Airman Loses Legs in Botched Gallbladder Surgery, Future of Career Uncertain

[WriteDown]

Source: Fox News

A Texas Airman stationed at an Air Force Base near Sacramento, Calif. has lost both legs after surgeons reportedly botched a routine surgery to remove his gallbladder.

Colton Read, 20, underwent laproscopic surgery last week at David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base near Sacramento. Laproscopic surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that involves making a tiny incision to minimize pain and speed recovery time.

About an hour into the surgery, something went wrong. Read's wife Jessica told CBS11TV.com.

"A nurse runs out, 'we need blood now' and she rounds the corner and my gut feelings is 'oh my God, is that my husband?'" Jessica Read said. Read's wife said an Air Force general surgeon mistakenly cut her husband's aortic valve, which supplies blood to the heart, but waited hours to transport Colton Read to a state hospital with a vascular surgeon....


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534050,00.html?test=latestnews

---

This is my biggest fear in any government run healthcare. You cannot sue in these situations where its more than appropriate.

[imdjh]

1. How is suing effective in eliminating mistakes?

Don't mistakes happen in systems where lawsuits threaten? Any idea how many people have died from bariatric surgery?

[WriteDown]

2. No argument from me...

But this patient should be well compensated considering that he is now unable to work or pursue his dream.

[SidDithers]

3. Because people never sue the government?...

Regardless, I think the a suit against the surgeon and hospital would be expected in both "government run" health care, and whatever crazy system you're in right now.

Sid

[Alhena]

4. Suits are not allowed for military servicemen ...

if the injuries were incidental to military service. It's called the "Feres doctrine." This poor guy is out of luck in more ways than one.

[happyslug]

11. The rational is that CONGRESS has set up another way to Compensate him

Any person injured by a Doctor (malpractice for example) can NOT sue the Doctor or the Government for he (or she) has the RIGHT to Medical Compensation for the Injury in the form of a a disability pension. The Courts have ruled that Congress (or the states) can NOT take away some one's rights to sue for damages, but can re-define those rights if another form of Compensation is available. This is the same rationale why people can NOT sue their employers for injuries that occur on the Job, that right to sue was taken away from them in exchange for the Workmen's Compensation program.

Now, the Courts have long ruled the exchange of the right to sue in exchange for some other benefit must be about equal benefits to the victim (Notice I said ABOUT not exactly equal). If the benefits the right to sue is exchange for is substantially less then the courts will permit a lawsuit. I have NOT yet seen such a case, but the courts have always stated that line whenever the right to sue for damages is taken from a person in exchange for some other benefits.

Side Note: Under the Common law, a person injured by another soldier or even his superior during training or other military activity had to RIGHT to sue that person who caused his injury. The law that forbids such lawsuits is only constitutional on the grounds the military provides medical care and other compensation for the victim in exchange for the victim's right to sue his superior. Now this is a very old law, going back to the Revolution (and in some aspects pre-dates the Revolution) but even in Colonial days this taking away of the right to sue was subject to the concept that such denial of the right to sue can only be done in exchange for some other form of compensation for the injury (Thus pensions for injuries were permitted from Colonial days onward).

Just a Comment on WHY a Soldier can NOT sue his Doctor, the reason is he has the right to reasonable compensation for the same injury as set by congress.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. So he'll get what 3k a month for the rest of his life. I'm guessing he'd rather have his legs.

[happyslug]

27. Yes, But the issue is why he can NOT sue the Military Doctor

NOT that he would prefer to have both of his legs. Thus I answered the issue of HOW we can compensate him for the LOST of those legs, which all we can do today. We can NOT undo what the Doctor did, through we may be able to do so in the future and under the Military pension system that operation can be paid for by the US military or the VA (or performed by them).

Remember the short side of being able to sue for malpractice. The short side is the story of the first American to win a One Million Dollar Malpractice lawsuit, it was to take care of him the rest of his life when it was given to him by a Jury in 1959. The One Million Dollars did not last that long, running out around 1972. He could NOT go back for more money and when I first heard of him in the late 1980s he was living in a small house on an estate then owned by Cher and had been on SSI since 1972 when the one million dollar ran out (Being spent on Medical care since 1959). Yes, we taxpayers paid him for a longer period, including the medical costs, then the doctor who did the Malpractice. The pensions system is a better way for most people then the ability to sue for damages if your concern is the long term care of those people harmed by malpractice. Lawsuits are the better solution if no long term harm is done, but the states only permit lawsuits for long term care is expensive and most large corporation want to pay a lump sum rather then be on the hook for 50 plus years of care.

