
Quest Diagnostics Responsible for Catastrophic Injury to Patient During Routine Blood Draw- Jury Awards total of $5.4 Million
April 20, 2012 – A Fulton County jury returned a verdict Friday against Quest Diagnostics and its Alpharetta-based subsidiary, Quick-Med, Inc., for $5,459,255, after a medical technician caused permanent nerve damage to Mr. Michael Bowbliss of Buford, Georgia during a routine blood draw as part of a life insurance examination. After seven hours of deliberation, the jury reached a verdict totaling $3,459,255 for Mr. Bowbliss’ claims, and $2,000,000 for Dee Anna Blowliss and her children’s loss of consortium claim, one of the largest loss of consortium awards in Georgia history. “As a result of the blood draw, Mike suffered permanent damage to the median nerve of his right arm, a major nerve about as wide as a Number 2 pencil that runs down the middle of the forearm into the hand,” said Lloyd N. Bell, the attorney for Bowbliss. “The nerve injury led to the onset of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, Type II, a debilitating chronic pain condition which has no known cure,” said Bell. “The injury’s effect on Mike’s wife and children is also profound, and the verdict and award speak to that loss,” added Nelson Tyrone, attorney for Mrs. Bowbliss. “In May of 2009, Quest Diagnostics sent a medical technician to the home of 34-year-old Michael Bowbliss to conduct a routine life insurance exam,” said Bell. “The technician, Patricia Robinson, inserted a needle into Bowbliss’s right arm to obtain a blood sample. When she inserted the needle, Bowbliss screamed in pain and felt immediate burning and tingling down his arm and into his hand. Ms. Robinson continued to probe, repositioned the needle, and eventually drew blood, despite Mr. Bowbliss’ obvious pain.” “After she removed the needle, the pain remained and did not go away,” continued Bell. “A few days later, Bowbliss contacted Quest and reported that his arm felt like it was on fire since the needle stick. He asked what he should do. Quest advised Bowbliss to get immediate medical attention, which he did.” “Since the injury, Mike’s life has been spent in doctor’s offices and examination rooms trying to treat his pain and disability. He was finally referred to The Shepherd Center, one of the finest catastrophic care hospitals in Atlanta, and has been getting excellent treatment from Dr. Erik Shaw, a specialist in treating complex regional pain syndrome,” Bell said. “Dr. Shaw is using some the most advanced, cutting-edge treatment options available to help control the pain including Ketamine infusions and various nerve blocks. Mike is grateful to Dr. Shaw and the entire team at Shepherd Center, and he is hopeful about the future, but Mike knows this will be a condition he will have to work to manage for the rest of his life,” said Bell. “Despite overwhelming evidence of fault and catastrophic injury to Mike and his family, Quest and Quick-Med never acknowledged any responsibility,” said Bell. “From the beginning, Quest and Quick-Med made it clear they did not care about Mike and his family. In fact, the only offer to settle the defendants ever made before the verdict was entered occurred during trial – an offer of $5,000,” said Bell. “A young, healthy man who has given blood dozens of times in his life without incident, should not get his median nerve sliced during a routine life insurance exam,” said Bell. “Mike filed suit to find out why this happened and hopefully prevent this from happening to someone else,” continued Bell. “In discovery we found that Quest and Quick-Med had hired a medical technician to perform blood draws without ever observing her technique and without confirming that she understood the standard of care,” said Bell. “At her deposition, Ms. Robinson testified it was her practice to insert the needle into the arm at a 45 degree angle, which everyone in the case agreed violated the standard of care,” said Bell. “She also admitted she kept the needle in Mike’s arm after he expressed pain, another clear violation of the standard of care,” said Bell. “A properly trained medical technician knows that the only acceptable angle of entry is 30 degrees or less, and that if a patient ever expresses pain, the needle should be removed immediately, and certainly not repositioned.” Mr. Bowbliss’s wife, Dee Anna, also brought an independent claim against Quest Diagnostics and Quick-Med for the loss of marital services, what is known under Georgia law as a “loss of consortium” claim. “Georgia law recognizes and values marriage,” said Dee Anna Bowbliss’s attorney, Nelson O. Tyrone. “When one partner in a marriage suffers terrible injury, the impact on the marriage is profound,” said Tyrone. “By representing Ms. Bowbliss on this