Widow sues medical doctor and training company

[Jack Hammer]

I've tried to follow along. Do I have this right? A doctor decides to learn to dive. He has asthma. He takes his medical release to his buddy the dentist and says "sign this", which the dentist does.

The dive shop accepts this medical without question knowing that the doctor-student is using his inhaler. On OW3 something happens and the doctor-student dies.

Am I close?

As someone posted, its semantics. Not all Doctors are Medical Doctors or physicians. It is a title given to many who are unable to legally certify you.

 

[Jack Hammer]

I won't debate semantics with you here. Yes, physicians, dentists and professors are all "doctors." Let me explain my reference to the "doctor" doing two dives, as stated in the article.

Per the article:

Burns was a dentist. He became a scuba student.

Neumann is a physician. He signed the medical statement for Burns.

The article then states that:

"Neumann began his open water certification in Washington with Mike Laharty, of Salem Scuba, as his instructor. They completed two uneventful dives that day."

And two days later they said that Burns did this third (and last) dive.

My point was that the article probably made a mistake (as others before me pointed out) and meant to state that Burns did those first two dives.

And yes, they are all doctors. Even dentists.

Oops, my bad. I got the quotes out of context/place. Thanks for catching and clarifying that.

As seems to be the norm the article doesn't fully add up. ☺

 

[Wookie]

I wonder if this will make non-scuba knowledgeable doctors more hesitant to sign medicals in the future...

I hope so. We have a statement all divers must make before purchasing a dive trip. We ask "Do you have any medical contraindications to diving?". If they answer yes, we require them to "Obtain a doctor's statement on doctor's letterhead stating that the doctor understands the diver's particular contraindication and that the doctor understands the consequences of the dive and that the doctor approves the diver to dive with us.

We get a lot of letters.

 

[Buliwyf]

Sorry Stoo,

Dentists consider themselves Medical Professionals. He knew he had chronic emphysema, was subject to asthma attacks and had high blood pressure. He should have self-disqualified. Period.

We don't know if the examining Dr. knew the patient, but if diving medical releases were only to be signed by doctors who understood the parameters of diving medicine, and given the overly broad (IMHO) criteria that PADI requires to be signed off, almost no-one would be able to start scuba instruction. (plus, I've yet to find a PCP that dives, let alone dives in the cold, dark PNW waters). Certainly the dive instructor and shop owner had less medical training than the dentist. Stoo, your signature says you're an instructor, do you believe you know more about medicine than a dentist?

+1. He knew his condition. He knew he had one foot in the grave. Even with a signed physician form, It is completely obvious that he could keel over at any time. He knew it. His wife knew it. This guy ain't even fit enough to take a shower.

Anyone with an enlarged heart is pretty much toast. He had that and 2 other major illnesses. Signing off and saying that it's "ok" to dive, only means that diving isn't going to make anything worse in the physicians opinion.

Why are you guys focusing on medical issues that are generally not considered to be a contradiction to diving in modern times? The article pretty clearly says it was a mishandled OOA accident. The diver managed to get OOA and the instructor (or other students) didn't have an alternate air source for him? Did a whole class of divers manage to dive with no octo?

Seems straightforward to me. The instructor screwed up -one way or another. He didn't teach/assist with air monitoring and apparently had no alternate air source. Why the discussion about asthma when the article doesn't say he died from asthma?

It's all in the manual before the actual classes. This dentist should have had a basic understanding of Scuba, and what not to do. I knew all about the octo, had the manual memorized, and had a grasp of mask clearing and CESA long before I even walked into a dive shop for the 1st time. Squids have to do their own due diligence as well.

The trainer didn't drive a dive knife through the guys chest, just failed to save him. Not doing a head count and leaving him floating alone over a reef is negligence, not this.

Instructor may have failed at saving this guy during an emergency assent. But an emergency assent is exactly that, there are no promises that it's going to have a happy ending.

I'm surprised that a dentist should be expected to have an in-depth knowledge of asthma. Pardon my ignorance, but do all dentists receive a solid foundational knowledge of respiratory illnesses? I did not realize that was the case.

Enlarged heart and Asthma attacks seem pretty cut and dry to me.

My doctor wouldn't sign off on my Physical exam for Competition Tiger Tasering due to my knees being a little gritty. I should sue, my knees feel fine.

 

[fmerkel]

I'm surprised that a dentist should be expected to have an in-depth knowledge of asthma. Pardon my ignorance, but do all dentists receive a solid foundational knowledge of respiratory illnesses? I did not realize that was the case.

All medical people have to go through basic classes of anatomy and physiology. A dentist would get far more extensive information on the upper airway. Asthma is a very common problem. Anyone one not knowing that asthma is a disease with a breathing problem, up to and including life threatening has to be living in a cave. A dentist that would not have a reasonable grasp of asthma and the issues involved in diving shouldn't be practicing medicine IMO.

