Verdicts

A week later, Williamson applied for FECA benefits, stating that the cause of his injury was the tripping incident involving the hole. He received benefits for temporary total disability for the period from March 20, 2010, to Oct. 25, 2012, in the amount of $79, 380. Through FECA he also received $27,801 for medical expenses and $19,974 as a lump-sum “schedule award.”

Williamson's pain continued and he returned several times to the VA hospital for treatment, even undergoing two unsuccessful surgeries in the spring of 2010. In August of that year, Williamson sought help from a non-VA physician, who performed two successful surgeries on him. Williamson continues, however, to experience pain in his foot.

Williamson brought an FTCA claim, then filed suit against the United States on Nov. 1, 2012, claiming that the VA botched his October, November, and December 2009 diagnoses and treatments, as well as the two April 2010 surgeries. The Government filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that when a federal employee is injured on the job and is granted FECA compensation, FECA's “exclusive-remedy provision” (5 U.S.C. § 8116(c)) bars him from suing the United States for injuries due to torts flowing from the FECA-claim-related injury. The government pointed to the text of § 8116(c), which states, in relevant part: “The liability of the United States or an instrumentality thereof under this subchapter or any extension thereof with respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States or the instrumentality to the employee … because of the injury or death … under a Federal tort liability statute.”

The Government lost its exclusive-remedy argument in the district court, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned that decision here, concluding that under § 8116(c), the United States is immune from any further liability arising “because of” Williamson's foot injury while working. It did not matter whether the VA had injured Williamson through medical malpractice, said the court, because, “[a]s a fundamental tort principle, injury caused by medical malpractice in the treatment of a previous, negligently caused injury is proximately caused by — and therefore occurs 'because of' — the original underlying negligence. … Applying that principle, the VA's negligence occurred because of Williamson's workplace injury and therefore, under FECA's exclusive-remedy provision, cannot subject the United States to liability.”

Woman Dies After Hospital Discharge

Following a five-day proceeding, a jury awarded $5 million to the family of a Pennsylvania woman who died following gallbladder surgery after finding that the patient was mistakenly discharged too soon from the hospital. Ivey v. Kaplan, C.P. Philadelphia No. 141204016 (7/21/17).

Janette Lambert, a 49-year-old single mother of three, underwent gallbladder surgery at the Albert Einstein Medical Center on July 22, 2014. She took part in a physical therapy session at the medical center that same day and was in pain, so the therapist recommended Lambert not be discharged immediately. However, she was sent home that day.

Lambert, who also had sickle-cell anemia, continued to suffer pain, so she returned to the medical center two days later. The staff did not perform any hematology tests on her and concluded that Lambert was experiencing a bile leak, which is a known complication of gallbladder surgery. They placed a drain to remedy the bile leak. Lambert coded and was resuscitated on July 26, 2014, but she died the following day.

The deceased's daughter brought suit on behalf of her mother's estate, asserting that Lambert suffered a sickle-cell attack after leaving the hospital, which, combined with the bile leak, caused her organs to fail, leading to death. The jury agreed, finding the doctor 10% liable and the medical center 90% liable.

According to Lambert's estate's attorney, Lane Jubb. Jr. of The Beasley Law Firm, LLC, the case turned on a miscommunication between the doctors and the residents as to whether Lambert should have been discharged the day of her surgery: “It's a good reminder that, when you're in a teaching facility, residents are going to be held to the same standard as the attending physician, and the attending physician needs to make sure the residents are on the same page.”

Federal Employee Who Got Workers' Comp-Like Benefits May Not Recover Under FTCA

A federal employee covered by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) (which is akin to the civilian equivalent program, Workers' Compensation) who suffers a work-related injury may not also seek recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), even if the medical care he receives after that injury is substandard; his exclusive means of recovery is through the FECA because the medical care flowed from that first injury. Williamson v. United States, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12246 (6th Cir., 7/10/17).

