Successful Defense at Arbitration of CRNA Where Plaintiffs Alleged Inappropriate Monitoring Caused Respiratory Arrest and Subsequent Brain Damage

Mark Perry successfully defended a CRNA at an arbitration in a matter involving claims of professional negligence.  Plaintiff claimed that he was severely injured during a colonoscopy because the CRNA utilized the wrong method of anesthesia and inappropriately monitored the patient during the colonoscopy.  The wife filed a loss of consortium claim.  Plaintiffs argued that the CRNA should have intubated the patient and utilized general anesthesia because of Plaintiff’s significant cardiac history including pacemaker, atrial fibrillation, past myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and low ejection fraction.  Plaintiffs also allege that during the procedure the CRNA failed to properly monitor the patient’s condition, which caused respiratory arrest, which led to anoxic encephalopathy and significant brain damage.  Attorney Perry argued that the CRNA used the appropriate choice of anesthesia, monitored anesthesia care (“MAC”), instead of general anesthesia because MAC was the safest and least invasive method of anesthesia for the patient.

Further, Attorney Perry argued that the CRNA closely and appropriately monitored the patient during the procedure and acted promptly to initiate CPR, which actually helped to save the patient’s life.  Attorney Perry also argued that the Plaintiff’s alleged brain injury was not caused by the lack of oxygen, but was part of the normal aging process.

Posted in

Ruth Corcoran

Leave a Reply