Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Waupun Woman Gets $8.4 Million in Malpractice Suit (WI)
WISCNews.com ^ | February 3, 2006 | David Wahlberg

Posted on 02/03/2006 12:48:05 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin

MADISON, WI - A Dane County jury's $8.4 million award this week to a Waupun woman who has had to use a feeding tube since a surgery more than five years ago has led hospital administrators to decry the repeal of Wisconsin's medical malpractice caps.

The jury's verdict Tuesday against Dr. Paul Huepenbecker and Dean Health System includes $4.25 million in damages for pain and suffering. Such non-economic damages had been limited to $445,000 before the state Supreme Court lifted the caps last July.

The jury, after deliberating 21 hours Monday and Tuesday, also awarded more than $4 million in economic damages to 33-year-old Jessica Greenfield.

The $8.4 million total is one of the largest medical malpractice awards ever in Dane County.

Greenfield, the married mother of an 8-year-old son, had surgery in 2000 at St. Mary's Hospital in Madison for acid reflux, said her attorney Daniel Rottier.

In the procedure, the top of the stomach is wrapped around the esophagus to prevent acid reflux, or heartburn. After the surgery, Greenfield couldn't eat, and she has had to use a feeding tube since, Rottier said.

He said nerves were severed during the procedure that paralyzed her stomach and small intestine.

"I'm hooked up to a machine 12 hours a day," Greenfield said.

She said she's constantly exhausted, dehydrated and in pain. "If I have a great day, I feel like I have the flu," she said.

Huepenbecker's attorney, Bruce Schultz, agreed that Greenfield had a "very disappointing outcome." But it wasn't the result of negligence, he said.

Greenfield had a long history of significant gastrointestinal problems that Huepenbecker was not aware of before the surgery, Schultz said. The test results he saw suggested she would be a good candidate for the surgery, he said.

Her symptoms "were worsened as a result of the surgery but not as a result of anything done wrong," Schultz said.

The Wisconsin Hospital Association issued a statement Thursday drawing attention to the case, saying "fears" about the repeal of the malpractice caps "came true this week."

The group is concerned that the lack of caps will increase physicians' malpractice insurance premiums, leading doctors to flee the state.

"Wisconsin is headed towards a litigation disaster, and we must do something about it now," said Steve Brenton, the association's president, in the prepared statement.

In December, Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed a bill to reinstate the caps. The hospital association and the Wisconsin Medical Society have been working with legislators to introduce another bill.

Rottier said caps would prevent people such as Greenfield being properly compensated for their radically altered lives.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: heapbigwampum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last
Having NO CAPS on payouts on malpractice cases result in higher premiums for us all, no doctors, and the doctors that DO hang on will have higher prices for their services to cover their malpractice insurance.

This is the third or fourth huge award now, just since Governor Doyle vetoed this in December. (Remember, he's a LAWYER first, and our Governor last.)

1 posted on 02/03/2006 12:48:08 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Watery Tart; KRAUTMAN; reformedliberal; Mygirlsmom; codercpc; s2baccha; ozaukeemom; PjhCPA; ...

"Daily Doyle" Ping.


2 posted on 02/03/2006 12:48:49 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

Hate to say it, but its cheaper for them to die and pay.


3 posted on 02/03/2006 12:54:47 PM PST by Roverman2K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

You just never want to be in a position where you win a large malpractice suit.


4 posted on 02/03/2006 1:12:48 PM PST by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
This is sick.

It really begs the question: Who bought Doyle's action on this?

<sarc>Surely it couldn't be the trial lawyers </sarc>

5 posted on 02/03/2006 1:15:29 PM PST by rzeznikj at stout (This is a darkroom. Keep the door closed or you'll let all the dark out...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rzeznikj at stout

Daniel Rottier can now afford the landscaping at his Maple Bluff mansion.


6 posted on 02/03/2006 1:29:41 PM PST by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

No, I think that the reason he vetoed the legislation is because the doctors haven't given enough to his campaign.


7 posted on 02/03/2006 1:49:42 PM PST by cpprfld (Who said accountants are boring?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

If her pre-surgery condition was so bad, it's virtually certain that she would have had to switch to tube-feeding fairly soon anyway.


8 posted on 02/03/2006 1:49:59 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken; Diana in Wisconsin
Her symptoms "were worsened as a result of the surgery but not as a result of anything done wrong," Schultz said.

Did it stipulate anywhere in this piece that the nerves being cut to the stomach and small intestine were part of the procedure? If so, this is outrageous. If it's not part of the surgery, then he screwed up and should pay. If you don't like the caps, vote to change them.
9 posted on 02/03/2006 1:50:19 PM PST by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou

4 million in economic damages IS "paying." It's that last 4 million in "pain and suffering" that is at contest, and which you and I pay through increased medical fees.


10 posted on 02/03/2006 1:54:46 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou

And until they invent the perfect doctor, even the good ones can screw up. Medical care has risks as well as benefits. It's a shame when the best ones say "screw it" and leave the practice altogether, especially when you eventually need one.


11 posted on 02/03/2006 1:57:00 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido; Diana in Wisconsin

I understand and agree. And with your other post too, about good doctors saying 'screw it' and leaving.

But she's only 33. That's got to mean that her lifespan has been significantly shortened. She won't make 50 years on a feeding tube, by any means.


