug]

3. The rules for "Malpractice" are hard, it takes a real bad case to win

First, the action done by the physician MUST violate what is generally considered general practice in his area. Mere bad result is NOT enough. It has to be something done by the Doctor that both causes the bad result AND is something beyond what is expected to be done by Doctors in his area.

For example if I go to my Doctor and he gives me a flu shot and I die to do a reaction to the vaccine is that malpractice? The general answer is NO, even if the possibility of such a reaction is one in a million (And the higher chance of a bad reaction the weaker the already weak case becomes).

On the other hand if the Doctor gave me a shot and sent me home WHEN IT IS THE PRACTICE IN HIS AREA TO KEEP SOMEONE WHO WAS GIVEN THE SHOT IN THE HOSPITAL FOR A FEW DAYS TO BE WATCH FOR BAD REACTION, then you have a case of Malpractice. Notice the malpractice is NOT the bad result, but the failure of the Doctor to follow what is considered normal procedure.

Thus most Doctors have had bad results during their practice. You do not go to the doctor when everything is going 100% perfect. People do die or suffer other harm while under the care of a doctor. Many people can call the harm the result of malpractice but to prove it is something else. First you have to have at least another Doctor (sometime another type of care, give such as a Registered nurse, but those are exceptions for very specific fact situation which I will not go into here) tell the jury not only what the Doctor did wrong BUT also why and how it was NOT the practice in that area. Then you have to show the financial harm you suffered do to the injury (Since most people who are under Doctor care are in ill health already, life expediency is a big factor in showing lost of income and thus a financial harm).

Going back to bad results. Notice the fact you suffered a harm does not mean it was the result of Malpractice. Furthermore, just because another doctor says he or she would have done it differently is NOT the test, the test is simple, is what the Doctor did something a doctor in his area would NOT have done (or in some cases what a doctor in his or her area would have done, but in this case that act was NOT done).

Now, no lawyer will take a case of Malpractice unless he or she have some sort of evidence to over come the above restriction i.e. some act that clearly is NOT what is done by doctors in that area AND the harm relates to that act. Malpractice is a preponderance of evidence test and juries tend to be sympathetic to a plaintiff who is suffering (a big factor for insurance companies to settle such cases). The problem is to first get to the jury to do so you have to have evidence connecting the harm to the act of malpractice AND that the act is a practice NOT what is generally done in that area.

Given the education of doctors, most doctors rarely do anything that is NOT within the common practice of their profession. Thus malpractice is hard to prove, but easily to allege. Sometime malpractice lawsuits are filed BEFORE the Attorney has gathered all the evidence he or she needs to proceed (This is done generally to stop the running of a Statute of Limitation which in generally two years AFTER the act that is being alleged to be malpractice, missing a statute of limitation deadline is malpractice by the attorney). Often it takes more time then two years to get all the evidence gathered to see if the patient has a case. Thus to preserve the case attorneys sometime file a lawsuit to stop the statute of limitation from running out. After the evidence is gathered it is not uncommon for the Lawyer to determine they have no case and drop the case, but the Statute of Limitations concerns increases the number of malpractice lawsuits being filed. Thus many Doctors have had malpractice lawsuits filed against them, but then are withdrawn for lack of merit. This all increases the number of Malpractice lawsuits filed as oppose to Malpractice lawsuits that a plaintiff actually wins.

One last Comment: EIGHT (8) Malpractice lawsuits?? As a general rule if a Doctor loses two malpractice lawsuits he will no longer be able to get insurance and has to stop practicing (Since most doctors subject to malpractice actions are surgeons, many can become General Practitioners but will no longer be able to get insurance for any surgeries). That is a high number of malpractice lawsuits for a Doctor. Could be none of them have merit, but this Doctor is now a Congressmen, could it be that he lost his insurance coverage and thus ran for Congress because he could no longer practice medicine do to a lack of being able to be insured?

On the other hand he could be a "Nominal" Defendant in most if not all of these lawsuits. A "Nominal Defendant" is someone who is named in a Lawsuit but the real target is someone else. For example if he had given someone what was later found to be bad medicine, since he gave it out, that act could be an act of malpractice, but the real target of the lawsuit is the maker of the Medicine. Since the Doctor gave out the medicine he is potentially liable and thus must be named at a Defendant, even while everyone involved in the action knows the real defendant is the company that made the medicine. Not enough information on the web to see what is the situation but just a comment the doctor may NOT be the real subject of any of these lawsuits (and he might be, again not enough data and I am no going data mining to find out).