A former Franklin County couple were awarded the largest malpractice judgment — $22.2 million — in the history of Tennessee on Friday in a federal courtroom in Chattanooga.
The jury, in a trial that began on Jan. 20, decided to give 62-year-old Bette Donathan $19.2 million after the surgery that was supposed to repair her broken lower right leg resulted in a spinal bleed that left her paralyzed from the waist down, according to court documents and her Nashville attorney, Randy Kinnard.
The jury also awarded Mrs. Donathan’s husband, Ben, a $3 million judgment, court documents show. The Donathans had sought $24 million.
“I am so happy for my clients,” said Mr. Kinnard on Friday evening, adding that the Donathans now live in Montana, where Mrs. Donathan is a native.
Mr. Kinnard said the couple were in an auto accident on April 11, 2006, in Winchester, Tenn., and her leg was broken. On April 13, 2006, as she was prepared for surgery at the Southern Tennessee Medical Center in Winchester medical workers inserted a epidural catheter for post-operative pain control.
“We contended that catheter should never have been inserted, because she was on blood thinner because she had a mechanical heart valve,” Mr. Kinnard said.
Medical officials should have considered the increased risk she would have of bleeding internally into the spinal canal when the catheter was removed.
“No one knows who made the decision to insert it, and the consent form is missing from the (medical) record,” Mr. Kinnard said.
Arthur Brock and John B. Bennett, the Chattanooga attorneys who defended Winchester anesthesiologist Ronald Gordon, nurse anesthetist Christopher Will and Cumberland Healthcare Group, did not return calls seeking comment Friday afternoon and evening.
Nashville attorney Michael Geracioti, who defended Winchester surgeon Delores K. White, also could not be reached for comment.
In court briefings before trial, they denied any negligence by their clients.
Mr. Kinnard said the catheter was removed on a Saturday, and Mrs. Donathan awoke on Sunday morning to intense pain — the result of the blood placing pressure in her spinal canal.
Hospital officials didn’t realize what the problem was and gave her pain-killing drugs, her attorney said. On Monday morning, she could no longer move her legs.
Mr. Kinnard said she was transferred to Vanderbilt University Medical Center, but it was too late to reverse the damage.
“This should never have happened,” Mr. Kinnard said. “She went in with the a broken lower leg and came out a paraplegic.”
The Chattanooga jury found that the surgeon, Dr. White, was 50 percent at fault. They also found anesthesiologist, Dr. Gordon, was 40 percent at fault, and Mr. Will, the nurse anesthetist, was 5 percent at fault. The jury additionally said Cumberland Health Care Group — which employed the anesthesiology workers — was 5 percent at fault, Mr. Kinnard said.
“That means each is responsible in the judgment at that percentage,” Mr. Kinnard said.
The verdict follows another record-setting malpractice judgment last May in Chattanooga.
In that case, a Hamilton County jury has lodged a $12 million medical malpractice judgment against gastroenterologist Michael Goodman, after a colonoscopy and endoscopy left 33-year-old Kristen Freeman so brain-damaged she can no longer care for herself.
Attorney Matt Dwyer, an Atlanta personal injury trial lawyer who sued for Ms. Freeman, said the May judgment was believed to be the largest awarded in a malpractice case in Hamilton County.
Pam Sohn has been reporting or editing Chattanooga news for 25 years. A Walden’s Ridge native, she began her journalism career with a 10-year stint at the Anniston (Ala.) Star. She came to the Chattanooga Times Free Press in 1999 after working at the Chattanooga Times for 14 years. She has been a city editor, Sunday editor, wire editor, projects team leader and assistant lifestyle editor. As a reporter, she also has covered the police, ...
The largest malpractice verdict was returned in Shelby County in 2009. It involved a missed diagnosis of breast cancer in a young woman, the cancer spreading to her liver. The verdict was $23.6 million. Hill v. Moise, CT-000093-06, July 10, 2009.
