Home >> ALL ISSUES >> 2016 Issues >> Put It on the Board, 3/16

Put It on the Board, 3/16

image_pdfCreate PDF

Case raises uncertainty on autopsy’s legal status

ConfirmMDx added to NCCN guidelines

Higher-throughput FilmArray system cleared

CE for BD blood separation technology

Most DTC genetic results not shared with doctors

Blue Cross covers Sequenom tests in California

Case raises uncertainty on autopsy’s legal status

Should a hospital-provided autopsy be considered health care? It’s a question the Supreme Court of Texas will decide this spring, and its answer to that question will make a big difference—in the millions of dollars—to the claimants, <i>Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Carswell</i>. It could also have an impact on the medical liability coverage available to pathologists who perform autopsies in the Lone Star State.

The legal battle began with the 2004 death of Linda Carswell’s husband, Jerry, who was admitted to Christus St. Catherine Hospital in Katy, Tex., for kidney stones but died days later as an inpatient. In a bid to find out what caused her husband’s death, Carswell requested an autopsy. She alleged that hospital employees steered her toward having an autopsy performed by a contracted pathology firm, instead of one performed by the county medical examiner’s office that would have included toxicology testing.

Carswell sued the pathologist who performed the autopsy, the pathology group, and Christus Health. The jury failed to find medical negligence against the defendants, but Carswell prevailed in her civil claim that Christus Health defrauded her by denying the “complete autopsy” she had requested. She was awarded $1 million for mental anguish, and $1 million in punitive damages.

But Christus Health’s attorneys argue the case should fall under the purview of the Texas Medical Liability Act, which not only limits noneconomic damages but also presents procedural hurdles that plaintiffs must meet before proceeding to court. One of those is to get an independent expert to agree the plaintiff has a valid case within 120 days of filing a suit. But Carswell’s legal team pursued fraud claims they believed fell outside the state’s medical liability law and so didn’t require that outside expert report.

That’s where the worm turns. Is autopsy covered by the state’s medical liability law? The state’s appeals court ruled that in this case it is not, because the central issue is the alleged fraud that occurred after Jerry Carswell died, when he was no longer a hospital patient.

In its brief to the state Supreme Court, Christus Health’s attorneys note the statute defines “health care” as “any act or treatment performed or furnished, or that should have been performed or furnished, by any health care provider for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient’s medical care, treatment, or confinement.” And “medical care,” they note, is defined as “any act defined as practicing medicine…performed or furnished, or which should have been performed, by one licensed to practice medicine in this state for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient’s care, treatment, or confinement.”

Christus Health’s attorneys argue that while autopsy is not performed during the patient’s care or treatment, in this case it did occur during the patient’s “confinement,” because the contracted pathologist performed the autopsy in the dissection room at a Christus hospital in Houston. The autopsy was part of “the patient’s medical care,” they add, because it was ordered to help determine the cause of his death while he was an inpatient.

McCabe

McCabe

In their brief, Linda Carswell’s attorneys, led by Neil McCabe, argue that “a corpse is not a patient” and cite a previous state court decision to the effect that “the idea that a cadaver can be a patient is, on its face, illogical.” They also cited several other Texas cases, as well as cases from other jurisdictions, to support their arguments.

In a CAP TODAY interview, McCabe says his team’s legal argument is not intended to cast aspersions on pathologists or deride their essential role within the medical system.
“The statute does not support the position that it [autopsy] falls under the health care liability act,” he says. “It’s not a reflection on pathologists. You have to follow the law.”

McCabe says that if the court rules in his client’s favor (he expects a decision by June) and decides that autopsy is not “health care” for purposes of the state’s medical liability law, Texas pathologists have another court of redress: the Republican-dominated capital.

“If they are not covered by the statutes, just go to the legislature. The legislature is giving people what they want in this area,” he says. “It’s the legislature that decides to make that the law. The court takes the position on the law as is, rather than trying to rewrite the law.”

Houston medical liability attorney Tom Sartwelle defended the pathologist and pathology group initially sued in the case and has followed the matter closely ever since.

“Is doing an autopsy the practice of medicine? Absolutely,” he says. “If you look at the state statute, I think the court of appeals got it dead wrong.”

If the Texas Supreme Court disagrees, pathologists may feel the effects, says Sartwelle, who practices with the law firm of Beirne, Maynard and Parsons.

“First of all would be insurance,” he says. “Insurance is normally issued to cover a physician who, in the practice of medicine, causes injury to a patient. That’s generally the language. If the court in this case holds that a dead person’s not a patient, then absolutely there’s no insurance coverage for a pathologist who may make a mistake and gets sued—or may not make a mistake and gets sued. They would have no insurance and would have to pay a lawyer like me to defend them out of pocket.”

Moreover, he adds, the Texas Medical Liability Act’s $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages for physician defendants would not apply in autopsy cases. Sartwelle acknowledges that such cases are “fairly rare” but not out of the realm of possibility.

CAP TODAY
X