CME 
JOBS 
OUTBREAKS 
PEER-TO-PEER 
QUIZZES & QUESTIONS 
MEDTECH 
A Connecticut hospital faces a medical malpractice lawsuit following a patient’s death, raising questions about the denial of potentially life-saving surgery. The case highlights the complex decisions healthcare providers must make when weighing surgical interventions against alternative treatments, particularly in emergency situations. Legal experts emphasize that each case requires careful consideration of specific circumstances, medical necessity, and risk-benefit analysis.
Key Points:
- A family is suing a Connecticut hospital, alleging that doctors’ failure to perform life-saving surgery led to a patient’s death.
- The 35-year-old patient was being treated for a perforated bowel and reportedly died from a deteriorating condition.
- A consulting nephrologist suggested the patient may have developed sepsis, which was not documented by the treating nephrologist.
- Denying surgery can be considered malpractice if the procedure is medically necessary and its benefits clearly outweigh the risks.
- The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) often serves as a standard for determining provider responsibility in emergency situations.
- Comorbid conditions that increase surgical risks may justify opting for non-surgical treatments.
- Each case must be assessed individually, considering unique circumstances and valid reasons for treatment decisions.
“Not all denials of treatment constitute malpractice. Doctors must make difficult judgment calls to protect patients, even if it yields an unwanted outcome. However, failing to provide medically necessary, lifesaving care when the benefits clearly outweigh the risks can be negligent and may warrant legal consequences.”
More on Malpractice