That said, this case ultimately will hinge on the selection of the lawyers, and how the lawyers select the jury. THEN they take all this confusing information and try to sway the jury to their particular point of view. The jury in ALL cases is a battle to select individuals that the lawyers deem will be mostly to their point of argument. The final jury is "supposed to be neutral" but they aren't. They will come in with a bunch of predetermined prejudices about legality, personal responsibility, corporate responsibility, sanctity/value/importance of life, and bunch of other considerations. The lawyers then try to influence these prejudices using the so called 'facts' of the case.

If this goes to trial, it'll be at least a month long, if not longer. Should it not be settled before or during the case it looks to me like this one will have responsibility parceled out to a number of people. There were a LOT of screw ups on this one. In my own opinion I'd call the Dentist 70% responsible, but the instructors had some clear warning signals they ignored, and the Dr. that signed off on this is surely sweating bullets.

(Note - I was a juror on a similar type of outdoor recreational athletic case where a young boy died. It wasn't diving but I think that doesn't matter. If the lawyers had known I had been a diver for 20 years and president of a dive club for 4 years they would have thrown me out.....but they didn't ask, and I didn't volunteer. I wanted to see how it went.
It absolutely was a tragedy. But I never saw how the corporation getting sued was responsible at all. When it finally came down to the jury arguing about it we were split 50:50. The ones in favor of the family were not active outdoors and never had been. They were also of the opinion that if a child dies SOMEONE has to pay. None of the people that were active outdoors people could remotely understand where they could possibly get his idea. See where these already established prejudices come from?
Took 2 weeks of trial, and 2 days to settle a case that should never have come to court. Since it did the jury deliberations should have taken about 15" as far as I'm concerned.)

 

[jstrang]

If this goes to trial, it'll be at least a month long, if not longer. Should it not be settled before or during the case it looks to me like this one will have responsibility parceled out to a number of people. There were a LOT of screw ups on this one. In my own opinion I'd call the Dentist 70% responsible, but the instructors had some clear warning signals they ignored, and the Dr. that signed off on this is surely sweating bullets.

As a medical doctor I am not sure I would agree that the patient had that much responsibility.

From the information provided so far, I would conjecture:
The dive shop in my mind is maybe 1% culpable.
The patient maybe 30%.
The rest lies with the MD who signed off on the form.

However, IF the MD did a thorough exam and it is well documented he reviewed the risks of diving with asthma then the onus is on the patient and those numbers become 1% dive shop, 98% patient, 1% MD.

Diving is always about risks.

 

[Bert van den Berg]

"My doctor wouldn't sign off on my Physical exam for Competition Tiger Tasering due to my knees being a little gritty. I should sue, my knees feel fine."

Exactly - your doctor did the right thing. You might have felt fine and unhappy with the result but you are not the expert. He acted in your best interest according to his training irregardless of what you wanted. The MD that signed off on the dentist didn't.

 

[Buliwyf]

Would be fun to be on the defense.

Can we dive with Asthma? Sure.
Will diving make asthma worse? Maybe, I don't know.

Can we dive with an enlarged heart? Sure.
Will diving make it worse? No.

Can we dive with high blood pressure? Yes.
Will diving make it worse? No.

Can having these diseases making diving riskier for him? Yes.
Can having these disease make just about anything for this guy risky? Yes.

Did this Dentist understand that? Yup. Not much of a doctor if he didn't.

It's all on the patient. Got to live a little before we die of multiple diseases. The doctors note gets the dive company off the hook for medical issues, but does it really threaten the doctor legally?

Doctors recommend diet and exercise for dangerously obese people all the time. But either of those things can kill them, even under careful orders. That's what happens when your that obese. It's a stretch, I'll admit.

 

[yle]

Doctors recommend diet and exercise for dangerously obese people all the time. But either of those things can kill them, even under careful orders. That's what happens when your that obese. It's a stretch, I'll admit.

I fully agree with you, philosophically, that people should take responsibility for their choices in life, and that this particular lawsuit is having trouble passing the proverbial "smell test." But there's an important but subtle difference between a doctor signing a medical clearance for diving and a doctor recommending diet and exercise.

Diving is pretty unique because we put ourselves into an environment that is inherently hostile and where help in an emergency is severely limited. Having high blood pressure, enlarged heart, etc etc, might not physically prevent someone from strapping on scuba gear and hopping in the water. But if that person has a medical problem while underwater, their chance of receiving emergency assistance is practically zero.

Following a doctor's recommendation for diet and exercise... not really the same.

 

[Wookie]

However, IF the MD did a thorough exam and it is well documented he reviewed the risks of diving with asthma then the onus is on the patient and those numbers become 1% dive shop, 98% patient, 1% MD.

The deepest pockets lie with those carrying the most insurance. So even if the MD is 1% liable, and the dive shop is 1% liable, they have a tough row to hoe.