Meyerson, Michael C - Bisogno & Meyerson LLP in New York, NY

Ms. Scott posted a comment

Dear Counsel:
I am reaching out to you in reference to my mom, who passed away in early December 2011. Please be advised that I am seeking representation as I have filed a pro se with the Supreme Court. Although the statute of limitations for a wrongful death suit have expired, I feel that I may have a case under medical malpractice. Below is a thorough synopsis of the events leading to my mother’s death:
My mom experienced chest pain, vomiting, and perspiration in the latter part of the morning of December 7, 2011. Unfortunately, I was in another borough at a job interview as she tried to reach me. My mom managed to contact her best friend, who lives in the next building to assist. 911 was called, and paramedics arrived shortly afterwards. My mother was admitted by ambulance to one of the local hospitals through the Emergency Room. I arrived to the hospital two hours later, as I was far away and unable to arrive sooner. The operating physician informed me that she was diagnosed with a myocardial infarction (massive heart attack). In addition, while she was in the ER, she was presented with a research study which entailed an Impella device, a brand new study created one month prior (November 2011) to assist patients with heart failure. Specifically, the Impella device assists with the circulatory function of the heart. After this was presented to my mother, she “supposedly” decided to participate in the study and “apparently” signed the consent form. Unfortunately, she was not fully cognizant of all of the dangerous risks involved (please note the signature on the consent form was very weak demonstrating the misspelling of her first name) allowing the research team to use her in their study. Furthermore, the cardiologist who operated on my mother stated to me that “this device was not necessary and that she would have been fine without it”. In essence, it was not medically necessary. I consulted with the cardiologist regarding post care. According to the cardiologist, the plan of care was for my mother to remain under observation for a few days and return home with possible rehabilitation, not limited to therapy (baby aspirin, additional heart medications, etc). The displeasure I have is that this study was presented to my mother in my absence and was not fully discussed with me being her healthcare proxy as I make all of the executive decisions for my mother’s care. (Unfortunately, there is no legal document stating I was the healthcare proxy) And, this was presented to my mother without the hospital being knowledgeable of her past history. To continue, under her current mental state, my mother could not have possibly made sound judgement at the time this study was presented to her. As stated previously, please not that my mother’s name on the consent form is misspelled and it appears that the signature is very weak (unlikely to be hers). I am questioning whether possibly someone at the hospital made the decision to sign the consent form or her best friend, who brought her in through the emergency room.
In addition, there are additional forms that state my mother was not able to sign due to her mental state. This is totally unethical, unacceptable, and unfair. Also note that I was able to fully communicate with my mother who was alert and oriented (x10).
On December 8, 2011 after 12pm, my mother was delusional and began experiencing all kinds of complications and her health unfortunately started to decline. She had difficulty breathing, renal failure, edema (fluid) in the lungs, and her heart was not functioning properly. Furthermore, the Impella device was still implanted and positioned improperly and not removed within that 24 hour period as initially stated in the study. After midnight on December 9th, my mother went into cardiac arrest twice along with her pulse and blood pressure steadily dropping. At 10:32am on December 9th, my mom was pronounced dead. I unfortunately witnessed this as I was by her bedside. With fixed and dilated pupils, a swollen tongue, breathing tubes and a host of other machines hooked up to her, along with the bruise on the left side of her face, was traumatic.
A few days passed as I contacted the hospital administration with permission to enter the morgue for a final visitation and was granted the request. Upon review of my mom’s body, I noticed surgical tape was still left on the left side of her neck and face and that the left side of her face was still bruised. (pictures were taken) I obtained her medical records, and upon review, it appears that her organs may have been donated. Furthermore, I am questioning this since no release form had ever been signed for the hospital authorizing any organ donation proceedings.

Two weeks after mother’s death, I received two phone calls; one from the head physician controlling the research study (from his personal cell phone), and from another colleague from the research team reaching out to communicate with me, both expressing their condolences. When I spoke to the head physician of the research study, he stated he was in India when this occurred. I met with him later that week to discuss the outcome of the Impella device. He instructed me “that the device was returned to the manufacturer to examine for any possible defects” that may have contributed to my mother’s unfortunate death. I inquired about the other participants in this study. According to this physician, there was only one other patient in another state, significantly younger than my mom who accepted the study while my mother was the first patient to succumb from this device.
The unfortunate and senseless death of my mother should not have occurred and this device was totally and medically unnecessary. To continue, the study was not presented to me until after the Impella device was implanted and I did not receive a copy (as promised when she was alive) until I requested it which I didn’t receive until after her death. It is possible that my mother signed the consent form under the impression that this device would make her better but instead, she succumbed by being used as an “experiment”. Considering her age and previous medical history, she should not have been afforded this opportunity. Upon my research, it appears this study has been conducted in patients under 60 years old.
My mother was a 76 year old senior citizen who unfortunately succumbed as a result of faulty, negligent behavior and the judgement exhibited by the physicians was fatal and extremely poor.
This mishap has caused me and my family great emotional distress. My mother was not in a satisfactory mental state to make a sound judgement regarding this research study. When I reviewed all of the risks involved, the primary risk listed was death. Some of the other risks entailed renal failure and heart problems, all of which she experienced when her health immediately started to decline. At her age, she was unable to sustain the device and her body possibly rejected it recognizing the Impella as a foreign object. Although the team stated she was “aware” of the research study, I seriously doubt and question this due to the following:

1. Considering my mother’s age and mental state, the signature was vague on the consent form.
2. In my absence, I do not know how the study was presented to her. She could not have been cognizant of the risks.
Also, please note my arguments:
• The defendants engaged in negligent and reckless treatment contributing to my mother’s death;
• The impella device was incorrectly implanted in the patient (my mom) and was not removed as her conditioned worsened (the heart ejection rate at the time of implantation was at 30% and after insertion of the device was reduced to 20%);
• One of the defendants (senior resident) intubated the plaintiff (my mom) incorrectly as the tube went into the bronchi causing aspiration and collapsing of the lungs. No chest X-ray was ordered or performed to ensure proper insertion of the endotracheal tube;
• Patient went into cardiac arrest and was resuscitated under “old guidelines” with outdated medication (dated 2007);
• The signature on the consent form for the research study was wrongfully signed (may have been forged) whereas signature does not match the original signature and the plaintiff’s name was spelled incorrectly on more than one document;
• Upon my observation (post mortem), the plaintiff sustained severe unnecessary bruising on the left side of the face (pictures were taken);
• Organs may have been donated without family’s consent. The medical records indicate that the organ donation team was contacted;

I realize that this is a challenging and complex case, and I have pictures as well as an anesthesiologist (who has reviewed my mother’s medical records) who is willing to testify in court. Although he is not a cardiologist, Dr. Fleming is able to provide his expertise including a written summary (which I have) of the mishaps in my mother’s plan of care (primarily intubation as well as the other negligent care) arguments, and pictures that can be used in court demonstrating how my mother suffered. In addition, possession of her medical records have been obtained. He indicated that there were serious gross negligence in her plan of care (upon your request, I can forward his report for your review).
Furthermore, I prove to be an excellent witness since I was present most of the time prior to my mother’s passing. Moreover, I can attest for my mother’s competencies as I resided with her up until the time of her unfortunate death.
Time is of the essence as the suit has already been filed. I am seeking an attentive attorney and would welcome the time to come in to meet with you. Please reply promptly only if you are able to represent me. My cellular number is (347) 246-2739.
Your time and immediate intervention would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much and have a great day.
Sincerely,
Naa Scott