Doctor denies life-saving surgery, family alleges: Malpractice or medical judgment?

The family of a deceased patient is suing the hospital involved in his care, alleging that medical malpractice led to the patient’s death.^[] The patient, a 35-year-old man from West Haven, CT, was being treated for a perforated bowel at Bridgeport Hospital’s Milford campus. Reports say that the patient died from a deteriorating condition, while the lawsuit alleges that his death could have been prevented had he been given lifesaving surgery before things took a turn for the worse.

The patient reportedly went into the hospital on November 20, 2021, after which he underwent  CT scans. Following a CT scan on November 22, the patient reportedly experienced a panic attack—but family lawyers are not so sure.

According to the New Haven Register, the prosecuting attorney stated that she is “very skeptical” that the patient had experienced a panic attack rather than a more urgent physical condition. 

Connecticut law requires that professionals in the same specialty as the individual being sued write opinion letters for medical malpractice lawsuits. A nephrologist who commented on  this lawsuit suggested that the patient may have developed and died of sepsis, although signs of the life-threatening condition were not documented by the patient’s own nephrologist.

The commenting nephrologist also wrote that, had the patient undergone surgery on November 22, he could have “survived this hospitalization and not died of sepsis.”

A legal issue or complicated case?

According to medical malpractice attorneys, denying a patient surgery can constitute medical malpractice—but not always. For instance, situations in which a provider denies a patient a medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery or other surgery whose risks outweigh the benefits may not be considered medical malpractice.

“Doctors must make difficult judgment calls to protect patients, even if it yields an unwanted outcome,” Moton says. “However, failing to provide medically necessary, lifesaving care when the benefits clearly outweigh the risks can be negligent and may warrant legal consequences. The specifics of each case ultimately determine where this line is crossed.”

Paul Koenigsberg, a personal injury lawyer at Koenigsberg & Associates, says that for emergency situations, the gold standard for determining whether a provider is or isn’t responsible for providing treatment is often the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA), a federal law. EMTALA comes with provisions, one of which “allows medical providers to deny care under certain conditions, the most important one being that the patient is not in an emergency,” Koenigsberg says. 

On the contrary, Distasio says, “it's not malpractice if the health professional appropriately weighed the benefits and risks of surgery against those of alternative treatments and had a valid reason for not opting for surgery.”

This type of risk-benefit analysis can pertain especially to patients who have comorbid conditions that increase their surgery risks—or situations in which nonsurgical treatments have been proven to provide results that are just as good, or better, than the surgery under consideration, Distasio says.

“It's crucial to understand that each case is unique and needs to be assessed based on its circumstances,” he adds.