When Technology Enters the Courtroom

Background

The case, heard in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, is Carino v. Muenzen, 2010 WL 3448071 (N.J.SuperA.D., 8/30/10). It was originally brought as a medical malpractice suit by plaintiff Joseph Carino, individually and as the executor of the Estate of his wife Grace Carino, against Christopher Muenzen, M.D. Grace Carino had visited Dr. Muezen's office for an examination after she experienced two headache episodes. Because of her symptoms, the doctor suspected Carino was experiencing migraines, rather than a subarachnoid hemorrhage, though he did not completely rule out such a possibility. According to his testimony, the doctor did not tell Carino about this second possibility because it was not his practice to unduly alarm patients unless he was certain he was dealing with a particular ailment, or unless the next procedure would be to deal with that ailment. Still, in order to be sure (because a subarachnoid hemorrhage can be fatal), Dr. Muenzen sent Carino for a CAT-Scan, which came back negative. With this information in hand, along with his examination of the patient and his knowledge of her pain history, the doctor concluded that she was not suffering from a subarachnoid hemorrhage. He did not inform Carino that CAT-Scans are not 100% effective in diagnosing a subarachnoid hemorrhage. She underwent further tests, which also came back negative for subarachnoid hemorrhage. A week later, Carino collapsed, falling to the ground and hitting her head. She was then diagnosed with a subarachnoid hemorrhage and a subdural hematoma. She died shortly thereafter.