Discontinuance in Pain Management Death Case After MCB moves for Summary Judgment

Discontinuance in Pain Management Death Case After MCB moves for Summary Judgment

Senior Trial Partner Kenneth Larywon, Partner Christopher Terzian and Associate Christopher Daniel secured a discontinuance in a pain management case in Rockland County. A then 53-year old married man with three children presented to a regional hospital with severe abdominal pain, for which the decedent would typically receive Dilaudid. Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP represented three physicians and a physician's assistant who treated the decedent during the beginning of the decedent’s admission to the hospital. The MCB represented Emergency Medicine Physician ordered 1 mg of Dilaudid for pain relief and the MCB represented Hospitalist ordered another 1 mg of Dilaudid shortly after the decedent's arrival to the hospital. Another 1 mg of Dilaudid was ordered by the MCB represented physician’s assistant a few hours later. Later that same day, the decedent was administered further Dilaudid by non-MCB represented providers and arrested a couple of hours thereafter.

 

Ultimately, the decedent passed away days later. The plaintiff-wife brought suit and alleged that all of the defendants improperly administered Dilaudid to the decedent and caused the decedent's arrest and death. MCB moved for summary judgment on behalf of the MCB represented providers and argued, with expert support, that the Dilaudid ordered for the decedent by the MCB Defendants was appropriate and within the standard of care for pain management and the Dilaudid administered was appropriate to address the decedent's complaints of abdominal due to the prior success of Dilaudid intreating that pain. MCB’s attorneys also argued that the Dilaudid administered pursuant to the orders of the MCB Defendants did not proximately cause the decedent's death because that Dilaudid had already metabolized and therefore, could not have caused the decedent's arrest and death. 

 

MCB moved on behalf of 4 providers and due to our strong arguments, plaintiff's counsel chose to discontinue his claims against each provider rather than oppose the motion.