issue, I was able to help the jury understand the life-altering impact Mike’s injury has had on the marriage and their three young children. In a very real sense, Quest and Quick-Med have pulled this family apart and changed their lives forever. The verdict speaks to that loss.” The verdict for Mike and Dee Anna Bowbliss of $5,459,255, included damages for Mike Bowbliss’s claims totaling $3,459,255 and $2,000,000 for Dee Anna Bowbliss’s loss of consortium claim, one of the largest such awards for loss of consortium in Georgia history. After the verdict was entered, Judge Patsy Porter reduced Mr. Bowbliss’s verdict by approximately $1,600,000, which represented the cost of two medical procedures, a spinal cord stimulator and intrathecal pump, both treatment options to help control the pain. “The court determined the cost of the future treatments was too speculative,” said Bell. “While I respect the Court’s decision, I strongly disagree with it, and am confident Mike will ultimately receive all the money the jury found he was entitled to,” said Bell.
This past weekend, I had the pleasure of listening to Susan Saladoff discuss her new documentary, “Hot Coffee”, which recently aired on HBO. Of course, the provocative title – “Hot Coffee” – refers to the much-maligned civil lawsuit involving an elderly lady, Stella Liebeck, who suffered burns after she spilled McDonald’s coffee in her lap. The case became corporate America’s rallying cry for so called “tort reform” – an organized effort to restrict civil lawsuits and limit the compensation injured people could receive from a jury. After watching the documentary, however, a much different picture emerges.
First of all the idea this was a minor burn case is totally false. The documentary shows the actual photographs used at trial depicting Ms. Liebeck’s injuries. Imagine blackened, charred skin throughout her groin and inner thighs – unforgettable and deeply troubling images. She required multiple skin grafts and lengthy physical therapy. She never fully recovered from her injuries.
Also, the popular media image of the diminutive grand-mother from New Mexico is that of a greedy, money-hungry woman looking for “jackpot justice” from a wealthy corporation. The truth is that Ms. Liebeck asked McDonald’s to pay only her out-of-pocket medical bills that were not covered by Medicare. McDonald’s offered her $800 to go away. Only then did Ms. Liebeck retain an attorney to pursue a claim.
Below is a link to the official trailer of “Hot Coffee”. I urge you to watch it and share your comments. The movie is also available on Netflix.
Hot Coffee Trailer
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in the case of U.S. v. Alvarez, which presents the question of the constitutionality of the “Stolen Valor Act.” The Stolen Valor Act prohibits people from falsely claiming they have been awarded military decorations and medals, and states that:
“Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”
The lower courts that have considered challenges to the act have reached different conclusions. In July 2010 a federal district court in Denver ruled that the act violates free speech, and rejected the argument that lying about having military medals dilutes their meaning and significance. A month later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also considered the issue in a separate case (the Alvarez case), and held that the “speech” involved in the case — lying about being awarded military medals — was within the scope of the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit therefore applied “strict scrutiny review to the Act, and [held] it unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored to achieving a compelling governmental interest.” The court observed that if the Stolen Valor Act was constitutional, as argued by a dissenting judge, then there would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook, or falsely representing to one’s mother that one does not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, is a virgin, or has not exceeded the speed limit while driving on the freeway. The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time. Perhaps, in context, many of these lies are within the government’s legitimate reach. But the government cannot decide that some lies may not be told without a reviewing court’s undertaking a thoughtful analysis of the constitutional concerns raised by such government interference with speech. I suspect the Supreme Court will strike down the act as unconstitutional, while rightly condemning those who would peddle lies about imagined battlefield glory. It is hard to imagine that a court which regards a stripper’s activities as protected “free speech” would uphold an act criminalizing true speech, however malignant.