OK, we limit medical malpractice. What is the economic value of loss of use of your legs for a 62 year old woman? Assume she was working at something that required he legs and made $150,000/yr. That figures to $750,000 for the five years until she hits full retirement age. Assume she has 30 years to live and it costs an additional $100,000/yr to accommodate her disability, that's another $3,000,000. Add in $250,000 max for pain & suffering and you get $4 million. Who out there doesn't think that is fair??
Vandy - You are an idiot, it is not just the loss of her legs, and she was 58 at the time of the accident. It also has to do with the COST of how she HAS to live now and the quality of life that was taken from her AND her family. People like you with no clear understanding of the cost of now needing special vehicles and her home reconstructed to live in and also the loss of bowel control is a whole other story so she has to wear diapers and she has to cath herself now every four hours, along with long term health issues due to the paralasys- You need to educate yourself before opening your mouth.
OH! and if your amounts were even close for lifelong quality, the awarded amount would have to be much higher as the attorneys feesnand cost for the trial come right out of the awarded amount - drop the pipe.
Well Vandy, guess what? if you support a "cap" at $300,000 (in exchange for total loss of your mobility) then that is all you could get. The doctors and their lawyers (whose fees are not capped by the way..) could stand outside the courthouse and flip you birds as you go try your case. Heck, they don't even have to show up and all you get is $300K. Is that what you want? Do you resent this lady getting paid for the harms and losses she sustained that were not her fault? Do you realize she probably offered to settle for less, and the doctors never give authority to settle? Wake up America!!! Your 7th amendment rights that our forefathers fought for are under attack.
People like Vandy think that malpractice would never happen to them. For the loss of control of her bowels and bladder, total loss of sexual sensation, loss of mobility to do the simple passions of life, Vandy thinks $250,000 is "fair". Why don't we take up a collection for $250,000 in exchange for Vandy's right to urinate all over himself, and wear a colostomy bag around his friends, and let it hang it off his wheelchair. Why are some people so intent on getting rid of their own rights to jury trials to hold corporations and insurance companies/doctors accountable? Is it to protect insurance companies? Is it because of the phony malpractice "crisis" that does not exist in TN?
I will donate money for the paralysis if Vandy will take up the task. Who is in???
Question for all you experts - what is "fair"? She got 19 million. Was that fair? Was it enough? Should it have been more? Would 10 million or 12 million or 15 million have been fair? "Fair" is a word tossed out with abandon about taxes, health care, housing, and on and on. So I ask you - define "fair".
These stories are a daily living horror for the victim and for their families. No amount of money can really compensate for this. We can never know what it would be like to suddenly wake up and never walk, breathe normally, maybe never talk to or hold your children again.
The question I pose is because (1) I have cared for para/quadraplegics at various times in my life, (2) I also lived in states where lawsuits were prolific. If someone dropped their hat on the ground, someone was there to sue. Lawsuit crazy fools affected every business and every individual's life in many negative ways, 3) I lived in provinces where the opposite was the case. By the '70's, insurance companies were heavily regulated by Gov't. No one was allowed to sue. You received a small 'settlement' if anything at all. I was hit (riding a Harley) by a Park Ranger and a tourist in a Cadillac, in the mountains, 2 miles from the US border. I received a pittance for my injuries. Two miles away, in the US, I would have been correctly and generously compensated for my injuries. Patients in nursing homes, hospitals and Boarding Homes who are neglected/abused/injured get zip. Gov't regulations prevent lawsuits and attorneys are reluctant to even attempt them in court.
So my question is what is the better system? Somewhere in between or? I believe Gov't regulation is the wrong road to go even though it may seem fair or right in the beginning. In the cases above as outlined in the article, I think the victims received fair compensation in exchange for having to live completely helpless and dependent on others for the rest of their lives.
Good questions Canary! What does not get press are all the lawsuits where there is clear liability and the jury gives "0.00", zilch. Why do they have trials for weeks on weeks, then people read a 3 paragraph story of the trial and say "That's outrageous!" ?? On the whole, I believe juries get it right. I would rather an insurance company pay as directed by the jury of peers, as opposed to the masses (i.e. "us") being capped by the politicians who are supported by the doctors and insurance companies.
Or login with:
New Account