12 posted on 02/03/2006 1:59:29 PM PST by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou; Wally_Kalbacken

"If you don't like the caps, vote to change them."

We do. Our socialist Governor keeps vetoing the caps.

The point here isn't this particular woman's "suffering." The point is that having no caps on what people can be paid in malpractice cases is going to bite us all in the @ss. Because they could finagle it, she got NINE TIMES the money she would've gotten had we had a cap on her settlement. Now...do you really think her lawyers didn't know that? Did you know that our Governor IS a lawyer? He was our DA before he ran for Governor.

What does your state do? Do you have caps on malpractice settlements? Have you even thought about it? Do you have decent doctors in your state? Do you want to keep them?

Think a little further down the line on this, and don't get stuck on this one woman's case. This is the 3rd or 4th HUGE settlement paid out since Doyle vetoed the bill to keep the caps on settlements in December.

It's a money-grubbing lawyer free for all in Wisconsin, now. Eventually, no doctors are going to be able to practice here at all, and will go to other states that are more business-friendly. And your doctor, if s/he's a good one, runs their practice as a business with good customer service and professionalism. Yes, doctors are human and mistakes happen, but why cripple them right out of the chute with huge increases in their malpractice insurance, and why penalize the rest of we "consumers" with higher rates on everything from an asprin to major surgery while the miniscule number of people that are legitimately hurt each year by doctors reap millions of dollars for themselves and their laywers?

Keep this in mind: John Edwards (D) made his fortune as a malpractice lawyer. 'Nuff said.


13 posted on 02/03/2006 2:09:09 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
Huepenbecker might have done more than read a patient's tests before operating. There is a common concept that current medical practice often fails to acknowledge, know thy patient's medical history and thoroughly read the attending physician's notes. These little steps reduce medical misadventures by providing a knowledge base to medical mechanic. The penalty for lack of knowledge in medicine is litigation. The penalty for lack of knowledge of the law is time spent in the penalty box and a severe fine.

Don't howl about the damages, go to the source of the problem and nail the physician for malfeasance. That will do more to lower the issues of tort costs than all of the capitations would achieve. The salubrious benefit would be more attentive health care that focuses upon quality rather quicker patient throughput and mediocre outcomes.
14 posted on 02/03/2006 2:33:26 PM PST by Bubba M. Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
Some historians say that until 1910 you were better off in any situation NOT going to a doctor or to a hospital.

By 1940 the situation was improved but not vastly so, in my opinion. Abdominal surgery was improved considerably aver 1910 for some procedures. Forceps deliveries were common with terrible results in those days, though, for instance.

Today a good surgical result is still very much a matter of knowing what you, the patient, are doing. "Iatrogenic" disorders are still very much here today.

The patient's situation is very much worse in "single payer health systems" as one would expect. Of course Britain and Canada have fewer questionable surgeries done than in the USA. Triage works out that way.

People get in a miserable state and go to physician after physician looking for relief. They finally find a surgeon who will say "Perhaps I can help." The bill for a quarter million or so is paid by someone else. If the surgeries turn out unhappily, that is, not like on television, then major lawsuits and fantastically wealthy lawyers result.

Have been seeing a huge increase in very expensive, difficult and not really necessary surgeries these days.
15 posted on 02/03/2006 2:47:10 PM PST by Iris7 (Dare to be pigheaded! Stubborn! "Tolerance" is not a virtue!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
"Huepenbecker's attorney, Bruce Schultz, agreed that Greenfield had a "very disappointing outcome." But it wasn't the result of negligence, he said."

LOL! Doc Huepenbecker is a clutz.

"Her symptoms "were worsened as a result of the surgery but not as a result of anything done wrong," Schultz said."

LOL, talk about unerstatements!

"the doctors that DO hang on will have higher prices for their services to cover their malpractice insurance."

These docs should have their results posted somewhere, so that folks could review them. I'm sure there were cases this guy had handled that would give the patient warning. Would you want this clutz to work on you?

It seems reasonable to limit the noneconomic damages to ~500k. In this case though, the economic damages don't look out of line.

16 posted on 02/03/2006 3:07:22 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

We pay the first 4 million too. Any wonder everything related to healthcare is so unaffordable?


17 posted on 02/03/2006 7:35:12 PM PST by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

"ARRGH!!! DOYLE!" ping.


18 posted on 02/03/2006 8:06:25 PM PST by Mike-o-Matic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

RULE #1: Vote this jack@$$ out of office.

RULE #2: Stay away from St. Mary's.


19 posted on 02/03/2006 11:43:50 PM PST by Watery Tart (Wisconsin: Eat Cheese Or Die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

"It seems reasonable to limit the noneconomic damages to ~500k. In this case though, the economic damages don't look out of line."

Read my other posts. This problem goes BEYOND what this one, particular woman's lawyer snagged for her. I don't begrudge her a dime, if she's truly been hurt by a doctor. The problem is that if these things aren't capped, it hurts all consumers of health care in the long run. I'm not sure if you're in Wisconsin or not, but if not, it could happen in your state, too, and your doctors will go elsewhere. Right now, in rural Wisconsin, most people are THREE HOURS from a doctor. I'm sure it's worse in other, poorer states.

And you can look up doctors that have been charged with malpractice to protect yourself:

http://www.floridamalpractice.com/linksotherstatebds.htm


20 posted on 02/04/2006 6:49:35 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson