Can a Patient Assume Legal Risk of Injury by Not Following Doctor’s Orders?
-
tl;dr version
Mr. B has heart disease and other co-morbidities. Has cardiac stent placed and told to not exert himself for a week. 5 days later goes hunting, climbs into deer stand, falls out after fainting, breaks bones.
Sues doctor.
-
The Appellate Court was clearly wrong and it's astounding that they overturned the original decision.
-
Standard of care. Whether the doctor's orders are reasonable. Whether the patient's actions are reasonable.
"7 days" of "no exertion" after a stent insertion sounds reasonable to me, but I am but a layman on this issue. Let the specialists/practitioners argue this out. If the question comes down to "what does 'exertion' mean to a lay person," the judge and the jurors can resolve that themselves as lay people.
-
Remind me to never put you on a jury.
-
Does seem kind of goofy to overturn.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login