U.S. postal worker Gary Williamson delivered mail on foot in Kentucky, walking approximately eight miles per day. He began to suffer foot problems and sought treatment at the VA Emergency Department (VA ED) on Oct. 26, 2009. He was X-rayed and diagnosed with a sprain. A month later, Williamson stepped into a hole and twisted his ankle while working. He returned to the VA ED and was X-rayed, but no fracture was diagnosed. Because his pain continued, Williamson sought care from another VA doctor, this time a podiatrist. The podiatrist diagnosed Williamson with a navicular fracture and prescribed “a CAM walker — a removable boot used to offload pressure from a patient's foot.”

A week later, Williamson applied for FECA benefits, stating that the cause of his injury was the tripping incident involving the hole. He received benefits for temporary total disability for the period from March 20, 2010, to Oct. 25, 2012, in the amount of $79, 380. Through FECA he also received $27,801 for medical expenses and $19,974 as a lump-sum “schedule award.”

Williamson's pain continued and he returned several times to the VA hospital for treatment, even undergoing two unsuccessful surgeries in the spring of 2010. In August of that year, Williamson sought help from a non-VA physician, who performed two successful surgeries on him. Williamson continues, however, to experience pain in his foot.

Williamson brought an FTCA claim, then filed suit against the United States on Nov. 1, 2012, claiming that the VA botched his October, November, and December 2009 diagnoses and treatments, as well as the two April 2010 surgeries. The Government filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that when a federal employee is injured on the job and is granted FECA compensation, FECA's “exclusive-remedy provision” (5 U.S.C. § 8116(c)) bars him from suing the United States for injuries due to torts flowing from the FECA-claim-related injury. The government pointed to the text of § 8116(c), which states, in relevant part: “The liability of the United States or an instrumentality thereof under this subchapter or any extension thereof with respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States or the instrumentality to the employee … because of the injury or death … under a Federal tort liability statute.”

The Government lost its exclusive-remedy argument in the district court, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned that decision here, concluding that under § 8116(c), the United States is immune from any further liability arising “because of” Williamson's foot injury while working. It did not matter whether the VA had injured Williamson through medical malpractice, said the court, because, “[a]s a fundamental tort principle, injury caused by medical malpractice in the treatment of a previous, negligently caused injury is proximately caused by — and therefore occurs 'because of' — the original underlying negligence. … Applying that principle, the VA's negligence occurred because of Williamson's workplace injury and therefore, under FECA's exclusive-remedy provision, cannot subject the United States to liability.”

Woman Dies After Hospital Discharge

Following a five-day proceeding, a jury awarded $5 million to the family of a Pennsylvania woman who died following gallbladder surgery after finding that the patient was mistakenly discharged too soon from the hospital. Ivey v. Kaplan, C.P. Philadelphia No. 141204016 (7/21/17).

Janette Lambert, a 49-year-old single mother of three, underwent gallbladder surgery at the Albert Einstein Medical Center on July 22, 2014. She took part in a physical therapy session at the medical center that same day and was in pain, so the therapist recommended Lambert not be discharged immediately. However, she was sent home that day.

Lambert, who also had sickle-cell anemia, continued to suffer pain, so she returned to the medical center two days later. The staff did not perform any hematology tests on her and concluded that Lambert was experiencing a bile leak, which is a known complication of gallbladder surgery. They placed a drain to remedy the bile leak. Lambert coded and was resuscitated on July 26, 2014, but she died the following day.

The deceased's daughter brought suit on behalf of her mother's estate, asserting that Lambert suffered a sickle-cell attack after leaving the hospital, which, combined with the bile leak, caused her organs to fail, leading to death. The jury agreed, finding the doctor 10% liable and the medical center 90% liable.

According to Lambert's estate's attorney, Lane Jubb. Jr. of The Beasley Law Firm, LLC, the case turned on a miscommunication between the doctors and the residents as to whether Lambert should have been discharged the day of her surgery: “It's a good reminder that, when you're in a teaching facility, residents are going to be held to the same standard as the attending physician, and the attending physician needs to make sure the residents are on the same page.”