A 5-year court battle in a multi-million dollar medical malpractice lawsuit involving allegations of nursing negligence and subsequent attempts to cover it up ended after just 14 minutes of juror deliberation. On October 15, 2020, a Pennsylvania jury released Wilkes-Barre General Hospital (WBGH) of liability for the 2013 death of a 44-year-old father of three.
The verdict, handed down in Corey, L. v. Wilkes Barre Hosp. Co. (Case No. 2015-07551), also cleared a nurse and a physicians’ group of liability, shutting down the plaintiff’s claims that medical records had been falsified to hide alleged negligence that contributed to the death.
Now, the plaintiff is pursuing an appeal, claiming the jurors’ short deliberation failed to honor their oath—and that the allegations and evidence, in this case, merit more consideration.
Background on the Case
Filed on November 25, 2015, Corey v. Wilkes Barre Hosp. Co. was initiated by the widow of the decedent, naming the defendants as WBGH, a registered nurse employed by the hospital, and Pennsylvania Physician Services. The suit alleges that the defendants exhibited an “unprecedented pattern of neglect, fraud, concealment, and other misconduct consistent with evil motives and reckless indifference to [the decedent’s] rights.”
According to court documents, at about 3 a.m. on August 9, 2013, the decedent called 911 after experiencing severe congestion, chest pain, and breathing difficulties. He was taken via ambulance to the emergency room at WBGH.
The plaintiff was notified of her husband’s condition by about 7:30 a.m., and by 2 p.m., the decedent was transported by helicopter to Hershey Medical Center (HMC). He suffered cardiorespiratory arrest and passed away on August 11, 2013.
Plaintiff’s Allegations
At the heart of this case, the allegations contend that the defendants’ failures contributed to the wrongful death and that the defendants tried to avoid liability by repeatedly changing medical records to hide their alleged negligence. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that her husband suffered cardiac arrest after being left unattended for 30 minutes, despite being within 10 feet of the nurse’s station. She also alleged that:
- Medical providers failed to provide CDC-recommended treatment: The decedent’s medical history, which included smoking and alcohol abuse, predisposed him to complications for a drug he was prescribed for a shoulder injury. According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, patients with such predisposing conditions should be given a pneumococcal vaccine. That never occurred, the plaintiff alleged.
- Hospital officials illegally disclosed some information and failed to consult the plaintiff: By the time the plaintiff had arrived at the hospital, staff had already told the decedent’s coworkers confidential information about his condition and treatment, the complaint contended. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that hospital staff failed to notify or consult her about her spouse’s diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment plan.
- Hospital officials tried to cover up the negligence: With the help of a forensic medical records examiner, the plaintiff allegedly uncovered at least 6 problematic sets of medical records. These records contained several contradictions, serving as evidence of repeated efforts to falsify the records and try to cover up medical negligence related to the death, according to the complaint.
The hospital denied all wrongdoing, and the case went to trial on October 5, 2020.
The Key Role of Medical Records & Experts in This Case
As one of many salacious claims in this case, the allegations that medical records had been altered in a cover-up attempt took on a central role during the trial. Medical records experts for both the plaintiff and the defense weighed in on the allegations, taking a critical look at documentation consistency, potential information gaps, and other critical elements.
Two of the key areas of contention concerning the records were the continuity of care documentation and the nurses’ notes. The plaintiff alleged that in August 2014 when she first requested copies of her husband’s medical records after his death, those records did not include 18 pages of continuity of care records, consisting of a facsimile from WBGH to HMC; nor did they contain 19 pages of nurses’ notes. The plaintiff alleged that those records were falsified and added retrospectively as part of the negligence coverup.
Countering these allegations, the defense argued that the decedent’s medical records were electronic and that hard copies were simply not available when initial records requests were made. They denied any wrongdoing related to the medical records, the treatment of the patient, and his tragic death.
Notably, there are strict standards for creating and maintaining patient medical records. Intended to document all clinically relevant aspects of the patient encounter, patient medical records must provide an accurate picture of all medical treatment and decision-making, and also must to be promptly available after patient care has been provided.
Loss of Consortium Claim Puts Other Records, Attorney-Client Privilege in Spotlight
Medical records were not the only paper trail to seize the spotlight in this case. Divorce records also played an important role. In fact, the defense requested access to privileged divorce records for a case that was pending between the plaintiff and the decedent at the time of the death.
According to the defense, these records were necessary because the plaintiff, in requesting damages for loss of consortium, had made her marriage and divorce an issue in the case. Therefore, the defense argued that it required information, which would usually be protected by an attorney-client relationship, to demonstrate that these damages should not be paid because the loss of consortium resulted from the divorce, not the alleged wrongful death.
Independent of, and collateral to, the medical malpractice claim, the issues surrounding loss of consortium and privileged information spurred an important court opinion on the matter. In that ruling, the court agreed with the defense, allowing privileged information from the divorce to be entered into the medical malpractice case because the plaintiff had requested damages for loss of consortium.
After the Defense Prevails at Trial, the Plaintiff Appeals Immediately
The trial, which got underway in early October 2020, lasted nearly two weeks. Ultimately, the jury ruled in favor of the defendants, saying they were not liable for the 2013 death and that they had not mishandled or falsified the medical records in the case.
That decision was made by the jurors in just 14 minutes, and that led the plaintiff to argue jurors did not carefully consider the evidence and facts of the case. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a post-trial motion with Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas on October 26, 2020, a mere 11 days after the verdict was issued.
In this motion, the plaintiff says the jury violated its oath concerning the careful consideration of the evidence by returning a verdict so quickly. She now wants the court to overturn the verdict so the case can be retried. Although it remains to be seen how the court will rule on this motion, one thing is clear—medical records experts will be essential to both the plaintiff and defense cases if a retrial is granted.
