Thomas v. Coastal Neurological Institute, P.C.

Sep 02, 2014

OUTCOME: The jury awarded a $4.5 million verdict in favor of the Plaintiff.

Patient died after he suffered a serious allergic reaction to an MRI contrast agent that was administered during a routine outpatient MRI. The case focused on the medical clinic staff's failure to re ... spond quickly enough to Mr. Thomas's reaction and, in particular, the staff's failure to administer the drug epinephrine -- the well-established first-line treatment for any serious allergic reaction. Also, the case focused on the medical clinic's failure to have basic emergency equipment and medications available to manage the worst kind of adverse reactions known to occur with contrast agents. The trial evidence established that Thomas began having symptoms of a serious allergic reaction (i.e., anaphylaxis) after receiving one-fourth of the intended dose of MRI contrast. The technologist who administered the MRI contrast immediately recognized that Thomas was having an allergic reaction and stopped the injection, but never called for help from any physician or nurse until Thomas lost consciousness five minutes later. When the technologist finally did call for help, the responding physician failed to administer epinephrine to stop the progression of the allergic reaction. As a result, Thomas went into cardiac arrest. At trial, the evidence established that Thomas never received any epinephrine until after paramedics responding to a 911 call arrived at the medical clinic -- more than 16 minutes after Thomas's reaction started. The trial evidence also proved that had Thomas received timely epinephrine, it likely would have stopped the progression of his reaction. In particular, the Plaintiff presented evidence that six years earlier, Thomas suffered an allergic reaction to contrast dye and was effectively treated with a single dose of epinephrine administered subcutaneously. Attorneys for the Defendant defended the case by offering evidence that Thomas did not die from anaphylaxis, but rather from an unrelated cardiac event. As a result, the recording of a 911 call made by the technologist who administered the MRI contrast became a key piece of evidence during the trial. The technologist is heard on the call to say to the 911 dispatcher, "We're having a patient having a serious allergic reaction to MRI contrast" and "We have Benadryl and Epinephrine available that they're trying to get access to."