[mallard]

31. Re: things that happen in texas

Who exactly did this young man piss off to become a guinea pig in the VA insurance coverage wars?

Why did the doctors not take note that there was nothing apparently wrong with the legs being cut off his body?

It seems impossible that such realties as physical appearance would be overlooked ... in any other 'state'.

[tblue37]

32. He lost his legs becasue of blood loss due to the accidental severing of the aortal artery.

They didn't just go and cut off his healthy legs when they were supposed to take out his gall bladder. They screwed up while trying to take out his gall bladder, and the blood loss that resulted led to hsi losing his legs.

[karynnj]

5. Why do you say that the doctors can't be sued?

First of all, as this completely public system doesn't exist, it is hard to know what the law would be. People can sue the doctor they see on Medicare and Medicaid - he/she is in private practice and even VA doctors can apparently be sued - http://www.vamalpractice.com/ (This is just from google I have no first hand information.) Even single payer would be more like medicare for all.

[tocqueville]

6. What a stupid comment, we have "government run healthcare" in France

and if there is malpractice either public service hospitals etc... or private etc... equivalents are sued...

this was the most stupid comment I've read in a long time. "Government run healthcare" doesn't mean that the elected bodies are all of a sudden transformed into practicing doctors with immunity. It only means that taxes paid by the individual and employers finance healthcare for all, even for those who can't afford it. Which is way cheaper than the US system both for the individual and the nation and far more efficient regarding prevention, not to talk about the humane aspect.

Do you really think it's impossible to sue a public service in Europe because it's a public service ? What do you think we are ? socialists ?

[crim son]

28. I think the poster is using the argument that military personnel

cannot their government run service providers. This is wrong; however it doesn't necessarily have to apply to a nation-wide public healthcare option. Much has been said about the shoddy care practiced in some vet's healthcare facilities and this shouldn't go unremarked. However I think we should model our upgraded system on, say, the program that serves our public representatives, and not the one serving our vets.

That sounds awful, doesn't it? But it's not unreasonable.

[Psephos]

29. you may wish to note that this isn't France n/t

[tocqueville]

37. I am aware of that

just wanted to say that "government run healthcare" isn't what some may think it is

[DesertFlower]

7. like mistakes don't happen

with private health care?

[dflprincess]

8. Nobody is talking about "government run" healthcare

There are those of us who want a single payer system, but that's just what its name implies. One payer as opposed to the hundred we have now and will continue to have with the bills currently being discussed. The providers will still be private, not employed by the government - not that mistakes don't happen in private hospitals.

[WriteDown]

9. From this article, looks like you can

but I wonder about limits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1081018/Cancer-sufferers-launch-lawsuit-NHS-claw-fees-life-prolonging-drugs.html

[tocqueville]

12. a completely private healthcare system

even with a single payer system is doomed to become unfair in the end, because a private system must tend to profit maximizing. A public service (which doesn't mean it's "run" by the government) must be the dominating part and the private part a complement. A public service can absorb deficits that are impossible for a private company. If the French electricity grid, the post office, the phones, the railroads and the hospitals were all private, people outside the main centers would have nothing because it's not profitable to draw a line to the middle of nowhere. So the government compensates by redistributing the profits made on one hand to the areas that lack the taxpayer base. But the system in itself is run by professionals who are liable, not by politicians. On the whole the system still costs half of what the US does (and covers everybody), at least on healthcare.

No matter what private system you use, the US system (so far) will always be more unfair and expensive as long as Americans hate redistribution because of their paranoia of "government".

[lies and propaganda]

10. If you are a soldier.. you CANT sue

for anything. They own you, they can fuck you up how they see fit.

[kestrel91316]

18. My dad went to doctors at the USAF Academy when he got what

eventually turned out to be lung cancer. They dicked around with him for nearly a year before it occurred to them to take an XR. By then it was too late to do anything for him.

And no, they had immunity from a malpractice lawsuit, so we were without recourse. He was only 47 when he died.

[tomm2thumbs]

22. even in the best hospitals you gotta keep on everyone's tails - sad but true

[kestrel91316]

24. Well, in 1979 I was in vet school and living over two hours away,

so I was in no position to be involved in his care.

The take home message is, when a former smoker has thoracic pain for over 6 months, unresponsive to treatment, you just might want to take XRs before a whole year of symptoms has passed.

[lonestarnot]

38. 1151

[Dappleganger]

13. Mitch McConnell approves

he thinks we have the best healthcare in the world.

[kestrel91316]

14. I'm having trouble figuring out how a gall bladder surgery could damage

a heart valve. The heart valves are INSIDE the heart. Which is in the chest. WAY up in the chest.

The gall bladder is in the liver, which is in the abdominal cavity.

I think his AORTA was damaged (that's the huge artery that supplies blood to everything south of the heart itself).

More TERRIBLE reportage by a medical illiterate who apparently should stick to writing about local ice cream shops and Little League games.

[Posteritatis]

34. Damage to the aorta's pretty catastrophic

Depedning on how it happens it could have effects all over the place.

I can see things happening to the heart if you rupture the aorta and there's a sudden bottoming out of blood pressure or something, even if just for a few beats.

(Also, the surgery's screw-up directly damaged the aortic valve.)

[kpominville]

15. What does this have to do with public health insurance?

What does this story have to do with anything?

Any doctor could make this mistake. It does not matter who their employer is.

What we are fighting for right now is NOT "government run healthcare". That is a bullshit lie.

We are fighting for the CHOICE to buy into a public insurance plan so we don't have to continue to subsidize billion dollar salaries for private insurance executives.

[happyslug]

16. The Airmen can not sue the doctor for the simple reason he will NOT get a medical Pension

When Congress stripped military personnel of the right to sue other people in the Military (Fellow Soldiers, higher ranks, Medical officers or any other person in the Military) was in exchange for such injured military personnel to get free medical treatment for the injury and a disable pension for the injury. The Airman technically losses nothing, he is entailed to other compensation rather then a money judgment against the person who did the injury.

This is a very old concept going back to Colonial times, but without a statute providing such pension in exchange for the right to sue, the Common Law permitted such law suits. The problems with such lawsuit was clear by the 1500s and the British Parliament started to exchange the right to sue for pensions do to those problems in that time frame. By the times of Colonial America such laws were quite common. The concept was extended to employees when Workmen Compensation laws become the norm in the late 1800s. You right to sue was changed into the right to some other form of compensation. That is all the ban on suing a military doctor is, you lost that right in exchange for the right to a pension from the Government. The Government is as worried about minimizing its cost as any medical provided is worried about being sued so the net effect as to making sure medical car is done is roughly the same (Not exactly equal but roughly the same).

My point is simple, given that the proposed law does NOT take away anyone's right to sue, the above does NOT come into play. It would only come into play in that future medical bills will have to be paid by the medical provider, which would be the situation in any Single Payer or Government run system. Thus "losing" the right to compensation is NOT an issue.

[Posteritatis]

35. Insert reply bemoaning inability to recommend comments here (nt)

[Fire1]

17. One more argument for public option. n/t

[pnwmom]

19. Forget that fear. People on MEDICARE can sue. And Medicare's a govt. program.

[dothemath]

20. where to start ..........

People, people, this is a faux news report. Flags go up everywhere. Calm down and try to get some facts. There is way too much wrong with this story for it to be accepted without checking on it.

[tomm2thumbs]

21. Isn't this what McCain called the best health care in the world? ?!

I guess he was talking about a different country. Where mistakes never happen. You know - the country in his imagination.

'Sarah Palinland'

[depakid]

23. "This is my biggest fear in any government run healthcare. You cannot sue..."

Well, that would sure be news to these folks:

http://www.lawyershop.ca/practices/medical-malpractice-lawyers.php

[MadMaddie]

25. This is a problem with Military doctors

There are doctors that should not be practicing medicine in the military just as there are out in the civilian population.

The way to stop many malpractice suits is to make sure that the good Drs are rewarded and the bad Drs are not allowed to practice.

The Dr in this case appologized for the mistake, WTF?

This type of error is unacceptable.

[mike_c]

30. Socialized medicine! Socialized medicine! Fear! Fear!

Oh for pete's sake.

[Posteritatis]

33. I could quite easily sue for a botched operation despite living under ebil govt-funded healthcare nt

[POAS]

36. Sad story---really stupid conclusion though!